Quick, answer! Is BTC 0.000152 big or small?

[bobitza]

The human mind is accustomed with the powers of 10 system for quick daily calculations:
 - money 1 cent, $1, $1k
 - distance 1mm, 1cm, 1m, 1 km
 - weight 1g, 1kg, 1t
 - math (1%, 100%, easy to divide, multiply, add by 10 or 100, etc.)
 - human behaviour (on a scale of 1 to 10, how would rate ...)

... sorry for imperial folks :p

The common ground of all the examples above is that we can easily "visualize" and calculate values between 10^-3 and 10³ for things.

How is this related to Bitcoin?

The same way as Zimbabwe dollars (they had a 100 trillion dollar note) distorted the concept we have about $1k or $1mil as money, the deflationary BTC will make it harder for people to comprehend the meaning of a 0.000152 BTC transaction fee for example. When you start counting the zeros no matter in which direction, something is not right.

Assuming that BTC eventually gains in value because is a limited quantity, why use the BTC 10⁰-10^-8 range and not the 10⁴-10^-4 BTC range for what is expected to be the bulk of the transactions made.

Solution: implement a 1:100 split.

[1715136520]

1715136520

[dree12]

The human mind is accustomed with the powers of 10 system for quick daily calculations:
 - money 1 cent, $1, $1k
 - distance 1mm, 1cm, 1m, 1 km
 - weight 1g, 1kg, 1t
 - math (1%, 100%, easy to divide, multiply, add by 10 or 100, etc.)
 - human behaviour (on a scale of 1 to 10, how would rate ...)

... sorry for imperial folks :p

The common ground of all the examples above is that we can easily "visualize" and calculate values between 10^-3 and 10³ for things.

How is this related to Bitcoin?

The same way as Zimbabwe dollars (they had a 100 trillion dollar note) distorted the concept we have about $1k or $1mil as money, the deflationary BTC will make it harder for people to comprehend the meaning of a 0.000152 BTC transaction fee for example. When you start counting the zeros no matter in which direction, something is not right.

Assuming that BTC eventually gains in value because is a limited quantity, why use the BTC 10⁰-10^-8 range and not the 10⁴-10^-4 BTC range for what is expected to be the bulk of the transactions made.

Solution: implement a 1:100 split.

The real problem here is that splitting is impractical and not forcible. It will cause too much confusion. What we need to do is, add on as many decimal points as possible ASAP, so people can get accustomed to using whatever is the unit that creates integer values. Widespread usage of "Satoshi" as the unit for 10 nBTC is a horrible thing due to the inevitable confusion.

[kjj]

152 uBTC.  Very small.

[DeathAndTaxes]

The human mind is accustomed with the powers of 10 system for quick daily calculations:
 - distance 1mm, 1cm, 1m, 1 km

Well you just pointed out the solution (and no it isn't something as dubious as a 100:1 split).

mBTC. ("millibits")  & uBTC. ("microbits")

0.000152 BTC = 0.152 mBTC or 152 uBTC.  The reference client already supports this.

[bobitza]

0.000152 BTC = 0.152 mBTC or 152 uBTC.  The reference client already supports this.

Then we should refer to the mBTC as THE BTC coin and the wallet should list the mBTC as the coins contained. Meaning if you have 0.5 BTC you see 500 in your wallet.

But this is missing my point. Do not think about this issue from a pure technical or mathematical solution. Yes, I am aware we can go down to 8 digits.

Think about it from a Bitcoin mass-adoption perspective. Businesses, merchants, "regular" buyers and sellers are not used in calculating and dealing with 0.00xxx prices. I strongly believe that it would help Bitcoin adoption if most of the transactions will be priced in that sweet spot range of 10^-2-10⁴.

[Akka]

0.000152 BTC = 0.152 mBTC or 152 uBTC.  The reference client already supports this.

Then we should refer to the mBTC as THE BTC coin and the wallet should list the mBTC as the coins contained. Meaning if you have 0.5 BTC you see 500 in your wallet.

But this is missing my point. Do not think about this issue from a pure technical or mathematical solution. Yes, I am aware we can go down to 8 digits.

Think about it from a Bitcoin mass-adoption perspective. Businesses, merchants, "regular" buyers and sellers are not used in calculating and dealing with 0.00xxx prices. I strongly believe that it would help Bitcoin adoption if most of the transactions will be priced in that sweet spot range of 10^-2-10⁴.

If you are using the standard client, you can already set it to display mBTC or even μBTC. So just set it in the way that you are the most comfortable with.

Solved!

[bobitza]

The solution is not a setting for the value is displayed in the client. It's should be a "setting" for how the coins value is displayed/perceived in Bitcoin transactions.

[D.H.]

Other threads about this:

From June 2011:
Shift the decimal point over? (with poll)
Solution: How to shift the decimal

From September 2012:
Move the decimal place! (Is it possible?)

[bobitza]

Other threads about this:

From June 2011:
Shift the decimal point over? (with poll)
Solution: How to shift the decimal

From September 2012:
Move the decimal place! (Is it possible?)

Thank you.

Seems the other topics ended up into the same technical discussion that I was trying to move away from. It's hard to make all the engineers and programmers here understand the importance of UX and user-friendliness in anything you build as hardware or software. Here's the cold truth: if you want the average joe to embrace your solution, you need to make it easy for him to understand and use it.

Apple can be a good example, although they excel in both but still ... all my iPhone-users friends name user-friendliness (I see it as technological-challenged-people-friendliness) as the main reason they bought the phone and no matter how much I try to show them that some Android phones have actually better hardware, larger screen and even better software (HTC sense comes to mind) they won't budge. However I won't short AAPL stock any time soon because there are more of them out there than more of me.

[DeathAndTaxes]

What is the difference between saying that will be 12,000 mBTC (where total # of mBTC is 21 billion) and saying that will be 12,000 BTC (where total # of BTC is 21 billion).

Right now things are priced in BTC because most items are full and fractional BTC (i.e. 200 BTC, 1.245 BTC).  If the value of BTC rose to a point where 1 BTC was worth say $832 most items would be priced in mBTC.

"How much for that new Steam game?"
"24 mBTC".

So your logic seems to come down to the fact that people could accept 24 BTC but can't accept 24 mBTC.  Do people also have a problem with the concept of pennies?   If someone tells you he has 500 pennies are you totally confused and say "dude how much is that in dollars, my brain is so primitive I can only handle one unit at a time".

People don't use mBTC right now because there really is no need to.  Most products and services are either in full or high fractional BTC.   If/when BTC rises to a point where that isn't the case it is trivial for websites and merchants to start displaying prices in mBTC instead. 

There is no need for a massively disruptive (and likely impossible to implement) protocol change.  Today you can start pricing things in mBTC if you feel it makes more sense.  If enough people agree mBTC will become the defacto method of pricing goods & services..   

Here is an example:
"If you admit your plan is stupid I will give you 50 mBTC.  Just send me a Bitcoin address".

[ildubbioso]

But why I can't set it to show cents? I mean, usually we use cents, not millies.

[bobitza]

What is the difference between saying that will be 12,000 mBTC (where total # of mBTC is 21 billion) and saying that will be 12,000 BTC (where total # of BTC is 21 billion).

Right now things are priced in BTC because most items are full and fractional BTC (i.e. 200 BTC, 1.245 BTC).  If the value of BTC rose to a point where 1 BTC was worth say $832 most items would be priced in mBTC.

"How much for that new Steam game?"
"24 mBTC".

Here's the difference: we are building a new currency called Bitcoin, not mBitcoin.

Will you enforce a way for merchants to display prices in bitcoins? mBTC? uBTC? Look at how the prices are displayed everywhere; do you see prices like: this item costs 723 pennies, or here, big offer on the new car, only 22543650 m$. There are reasons why the decimal point is used the way it's used and I've already touched upon some of them.

[DeathAndTaxes]

I have seen products advertised as 99 cents, strangely there wasn't mass confusion.   If mBTC becomes common place it won't confuse users either.   Especially if/when BTC is worth >$1,000 USD:BTC.  It will simply make more sense for user to subconsciously think of 1 mBTC = $1.20 or $1.38 or $0.92 the it will to think of 1 BTC = $1,200, $1,380 or $920. 

A 100:1 split would require a hard fork.  You can do it today but without 90%+ support for miners, merchants, users, developers it isn't going anywhere.  It simply isn't going to happen.  I think the public isn't as stupid as you make it them out to be.

Would YOU be confused if someone wanted to sell you a game for 1,800 mBTC?  I find it annoying when people are smart enough to understand something yet assume "those other people" are too stupid to get it.

[kjj]

What is the difference between saying that will be 12,000 mBTC (where total # of mBTC is 21 billion) and saying that will be 12,000 BTC (where total # of BTC is 21 billion).

Right now things are priced in BTC because most items are full and fractional BTC (i.e. 200 BTC, 1.245 BTC).  If the value of BTC rose to a point where 1 BTC was worth say $832 most items would be priced in mBTC.

"How much for that new Steam game?"
"24 mBTC".

Here's the difference: we are building a new currency called Bitcoin, not mBitcoin.

Will you enforce a way for merchants to display prices in bitcoins? mBTC? uBTC? Look at how the prices are displayed everywhere; do you see prices like: this item costs 723 pennies, or here, big offer on the new car, only 22543650 m$. There are reasons why the decimal point is used the way it's used and I've already touched upon some of them.

Enforce?  Who would have the power to enforce something like that?  The presumption is that vendors will mostly follow SI.

[Frequency]

it be simple if compared to $:    1btc=1000satoshi=1000$ yeah 1btc=1000$ in 2016?

i earn 3btc a month=3000satoshi then i can buy a bread for 2satoshi or take my girl out for diner an pay 80satoshi

this is how i at the moment explane it to my noob friends, i know it isn,t the truth but they understand the point.

 

[bobitza]

Enforce?  Who would have the power to enforce something like that?  The presumption is that vendors will mostly follow SI.

Exactly, so there will be some confusion when some sites display prices in BTC and some in mBTC. You need to pay attention to see what small letter there is in front of the BTC, is it "m"? is it "u"? somebody said something about "n".

I still see no valid arguments for not doing or at least considering doing a split (except the technical one presented by d&t). For the sake of Bitcoin adoption I hope I'm wrong and you guys are right.

[kjj]

Enforce?  Who would have the power to enforce something like that?  The presumption is that vendors will mostly follow SI.

Exactly, so there will be some confusion when some sites display prices in BTC and some in mBTC. You need to pay attention to see what small letter there is in front of the BTC, is it "m"? is it "u"? somebody said something about "n".

I still see no valid arguments for not doing or at least considering doing a split (except the technical one presented by d&t). For the sake of Bitcoin adoption I hope I'm wrong and you guys are right.

Well, since we are talking about factors of 1000, I think that the proper SI prefix should be obvious in most cases.  As in, I'm sure you can tell the difference between the cost of a bottle of beer, a used car, and a luxury mansion without too much effort.

P.S.  Hundreds of threads on this topic, and this one doesn't seem to have added much, if anything, to the discussion.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Exactly, so there will be some confusion when some sites display prices in BTC and some in mBTC. You need to pay attention to see what small letter there is in front of the BTC, is it "m"? is it "u"? somebody said something about "n".

Wow that is the argument.

Lets pretend dollars used, $, K$ ($1,000 USD), and M$ ($1,000,000).

You honestly think people will be confused when they see for example some new celebrity mansion is $M 3.2.  What?  That mansion is only 3 bucks.  Dude I am going to buy 100 of them.  Or they see a candybar marked $1.2.  "What a ripoff that candybar is more than a I make in a week".

[markm]

Okay, so maybe you are right, and hardforking the entire blockchain at a cost in technician and website-author and account and so on hours of only a few hundred bitcoins per merchant for small or maybe even middling sized merchants is a great idea and works really well to enhance popular acceptance.

The public rejoices, a hundred million bitcoins (our current bitcoins, called what, kilocoins or something by your plan?) are bought at Mt Gox that weekend and...

Oops, wait, there are not a hundred million bitcoins in existence! Price rises so the 1200 million bucks pouring into Gox can actually buy coins.

Speculators see bitcoins just jumped 10 to 100 times in price, they jump in with a couple billion dollars as soon as the banks open on monday.

Oops, who the heck is crazy enough to sell bitcoins when they will be worth 10 to 100 times as much tomorrow? Price jumps another three of four orders of magnitude.

Even the not so wildly speculative can hardly miss seeing the headlines. Half a trillion jumps in when the banks open tuesday. Holy cow your house is worth less than a bitcoin! Oh wait, even in your new hard forked way of doing decimals it is worth how many millibitcoins by friday?

Time to implement a weekly hard-fork until all six billion people on the planet have a few grand of that week's new denomination so they don't feel their life savings look pathetic as less than a whole whatthefucktheycallitthisweek?

Oh wait, seven billion people. Price rise again...

-MarkM-

[kjj]

Okay, so maybe you are right, and hardforking the entire blockchain at a cost in technician and website-author and account and so on hours of only a few hundred bitcoins per merchant for small or maybe even middling sized merchants is a great idea and works really well to enhance popular acceptance.

The public rejoices, a hundred million bitcoins (our current bitcoins, called what, kilocoins or something by your plan?) are bought at Mt Gox that weekend and...

Oops, wait, there are not a hundred million bitcoins in existence! Price rises so the 1200 million bucks pouring into Gox can actually buy coins.

Speculators see bitcoins just jumped 10 to 100 times in price, they jump in with a couple billion dollars as soon as the banks open on monday.

Oops, who the heck is crazy enough to sell bitcoins when they will be worth 10 to 100 times as much tomorrow? Price jumps another three of four orders of magnitude.

Even the not so wildly speculative can hardly miss seeing the headlines. Half a trillion jumps in when the banks open tuesday. Holy cow your house is worth less than a bitcoin! Oh wait, even in your new hard forked way of doing decimals it is worth how many millibitcoins by friday?

Time to implement a weekly hard-fork until all six billion people on the planet have a few grand of that week's new denomination so they don't feel their life savings look pathetic as less than a whole whatthefucktheycallitthisweek?

Oh wait, seven billion people. Price rise again...

Yawn.  Liked this argument better the first thousand times I read it...