[RFC] Our next denomination: UBC

[LMGTFY]

I'm just thinking that two currency codes for different denominations is odd. And no one is going to make one code 'official' anyway.

Odd perhaps, but not unprecedented. See for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_z%C5%82oty

As a result of inflation in the early 1990s, the currency underwent redenomination. Thus, on 1 January 1995, 10,000 old złotych (PLZ) became one new złoty (PLN).

That's not two currency codes simultaneously, though - that's one code replacing another as one currency (old złotych) was replaced by another (new złotych), like Deutsch Marks replacing Reich Marks, which in turn replaced old Marks.

The only example I can find is actually the US Dollar: USD, USS, and USN.

[1713979705]

1713979705

[1713979705]

1713979705

[1713979705]

1713979705

[davout]

I would favor something different : when the decimal place is moved in the default implementation we just call "a bitcoin" whatever happens to be the smallest integer value after the decimal shift.

Happened in France the other way around when we switched from "old francs" to "new francs" with a "new franc" being worth exactly 100 "old" ones.

After a couple of weeks of slight confusion, everything would be back in order

[jerfelix]

I would favor something different : when the decimal place is moved in the default implementation we just call "a bitcoin" whatever happens to be the smallest integer value after the decimal shift.

Happened in France the other way around when we switched from "old francs" to "new francs" with a "new franc" being worth exactly 100 "old" ones.

After a couple of weeks of slight confusion, everything would be back in order

+100 
(which is the same thing as old +1)


You are essentially describing what happens with a stock split.
"What do you mean, a bitcoin is worth 100 times less?" 
"It's ok Mom, you have 100 times as many now."

[FreeMoney]

I would favor something different : when the decimal place is moved in the default implementation we just call "a bitcoin" whatever happens to be the smallest integer value after the decimal shift.

Happened in France the other way around when we switched from "old francs" to "new francs" with a "new franc" being worth exactly 100 "old" ones.

After a couple of weeks of slight confusion, everything would be back in order

ZOMG 21 trillion Bitcoins. Bitcoin is broken.

[davout]

ZOMG 21 trillion Bitcoins. Bitcoin is broken.

Heh, I would like the idea that it would be possible for every human being to hold one

[mikeb]

Q: Should it be "uBC"?
A: No; ISO standards and currency software want ALL CAPS.

No, it should be μBC...  Oh, in Caps, that's MBC.

M as in capital Mu, as in Micro-.

I guess it you want to pay homage to SI unit prefixes (microbitcoin), you shouldn't bastardize it by calling lowercase Mu, u or uppercase Mu, U.

[Horkabork]

We could just call them bitcoins. The tiny font indicates that you're talking about a little bitcoin, which is one millionth of a big bitcoin. In real life, you'd communicate this by sensuously whispering the word "bitcoin" or saying it in a higher-pitched voice like it's a tiny cartoon version of a bitcoin.

Eventually, people will just start calling bitcoins as we know them "big bitcoins" and the bitcoins will be just "bitcoins", which is what happened with food calories versus Calories (kcals).

This would be a lot easier if they were originally named "bitbucks." Bitcoins would naturally be a fraction of a bitbuck.

Or we could call them bitcoin bits, or "bit bits". Then when values inflate 1000x again, we'll talk about denominations of "bitbitcoin bits" or "bitbitbits". Geeze, guys, do I have to solve all of the problems around here?

[davout]

We could just call them bitcoins. The tiny font indicates that you're talking about a little bitcoin, which is one millionth of a big bitcoin. In real life, you'd communicate this by sensuously whispering the word "bitcoin" or saying it in a higher-pitched voice like it's a tiny cartoon version of a bitcoin.

LOL

[caveden]

Q: Should it be "uBC"?
A: No; ISO standards and currency software want ALL CAPS.

No, it should be μBC... 

That makes more sense. I don't know why we have to follow this ISO standards anyway.


Regarding he standard implementation, it doesn't need to change. Or if it's ever going to, it could allow the user to select the unit he wants to be displayed.

[Timo Y]

<pedantry>
The greek μ character is an m, not a u. Writing it as a u looks childish and illiterate IMO.
</pedantry>

MBC for millibitcoins.

MUC for microbitcoins.

By the time things are priced in microbitcoins, Bitcoin will be so widespread and generic that everyone will just call them 'Coins.

[Timo Y]

We could just call them bitcoins. The tiny font indicates that you're talking about a little bitcoin, which is one millionth of a big bitcoin. In real life, you'd communicate this by sensuously whispering the word "bitcoin" or saying it in a higher-pitched voice like it's a tiny cartoon version of a bitcoin.

That would actually work in China.

[foo]

<pedantry>
The greek μ character is an m, not a u. Writing it as a u looks childish and illiterate IMO.
</pedantry>

Using u as a replacement for µ is the de facto standard when you're limited to ASCII.

[db]

The ISO 4217 convention is that global, non-national currencies begin with an "X" (gold is XAU, special drawing rights is XDR, ...). So how about:

µBTC = XBC

[da2ce7]

The ISO 4217 convention is that global, non-national currencies begin with an "X" (gold is XAU, special drawing rights is XDR, ...). So how about:

µBTC = XBC

+1

XBC = 100 Satoshis

I like

[bitk]

some time ago I wrote on the forums that another possible denomination for something close to 1e-6 BTC might be SmallBitcoin. The code would be SBC or SBT, and one could just refer to them as "smalls"... But I do agree "Mikes" could be even better.

XBC sounds almost good but somehow reminds me of xbox, don't ask me why...

[jav]

I'm in favor of this proposal. It's both future proof and backwards compatible.

The problem with replacing an existing term is, that you create confusion during the transition where people need to figure out, whether you use the old or the new meaning of the term. For an open-source project like Bitcoin it can be pretty difficult to make an organized and well-communicated switch from one meaning to the other. So I think it's better to make up something new, like the proposed UBC. This is what I mean with backwards compatible.

And the fact that 0.01 UBC would be the smallest possible value seems very future proof.

As to the suggestion of XBC: I think I would prefer UBC over XBC, but wouldn't mind either one.

[markm]

One question.

BTC = Bitcoin
UBC = ?

University of British Columbia?  

"Universal Bit Coin", quite distinct from the early-adopter's bootup period old-bitcoin "Bitcoin Temporary Centuries" (BTC)  which were designed as a temporary measure to appear as one hundred of an arbitrarily chosen power of ten of satoshis in early alpha and beta stage clients.

-MarkM-

[Steve]

I like XBC.  But I also wouldn't mind just staying with BTC and just changing the decimal place.  I would even say do it now while the use of BTC is relatively small.  It could even generate a bit of press saying bitcoins became so valuable the needed to split. 

[John Tobey]

In the best-case scenario, the ISO will eventually decide on a currency code through the usual standards process (whatever that is).

It would save a good deal of confusion and programming trouble down the road if we could predict (and possibly influence) today what they will decide.

I doubt very much that UBC or BTC will be the code, because these imply an issuing country whose code is UB (not assigned AFAIK) or BT (Bhutan?).

XBC seems taken: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Unit_of_Account

I would suggest using "BC" as the first two letters, even though Bitcoin is not a country.  "BC" appears unused in ISO (though other standards assign it to Botswana).  In some ways, Bitcoin is country-like, especially in the open-source structure with "government" by committers, moderators, domain registrants, and big stakeholders generally.  And Bitcoin may well have use for more currency codes in the future, so I like flexibility in the third character.

So... BTC will likely never become official in the sense of 100 million satoshis.  I don't think we need to make an ISO-compatible code for that unit.  I think BCB (Bitcoin bitcoin) is the best bet for the 100-satoshi unit.  Alternatives that come to mind: BC1 (first standardized Bitcoin), BCU (UBC switched around or "Bitcoin unit"), BC6 (original BTC times 10^-6), BC2 (10^2 satoshis, or second colloquial meaning of "bitcoin"), XB1 (X conforming to the non-country rule, B for Bitcoin, 1 to avoid collision with old EU codes that used a letter here).  (I am not sure ISO would consider including a numeral in the code.)

I don't think we should try to separate the "Bitcoin brand" from the unit expected to be in common use, so like the "old franc and new franc" I expect to call the new thing just a bitcoin, eventually.  Whether it should be or will be a millionth or some other fraction of an old bitcoin is another question.

[ArsenShnurkov]

One question.

BTC = Bitcoin
UBC = ?

Universal Bitcoin Currency
Unused Binary Crap