As the title suggests, I think it would be better for the Bitcoin community that we skip the milliBitcoin step, and not use microBitcoins, but instead choose to use 0.0001 BTC as the next common denomination.

I believe this is a superior choice because:

1) It gives us more time before making another change than mBTC would

2) It removes the possibility of using common decimal prefixes (milli- and micro-) which, as bad as it may sound, would face resistance in the U.S.

3) It's compatible with a minimum transaction fee of 0.0001 BTC

4) New users would likely be happier with it than mBTC, as they'd get "more" for their money with a smaller denomination (ah, human psychology)

5) The values wouldn't be as large as with uBTC

6) It leaves us with a very manageable 4 decimal places

7) It reduces the transition to satoshis down to two equally-spaced steps, leaving only one familiar future change


To this end, I'm putting up a 1000-digibit (0.1 BTC) prize for whoever comes up with the "best" name for the 0.0001 BTC unit!


The Specifics (please read carefully:)

I.) I am seeking names in this thread, and comments on the submitted names. Submit as many as you like, but only your first 10 names will be eligible for the prize. Don't edit your posts containing your names until after I (or any mod who wants to) quote it, otherwise your names in that post are no longer eligible for the prize, even if one wins. First person to post a name in this thread gets credit for that name. Please stay on topic, etc. Modifications to these naming specifics will only be made if necessary in the obvious interest of fair play (controversy over two submissions, etc.) And, I'm claiming the name digibit primarily as an example, since I neither expect nor really want it to win.

Submissions made past January 11 January 4, 23:59:59 CST (UTC-6) will not earn the submitter the prize, and except due to some extraordinary circumstance will not be considered for the remainder of the contest.

EDIT: Yes, one person can have multiple names chosen for the polls.

II.) Shortly after the deadline, a new thread will be started; it will host a poll of the top twelve names. Comments and suggested modifications on the names will be sought in the thread, along with votes. The top twelve names will be selected for the poll from this thread, based on: apparent popularity in this thread, terseness (fewer syllables is generally better,) lack of obvious faults (a name that's offensive in German probably isn't going to make it,) reflection of related technical or liberty-oriented themes, ease of pronunciation, general marketability, and my own personal bias (I'll try to eliminate it, but let's be upfront: some bias will probably still slip through.) Until the next thread is posted, this contest may be cancelled due to lack of interest or other relevant circumstance. But once that next thread is posted, you can presume I'm 100% committed to giving someone the 0.1 BTC.

Voting and comments for the poll will be open until January 18 January 8, 23:59:59 CST.

III.) After the first poll, a poll of the final four will be posted. The final four will be names from the original list of twelve that are the most popular vote-wise, seemed to garner the most enthusiasm, and were not found to have any obvious faults. Note that any or all of the names may be modified slightly based on feedback from the community in the first poll. The final winner will be determined by voting, although if there is less than a (non-scientific) 3% difference between the top two names, and if there's strong, obvious rationale for the second over the first (for example, if by some miracle the second had already taken hold in mainstream publications,) then the second place vote-wise will be deemed the winning name.

Voting for the final poll will be open until January 25 January 11, 23:59:59 CST.

IV.) I have moved the 1000 digibits to the following address: 1NpTFdJg1kWUpvWaUBZBU3sfxKfXXZifDe

They will remain there until sent to the address specified by the winner. (The extra 1 digibit at the address is because I use Mycelium, and it's needed for the transaction fee.) The winner will be contacted and the prize sent ASAP after the end of the contest.


Final Comments

Obviously, there is (thankfully) no way to force acceptance of the 0.0001 BTC unit denomination, even with a marketable name. But my hope is that this contest will generate enough buzz and discussion around the idea (along with an adequate name!) that it will get bitcoin users to consider it, and to maybe persuade the community to head in that direction.

Good luck!

It's not arbitrary. It's the halfway point on an 8-decimal-point scale. It reduces the movement to satoshis down to 2 equally-spaced steps (and the "cute name" war was lost when the community, for whatever reason, went with "satoshis" as the name for the smallest unit.)



Yep, yet it was a deliberate push by enough supporters that made "satoshi" stick, despite detractors (of which I was one.)

If it can be done once, it can be done again. I don't really care what the name is (actually, I do have my preferences,) so long as there is one for the unit.



Most "non-techies" I know would consider it anything but practical. Sorry, but there's no way I'd ever advocate for it. 

Which is why I still say we should just go with a 0.0001 BTC unit and give it a new name.

This avoids having to move the decimal again too soon, and just adds consistency to the entire scheme (move 4 decimals each time, add 4 decimals any time we need to subdivide further.)

Plus, I again would suggest that many of us who are tech-minded seriously underestimate how much the average person (ok, maybe just the average American) struggles with the idea of a milliBitcoin or microBitcoin. It's just not user-friendly. Saying "a digibit (nakamoto, myriabit, etc.) is one ten-thousanth of a bitcoin" or "there are ten thousand digibits in a bitcoin, ten thousand satoshis in a digibit" would actually allow the convention to spread quickly and to stick.

All it would take is a decent name for the unit. Suggestions?

(Would it help if I offered a bounty?)

Buying: localbitcoins.com

Storing: Mycelium wallet on an Android phone. Best and safest beginner's wallet out there.

Yes!

I handed out Casascius coins a couple of years ago, and some bit cents last year. So far the family has been excited about the returns, and I plan on handing out more this year.

In fact, I was actually planning on writing up a post, something like "A Family's Introduction to Bitcoin", after this holiday, since I plan to hand out $5-$10 in Bitcoin to anyone in the family, young or old, who wants it. I've noticed interesting trends and sticking points that I think others might find insightful.

Sure seems like it!

People thought and said the same thing about $1000 at the beginning of the year (heck, I'm sure I would have said it.)

We are Bitcoin.

Resistance is useless.

You will be assimilated.

That's good to hear (I've come across that idea many times.)



Ah, well, I guess I'll deny it.

This seems to be a common misconception, that the pie of wealth is fixed, and the best we can do is to cut that pie into pieces that are more fairly sized for people. Of course, were the analogy accurate, it would imply that for someone to receive more of the pie, someone else, somewhere, has to receive less.

The truth is that wealth, when allowed to be created (that's critical) can lead to a larger pie. This means that it's possible for *everyone* to receive bigger pieces. And it's even possible for the smaller pieces to grow larger at a much faster rate than the larger pieces do. The technology industry, including Bitcoin, is IMO the most obvious example of this.

Wealth redistribution, on the other hand, creates incentives and situations that suppress the growth of the pie of wealth.

It makes more sense to (1) ensure that the playing field is fair and open, and (2) to allow wealth to be freely created and legitimate progress (social and technological) to occur unimpeded.



I see what you are saying, but I think the analogy is flawed. When talking about the poor, we aren't talking about invalids who cannot provide for themselves, even when given the means to. And if the hunters in this analogy all have some reasonable ability to hunt, then shouldn't the question of "How did this state of affairs come about?" be broached? Because again, if the system that maintains this state of affairs isn't addressed, any attempts to modify the outcome is going to be short-lived.

The disparity in the outcomes should be a clue that something deeper is going on; fix the deeper issue, and the outcomes will fix themselves. Attempting to focus on the outcome as the means to an end will leave the underlying problem alone, and will eventually undo all the work done to adjust the outcome to one's liking.

You honestly believe that to be true, in every case? You're not just collectivizing all wealthy individuals, right?

Regardless, it's true that most of humanity could probably be considered as living in poverty. And that's mainly the result of oppressive systems that keep it that way, systems that are typically run by fairly rich individuals.

But simply attacking their wealth isn't going to change that system; even if they just gave it all away they'd have it right back a generation later. Changing the system to remove the oppressive restrictions and tributes must come first, then the "problem" of wealth inequality will fix itself.

Because it's immoral to steal from someone who has done no wrong, regardless of how much money he may have.

If he has done wrong, then that is the issue that should be addressed. Suggesting someone should be OK with theft just because they would profit more than others is a pretty disturbing form of pandering. 

(And surely no one actually believes that every rich person only got rich through wrongdoing. Not only does a single counter-example disprove such a theory, but the idea smacks of collectivism, and is just as bad as "every poor person is only poor because of their own actions and inactions.")

YES!

And in this case, significant wealth inequality would simply be an indicator, a signal that something is wrong in the society.

It's not a root problem in and of itself that needs to be corrected. If the *real* root problems are fixed, the inequality will likewise be corrected. To try to suppress the symptom instead of curing the disease seems a waste of effort to me, and a distraction from the real issues.

Then why is that? What is the fundamental problem with significantly unequal wealth distributions? (You'll have to forgive me for replacing your adjective 'extremely' with 'significantly', since the former is pretty arbitrary and the societies with the greatest wealth disparities will always be considered 'extreme' regardless of whether they are or not, depending on how one hashes the numbers.)



I certainly hope few here believe that. It doesn't take much honest looking to recognize that most societies seem to have plenty of means by which people can become impoverished through no direct fault of their own.



I agree, and I'm all for focusing on the lack of meritocracy in societies.



I understand, but what I'm saying is that I've concluded that it IS inconsequential, at least enough that it doesn't warrant any serious focus. And it's pretty difficult to reconsider that position when the fundamental problem with wealth inequality--what it causes, or what it requires--is never brought up, and the situation is just treated as an inherently bad one on its own merits, apart from any other considerations.

I understand what you're saying. I'll address it below.



I think it's time this was spun off into its own thread.

So I've started a new one for this; hopefully you'll both join me there to continue discussing this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=370034.0

I understand what you're saying.

But are we discussing distribution of wealth, or eliminating poverty? Because it sounds like you're saying the problem with unequal distributions of wealth is that "it causes poverty." (Or perhaps more accurately, that "eliminating unequal distributions of wealth can eliminate poverty.")

If the idea is that poverty can be eliminated by distributing wealth more equally, that's simply not true. True, for the moments that everyone has their state-mandated paycheck (or bill) in hand, there is equal distribution. Yes, there are societies where wealth is more equally distributed, and in many (not by any means all) of those societies there is very little poverty.

But as I pointed out, that does not mean that it was a forced (or even voluntary) redistribution of the wealth that is the cause of the lack of poverty. Rather, wealth inequality develops over time as the natural result of numerous benign and unavoidable causes--although it can also be increased by malicious forces, which shouldn't be tolerated. If a society happens to have both low poverty and more-equal wealth distributions, then those could simply have a common cause, or even be unrelated, depending on the situation.

Here's the point that I was getting at: if the poorest people in a society have adequate wealth to take care of the basics, then why does it matter if there are a few billionaires or even trillionaires around, provided they aren't causing the poorer folk to remain poorer?

If you only advocate a more equal distribution of wealth as a solution to poverty, then the issue that's really at hand is poverty, right? And if that can be fixed without worrying about wealth redistribution, then there's no need to be concerned with unequal distribution... or is there some other issue besides poverty that unequal distribution causes concern over?

Privilege is relative.

I ask the question because the idea that wealth-distribution is the problem suggests an absurdity. It suggests that if everyone was dirt poor, but equally so, then that situation is preferable to some being dirt-poor and some being "filthy rich."

Do you believe that to be true? If not, then it's just the overall level of wealth (and the lack of freedom to attain it,) not it's distribution, that's the real problem, yes?

Would you be okay with just stating it in a sentence or two?

+1

I find it interesting that in all the forum talk, blog posts, etc. I see about people worried about unequal wealth distribution, no one ever, even once, actually clearly states what the fundamental problem with it is (never mind addressing whether the wealth distribution was the cause or result.)

I just wonder how often he'll be reporting on his experiences.

Also, apparently Blockchain.info accepts BIP 38 private keys for import now too.