or maybe you have just misunderstood the post. there is in fact a problem. You know when people use to think the sun revolved around the earth? Astromony, and the mathematical equations got out of hand and everything just seemed like a mess. Then it was suggested that the earth revolves around the sun and VIOLA everything suddenly started to make sense, and the proper equations and what not could be resolved....

What does this have to do with bitcoin then? Well atm. the founder decided on a unit that seems very random, yet others built new denominations on top of that. But because bitcoin is deflationary the new denominatons had to be fractions of this original unit. Of course im talking about the BTC which is called Bitcoin atm. The equivalent of believing the sun revolves around the earth. But, the smallest atomic amount of bitcoin should be called bitcoin and not satoshi because it would change everything.

we would suddenly be able to come up with better denominations that does not involve crazy fractions with up to 8 decimal places that only really serves to clutter and confuse. So, if we started denominating wallets in atomic units of bitcoin AND in fact called this unit BITCOIN then the proper denominations would reveal themselves. A person having 100.000.000 atomic units of bitcoin would also have 100 Megabitcoin. Do you see how intuitive it is, compared to working down from BTC and having the denominations become fractions, calling them very bad names like milibitcoin and microbitcoin and even satoshi. The reason i believe they are bad names is because first of all milibitcoin and microbitcoin does not sound very empowering, and you have to remember that bitcoin is deflationary, so eventually most prices will be in microbitcoin or milibitcoin and this just doesent make sense imo. the worst thing is if the name on the atomic bitcoin is not changed, then most prices would eventually be in satoshis. Imagine buying soda, in the grocery store, that would be 3 satoshis lets say. Then you want to purchase a car and that will be 100 microbitcoin. It just doesent relate to each other. Thats why the smallest atomic amount of bitcoin should be called BITCOIN, and then the denominations should build on this, so that in the future small items will be priced in you gussed it, bitcoin, and larger more expensive items priced in Kilobitcoin (K฿), or even Megabitcoin(M฿) etc.

do people even bother to read posts anymore or they just read the title and reply?

i changed topic title now..

Noone can change everything anyway. It will be up to the individual wallet services, exchanges etc. to denominate in a better way then the rest of the market will follow.

Please read the topic



The problem with that approach is bitcoin is deflationary in nature. This means one day, lets say 2018 we will be using Microbitcoin, and then as it deflates even more we will be using Satoshis. Each switch is going to confuse people and Microbitcoin sounds dull, so does milibitcoin. And satoshi just seems way to random. The right way to approach it would be to call the smallest atomic amount for bitcoin, and then have denominations that contain various amounts of those. For example the mega bitcoin, which has 1.000.000 atomic units of bitcoin

idk if theres anything OCD about it. I personally find it problematic that the smallest amount of bitcoin is called satoshi, and that we will eventually be using micro bitcoins and milibitcoins if we dont change the way we look at bitcoin.

1 BTC should be = 100.000.000 Bitcoin. What i mean by this, is we should start calling the smallest amount of bitcoin BITCOIN. Comparatively we dont call an atomic unit of gold, schwarzeniggel, we call it gold. No matter what quantity it is. However, if we have more gold, we denominate it in Kilos or whatever depending on which area of the world you are in.

Right. So the smallest atomic amount of bitcoin should be called bitcoin, just as the smallest atomic amount of gold is called gold and the smallest amount of silver is called silver. Right. So are we gonna have wallets displaying how many atomic amounts of bitcoin we have? YES, it is simple without being misleading. One problem arises tho, because even the poorest bitcoin owners will have millions of "atomic" bitcoin atm. So we need to start denominating it, just like we denominate gold..

BTC could still be the official unit being traded on the exchanges, however its probably going to change in the future as one BTC has the potential of being worth thousands of not hundreds of thousands of dollars. In that case it wont make much sense anymore for the exchanges to measure their prices in BTC as people would be trading 0,000003 and you end up with alot of clutter. So.. The new denominations could probably draw inspiration from the filesystem. The file system automatically cleans up the number when its displaying file sizes. This is the kilobyte, megabyte, gigabyte system its quite easy to understand.

Bitcoin should adopt this. So if we already are thinking in bitcoin the proper way (The smallest amount of bitcoin should be called bitcoin!) then it would be easy to adopt a kilo, mega, giga denomination system. Lets say i am the owner of 1 BTC today. This is actually 100.000.000 atomic units of bitcoin. So in the kilo/mega system, that would be 100.000 Kilobitcoin or 100 Megabitcoin. Or even 0,1 Gigabitcoin. Hurray.

The deflation is becomming a problem due to the current nature of bitcoin. We were supposed to add decimal places, but this just doesent work. Its awkard and confusing, and there really is a need to act sooner rather than later, before the community adopts the proposed milibitcoin and microbitcoin proposals of denominations..

Im afraid there is a need to reschool us in the way we think about bitcoin. First of all, the saying there is 21 million bitcoins total is both true and false. Because these bitcoins can be divisible down to eight decimal places. This means, there is in fact 2.1 quadrillion bitcoins in total. Which is great. More than enough to go around. Or rather more than enough for a sensible pricing mechanism. More on that later.

If we want to help ourselves, and the adoption of bitcoin, we should no longer think that the smallest atomic amount is 0,00000001 but rather 1! On the other hand we should no longer be thinking than 1 BTC = 1 Bitcoin.......... It should be = 100,000,000 Bitcoin. Because that is going to change everything. First of all no currency needs 8 decimal places. It would make pricing, comparing prices and so on a pain. The more decimal places the more clutter there is going to be. Think 0,001 0,0000232 1,0000323 and so on.... Also in my opinion it does not make much sense, if one wants a currency to be widely adopted, to NOT imitate the currencies that are currently in use. These currencies that are currently in use today only have 2 decimal places. And it works great. I never said to myself, i wish the dollar had more decimal places.

your post dont make much sense tbh.

you saying the smallest amount should be called satoshi? why?

are you kidding? are you gonna slap that list in the average consmers face? he is going to run away screaming, he will never use bitcoin. Atm. no one really cares what the smallest amount is called, but in the future it is going to change. So sooner, rather than later, stop calling the smallest amount satoshi and just call it bitcoin. that was the idea, because it is easier to relate to. Its possible the smallest amount will just be called bitcoin because its more natural but time will tell once the smallest amount becomes worth anything.

so i hope you understand the reasons why im making this thread. for one i dont like the current look and feel of currency. 8 decimal places is just wrong. no successful currency has had 8 decimal places. 2 is maximum imo. thats why its important to move away from the BTC denomination because that is the cause for the 8 decimal places it seems. So instead of the smallest atomic amount being 0,00000001 BTC why not just have it be 1. Then build the new demoniations on that. Fair enough people for some reason agreed the smallest amount should be called satoshi, but i dont agree with this decision, fair enough people dont like change, lets keep it that way. However the "new" denominations should build on the smallest atomic amount. This means you would end up with Kilo,Giga,Mega version of it......... at least that seems to be the most rational, as its very easy for people to relate to.......... more so than mili, micro which also is going to sound wierd in the future when you buy a PC monitor for 10 mili bitcoin etc., due to the currencys deflationary nature.


In fact lets put some estimates on when we will be using the different denominations from your schema.

.00000001 BTC = 1 satoshi -------  2017/18
.000001 BTC = 1 uBTC (micro) ---2015
.001 BTC = 1 mBTC (milli) ----- 2013/2014
1 BTC = 1 BTC ------- 2012/13


So you see as time progress, and people take the currently proposed denominations into use due to the currency deflating, people will of a sudden be using mili bitcoins, then micro bitcoins.. then all of a sudden satoshis? cant you see a problem with this? Imagine your favorite webshop having prices in mBTC one day and then the other day they decide to begin using Satoshis.. it is going to be confusing for everyone.

So let me reitirate. The smallest amount should be called bitcoin, because we will eventually be using it. Larger amounts should then be called Kilo, Mega, Giga versions of that. It will allow for a much more natural or smooth progression through the currencys deflation.

here is a comparative chart for the denominations time use

Bitcoin ---- 2018
Kilobitcoin ---- 2016
Megabitcoin ---- 2013/14
Gigabitcoin ---- 2013

so as you see, if we adopted this we will be calling the currency bitcoin in the future, not milibitcoin or satoshis, and for example wont feel unsatisfied when spending money for example since kilobitcoin sounds better than Microbitcoin and megabitcoin sounds better than Milibitcoin etc. Just food for thought....

i dont think you are getting the point. there is no need to reinvent the wheel and come up with (random?) denominations. we should use the kilo, mega, giga system because people can already easily relate to that

you car cost 10 decadollars, and you soda cost 1milidollar. that is confusing and you need to learn which is worth more than the other. with kilo, mega, giga ALOT of people already know which is above the other. and the decimal places are not practical. how are you going to compare prices with that shit? imagine going to the grocery store and seeing prices all in those $0,00003 you would get tired very fast. the reason the smallest amount should be called bitcoin is because its more in line with the reality. i mean why do you want to call bitcoin satoshi all of a sudden? 1 megasatoshi? wtf? it should be megabitcoin

centi bitcoin and deci bitcoin just sounds wrong. im talking about improving the feel of the currency, centi and deci bitcoin is not going to help here. even micro and mili bitcoin sounds wrong, we need names that empower the currency. you also have to keep in mind as the currency deflates we are going to use lesser and lesser amounts. do you really want to be trading in Microbitcoins and Milibitcoins in the future? i prefer kilobitcoin or anything that sounds more empowering instead

what needs to be done imo is do away with the comma and when doing this call the lowerst amount possible a bitcoin. we can then call the current BTC a satoshi. The current btc is just 100,000,000 units of the smallest amount anyway. Thats what people are trading on the exchanges. Its 100,000,000 units of the smallest amount atm. and the smallest amount should of course be called a bitcoin? makes most sense imo

In that case there would all of a sudden be up to about 2.1 quadrillion bitcoins in existence and noone will worry wether there will be enough for everybody anymore..

i mean, the system untill now has worked fine, with the amount of people involved and the type of people involved. But there are more and more people involved now, and its no longer geek only

just dont think bitcoin will really be used in its current form

again that chart is hard to memorize. names are awkard the denominations amount equally so. i think its important the denominations are as simple as possible and adhere to an easy to grasp rule set

would it make sense to come up with a better denomination system? atm. i think the 8 decimal places feels awkward.

i was wondering if the system could handle denominations that go by the hundreds, just like normal currency does. 100 cents to a dollar, 100 pennies to a pound etc.

i wanted to imitate the kilobyte, megabyte system, because well its computerish, as is bitcoin. problem is this system builds on denominations by the thousands. ~1000 bytes is a kilobyte, ~1000 kilobyte is a megabyte. but the names are good because people already know them and can relate to them easily.

so use the same names, but have them go by the 100's instead of 1000's because its more in line with a currency.

i made a spreadsheet where i put my current balance at the top, and then the spreadsheet worked out how many Kilobitcoin i had, how many Megabitcoin and so on. And i was pleased with the result. It turns out 1 BTC is exactly 1 Terabitcoin. Well the result was at least more pleasing than having 1,12345678 BTC in balance. Its probably too late to rework the currency...... but i dont think thats neccesary. With a little logic the backend could still work in the old way. Or have the raw balance. But up front it would be displayed in either kilobitcoin, megabitcoin or whatever depending on how many bitcoin you actually have. i think its a better system because its future proofed. i mean, we willl know today what the denominations will be down the line as the currency deflates. it will also be easier to price this way. instead of having prices of 0.000003 etc. you could just have 3 Kilobitcoin. I mean for short it could just be Kbc, or Kbc or whatever...

Even mining would feel more lucrative or what have you if the mining wallets etc. was displayed in another denomination than 0,000334 because it doesent feel rewarding to mine 0,00434. If however the denomination was changed, you might still only be mining 0,003434 but it would display 3434 Kbc instead which just changes the whole game imo. The currency itself would be more lovable, if you can say that about a currency...... the 0,0003434 denominations makes it look like a freak child. Even the proposed uBTC and mBTC dont feel right as they dont abide by any rule set really, and the amount of decimal places they represent will be harder to memorize/remember. With the Kilobitcoin/Megabitcoin denomination set you only have to remember they work the same way as with file sizes, but they increase by the 100's not the 1000's. you would always know that 1 Kilobitcoin is 100 bitcoin(which is currently called satoshis) and 1 Megabitcoin is 100 kilobitcoin. You could have various exhanges spring up. Ones that specialised in kilobitcoins, ones that specialised in Terabitcoins and so on. Not everyone can afford to trade a whole BTC so even today this system could make sense. There is alot more to it, to get it working in practice, but what do you think about the inital idea?

hello

ive been very excited for bitcoin, and i finally got a hold of my first coins. but i do not enjoy handling them at all. the 8 decimal places thing really takes away from the feel of the currency. i was wondering what would happen if clients, wallets, etc. just stopped showing the decimal. so that you just had x units... right now i have 10.995 BTC. If the decimal was removed i would have 1,099,500,000 units. which i feel would be so much better. the exchanges could then come up with their denominations. for example on mtgox the standard could be 100,000,000 units each trade. I mean they would bundle 100,000,000 units together and track the price like that. they could call this bundle or unit the GOX DOLLAR or GOX COIN or whatever. It would just mean that the mtgox price reflects 100,000,000 units of bitcoin. As time goes by, if bitcoin gets any momentum, one BTC is probably gonna be worth thousands of dollars anyway and thus ineligable to be traded on the exchanges due to their cost, and the exchanges would have to come up with a new denomination then.

that is very interesting. and this is probably a very nooby question. so apolgies. but can only 1 block be mined at the time? 

But when there are no longer coins being introduced, some miners will leave? They would have pushed the difficulty way up, and when they switch of their machines, well then what

Can difficulty fall again, if the network would become too slow? And how come its suppose to take rougly 10 minutes for a block to be mined?

hi.

is it going to take longer and longer for confirmations to appear, as the difficulty in mining rises? If so, what consequences are this going to have on the bitcoin economy?