psychocoder (OP)
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 49
Merit: 0
|
 |
June 10, 2011, 08:37:26 AM |
|
Hi,
before BTC will get accepted by "normal" humans (not only by the active community) we need names for BTC values which are smaller than 1 BTC. The most users don't like values with many zeros (e.g. 0,0005 BTC).
My offer:
1 BTC = BitCoin
0,01 BTC = 1 cB or 1 cBTC (BitCoinCent)
0,001 BTC = 1 mB or 1 mBTC (MilliBitCoin)
0,000001 BTC = 1 μB or 1 μBTC (MicroBitCoin)
The most characters can write with normal keyboard layout. This is importend because nobody would search for characters on his keybord.
Than we can offer goods or micropayment with human readable values:
e.g. Show this videos cost : 0,0001 BTC (not readable) or 100 μB (readable)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you want to be a moderator, report many posts with accuracy. You will be noticed.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
marhjan
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 215
Merit: 105
Poorer than I ought to be
|
|
June 10, 2011, 08:44:28 AM |
|
1 BTC = BitCoin
0.01 BTC = 1 cB or 1 cBTC (bitcent)
0.001 BTC = 1 mB or 1 mBTC (bitmill)
0.000001 BTC = 1 μB or 1 μBTC (mike)
0.00000001 BTC = Satoshi
I didn't make these up, and I'm sure there's still room to disagree, but these terms seem to be in at least moderate usage by the community.
|
Donations happily accepted @ 15qxNsc7pBiz5kXpAJykw4etzMbZitm2mk
|
|
|
|
phatsphere
|
|
June 10, 2011, 09:08:53 AM |
|
1 BTC = BitCoin
0.01 BTC = 1 cB or 1 cBTC (bitcent)
0.001 BTC = 1 mB or 1 mBTC (bitmill)
0.000001 BTC = 1 μB or 1 μBTC (mike)
0.00000001 BTC = Satoshi
they are nice, but it's not "regular". I would propose to use the -cent postfix for every SI power prefix of base 3: 1 btc = 100 BTCc ("bitcent") 1 btc = 1,000 mBTC = 10,000 mBTCc i.e. "millibit" and "millibitcent" 1 mBTC = 1,000 µBTC = 10,000 µBTCc i.e. "microbit" and "bicrobitcent"/aka Satoshi. and there is still room for nBTC and nBTCc (nano/nanocent) |
|
|
|
|
FreeMoney
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1014
Strength in numbers
|
|
June 10, 2011, 09:12:00 AM |
|
It's millie (10^-3) and mike (10^-6).
|
Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone. |
|
|
joan
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 56
Merit: 1
|
|
June 10, 2011, 10:53:09 AM |
|
they are nice, but it's not "regular". I would propose to use the -cent postfix for every SI power prefix of base 3:
Complicated. Just drop the bitcent altogether and you have "regular" scale. We don't need to use the same divisions as fiat currencies. milli bitcoins / millies is just fine. Then micro bitcoins / mikes or whatever. - My 20 millies. |
|
|
|
|
Oldak
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 4
Merit: 0
|
|
June 10, 2011, 11:47:19 AM
Last edit: June 10, 2011, 12:06:16 PM by Oldak |
|
0.001 BTC = "mbit" [em-bit]
0.000 001 BTC = "ubit" [yu-bit]
0.000 000 001 BTC = "nbit" [en-bit]
There is no intrinsic value in having a 1e-2 denomination (i.e. bitcent), this will just add unnecessary confusion to an SI-style system which has the convenience of using SI prefixes milli-, micro-, nano-, etc.. If there is an 1e-3 denomination (i.e. mbit), it is easy to express the equivalent of a "bitcent" as 10 mbit, e.g. That is to say, there is no advantage of efficiency in adopting a bitcent. If you were to adopt a bitcent/centibit, why not a decibit (i.e. 0.1 BTC?) - things become very mushy.
PS. There should be no problem with representing subdivisions of BTC with "bit" (i.e. mbit) in terms of confusion with data bits, as data bits are atomic (i.e. non-divisible: there is no such thing as 0.001 bits (microbits) in computing). [That said, data-rates could be expressed which might invoke "microbit", such as 100 microbits per second, but such a slow data-rate would be uncommon; and this practice is not done "in the wild".]
|
|
|
|
|
itsagas
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 59
Merit: 0
|
|
June 10, 2011, 11:52:21 AM |
|
they are nice, but it's not "regular". I would propose to use the -cent postfix for every SI power prefix of base 3:
Complicated. Just drop the bitcent altogether and you have "regular" scale. We don't need to use the same divisions as fiat currencies. milli bitcoins / millies is just fine. Then micro bitcoins / mikes or whatever. - My 20 millies. Agreed, too complicated. "Send me 0.0001 Bitcoin(s)" sounds fine and is simple to use and remember. |
|
|
|
|
Oldak
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 4
Merit: 0
|
|
June 10, 2011, 12:03:54 PM |
|
they are nice, but it's not "regular". I would propose to use the -cent postfix for every SI power prefix of base 3:
Complicated. Just drop the bitcent altogether and you have "regular" scale. We don't need to use the same divisions as fiat currencies. milli bitcoins / millies is just fine. Then micro bitcoins / mikes or whatever. - My 20 millies. Agreed, too complicated. "Send me 0.0001 Bitcoin(s)" sounds fine and is simple to use and remember. It's fine to write that down, but it isn't easy to express that verbally. You'd have to say "zero-point-zero-zero-zero-one bitcoins". This would be very easy to confuse with, for example, "zero-point-zero-zero-one bitcoins" (0.001 bitcoins). An appreviation such as "mbit"/microbit/microbitcoin encodes that information (relating to order of magnitude) in a way that is much more easy express and remember. |
|
|
|
|
|
garyrowe
|
|
June 10, 2011, 12:28:47 PM |
|
0.001 BTC = "mbit" [em-bit]
0.000 001 BTC = "ubit" [yu-bit]
0.000 000 001 BTC = "nbit" [en-bit]
There is no intrinsic value in having a 1e-2 denomination (i.e. bitcent), this will just add unnecessary confusion to an SI-style system which has the convenience of using SI prefixes milli-, micro-, nano-, etc.. If there is an 1e-3 denomination (i.e. mbit), it is easy to express the equivalent of a "bitcent" as 10 mbit, e.g. That is to say, there is no advantage of efficiency in adopting a bitcent. If you were to adopt a bitcent/centibit, why not a decibit (i.e. 0.1 BTC?) - things become very mushy.
PS. There should be no problem with representing subdivisions of BTC with "bit" (i.e. mbit) in terms of confusion with data bits, as data bits are atomic (i.e. non-divisible: there is no such thing as 0.001 bits (microbits) in computing). [That said, data-rates could be expressed which might invoke "microbit", such as 100 microbits per second, but such a slow data-rate would be uncommon; and this practice is not done "in the wild".]
I like this approach because: 1) it promotes open standards (SI units) 2) it is easy to say ("I'll buy that for an mbit") but there is a possible confusion between "em" and "en" phonemes though 3) the rapid deflation of a bitcoin is such that 0.01BTC is going to be arbitrary in the near term so call it 10mbits instead Is there a page on the Bitcoin Wiki to promote this as the proposed standard? |
|
|
|
Jeffpod
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 75
Merit: 0
|
|
June 10, 2011, 12:36:30 PM |
|
Don't forget BitNickle - 0.05Btc's
or a BitDime - 0.10Btc's
0.01 is a BitCent (centi - prefix for 100)
0.001 is a BitMil (milli - prefix for 1000)
0.0001 Btc, BitMyr (Myr for Myrio or 1/10000th)
0.00001 is a BitMic or BitMicro (micro being 1/100000th of milli)
0.000001 is a BitNano
What you think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dobrodav
|
|
June 10, 2011, 12:49:49 PM |
|
Thank you. You mention that this topic is discussed from march of 2011. |
|
|
|
Oldak
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 4
Merit: 0
|
|
June 10, 2011, 12:52:22 PM |
|
0.001 BTC = "mbit" [em-bit]
0.000 001 BTC = "ubit" [yu-bit]
0.000 000 001 BTC = "nbit" [en-bit]
There is no intrinsic value in having a 1e-2 denomination (i.e. bitcent), this will just add unnecessary confusion to an SI-style system which has the convenience of using SI prefixes milli-, micro-, nano-, etc.. If there is an 1e-3 denomination (i.e. mbit), it is easy to express the equivalent of a "bitcent" as 10 mbit, e.g. That is to say, there is no advantage of efficiency in adopting a bitcent. If you were to adopt a bitcent/centibit, why not a decibit (i.e. 0.1 BTC?) - things become very mushy.
PS. There should be no problem with representing subdivisions of BTC with "bit" (i.e. mbit) in terms of confusion with data bits, as data bits are atomic (i.e. non-divisible: there is no such thing as 0.001 bits (microbits) in computing). [That said, data-rates could be expressed which might invoke "microbit", such as 100 microbits per second, but such a slow data-rate would be uncommon; and this practice is not done "in the wild".]
I like this approach because: 1) it promotes open standards (SI units) 2) it is easy to say ("I'll buy that for an mbit") but there is a possible confusion between "em" and "en" phonemes though 3) the rapid deflation of a bitcoin is such that 0.01BTC is going to be arbitrary in the near term so call it 10mbits instead Is there a page on the Bitcoin Wiki to promote this as the proposed standard? Good point about possible confusion between "mbit" and "nbit", but since they are very different in value (1 million times), the intended one could be inferred from context. That said, it isn't much harder (1 syllable) to say "millibit" or "nanobit", if one seeks clarity. Also, "millibit" and "nanobit" don't sound clunky, compared to some of the other suggestions for naming subdivisions of BTC. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dayfall
|
|
June 10, 2011, 05:22:00 PM |
|
Someone start a new thread. "Poll: When will a Milli = $1"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
"When I was your age, transaction fees were 10Millis and a pizza was 1 Laszlo."
"You're pulling my leg, Grandpa"
|
|
|
|
|
|
DATA COMMANDER
|
|
June 10, 2011, 06:00:57 PM |
|
I like Millie and Mike.  |
Tips are appreciated (very tiny tips are perfectly okay!) 13gDRynPfLH3NNAz3nVyU3k3mYVcfeiQuF
|
|
|
|
|
ronwan
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 25
Merit: 0
|
|
April 23, 2013, 11:32:13 PM |
|
These are pretty good for names but I would simply say.
1 BTC is one Barter Token or Bitcoin.
0.00000001 is a Satoshi
100 Satoshi is a Nakamoto or a Nak (pronounced "Knock") 0.00000100 BTC
A bitcoin is 1 million Naks.
It is 4/23/2013 and $1.00 gets you 7143 Naks. Some people are afraid to buy at $140 per Bitcoin because the number scares them. The Nak could calm people down.
Think of a movie of the Zimbabwe economy or the Weimar Republic RUNNING BACKWARDS.
Play money in 2009 is now a substantial global currency.
Some day the Nak will reach parity with the Dollar as the penny and Satoshi head toward each other in value.
Ron.
|
|
|
|
|
bg002h
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1463
Merit: 1047
I outlived my lifetime membership:)
|
|
April 24, 2013, 02:22:56 AM |
|
These are pretty good for names but I would simply say.
1 BTC is one Barter Token or Bitcoin.
0.00000001 is a Satoshi
100 Satoshi is a Nakamoto or a Nak (pronounced "Knock") 0.00000100 BTC
A bitcoin is 1 million Naks.
It is 4/23/2013 and $1.00 gets you 7143 Naks. Some people are afraid to buy at $140 per Bitcoin because the number scares them. The Nak could calm people down.
Think of a movie of the Zimbabwe economy or the Weimar Republic RUNNING BACKWARDS.
Play money in 2009 is now a substantial global currency.
Some day the Nak will reach parity with the Dollar as the penny and Satoshi head toward each other in value.
Ron.
I'm all for honoring Hal Finney ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=155054.0). I think 100 Satoshi's or 1 milliBitcoin to be called a Finney or "Fin" would be appropriate. |
|
|
|
|
chiropteran
|
|
April 24, 2013, 04:15:21 AM |
|
bitus50 = 0.34127363 bitcoin
bitus5 = 0.03412736 bitcoin
bitusdollar = 0.00682547 bitcoin
bitusdime = 0.00068255 bitcoin
bituspenny = 0.00006826 bitcoin
Easy to remember numbers that Americans (and other USD users) will immediately understand.
|
|
|
|
|
