Definition of the term "millibitcent"

[Michael_S]

I read in different sources different definitions of the term "millibitcent":

I found definitions of 0.01 BTC, 0.0001 BTC or 0.00000001 as a "millibitcent". There seems to be no consent about the definition of this term.

How is this possible?
When I take the term literally, the only possible definition of "millibitcent" can be
1/1000th ("milli") of 1/100th ("cent") of a bitcoin, i.e. 1 millibitcent = 0.00001 BTC = 1000 Satoshis.

1 bitcent = 0.01 BTC
1 millibitcoin = 1/1000 BTC = 0.001 BTC

Hence
1 millibitcent = 0.00001 BTC

Because
1 something-cent = 1/100 of something
1 milli-something = 1/1000 of something

[Spaceman_Spiff]

I read in different sources different definitions of the term "millibitcent":

I found definitions of 0.01 BTC, 0.0001 BTC or 0.00000001 as a "millibitcent". There seems to be no consent about the definition of this term.

How is this possible?
When I take the term literally, the only possible definition of "millibitcent" can be
1/1000th ("milli") of 1/100th ("cent") of a bitcoin, i.e. 1 millibitcent = 0.00001 BTC = 1000 Satoshis.

1 bitcent = 0.01 BTC
1 millibitcoin = 1/1000 BTC = 0.001 BTC

Hence
1 millibitcent = 0.00001 BTC

Because
1 something-cent = 1/100 of something
1 milli-something = 1/1000 of something

Correct, millibitcent is a stupid name. 

[nobbynobbynoob]

OTOH, if you set Bitcoin-Qt to display mBTC balances, they are shown in the form xxxx,xx mBTC, where the ,xx represents "millibitcents".

[Michael_S]

OTOH, if you set Bitcoin-Qt to display mBTC balances, they are shown in the form xxxx,xx mBTC, where the ,xx represents "millibitcents".

Hmm, let me confirm what you are trying to say:

1.23456789 BTC = 1234.56789 mBTC - so far everything is clear.

Now, for the unit "mBTC" we look at the first two digits after the comma, the "cents" of the mBTC unit:
Here 56:

So 0.56 mBTC should be 56 millibitcents (= cents of the mBTC unit), i.e. 0.01 mBTC should be 1 millibitcent.
So again, this equals 0.00001 BTC.

So whatever way we turn it, we always arrive at 1 millibitcent = 0.01 mBTC = 0.00001 BTC as the only reasonable definition.

There is still no justification for using 1 millibitcent as 0.0001 BTC.

(I am just puzzled why such an intelligent an maths-friendly community, the bitcoin community, makes such a basic mistake in the use of the term "millibitcent")

[DeathAndTaxes]

I am just puzzled why such an intelligent an maths-friendly community, the bitcoin community, makes such a basic mistake in the use of the term "millibitcent"

Broad brush?  I have never used such an idiotic term.  Never heard anyone else use it either.  If a single person uses a term somewhere, someplace it means the "community" uses it?

mBTC in whole numbers fine my uses.

[barbarousrelic]

Correct, millibitcent is a stupid name. 

[franky1]

i think the game dragons tales which has been around for a while has a great way of explaining the divisions of coins

they just use the terms bitcoin, btcents, bitmills, satoshi's

1 Bitcoin
0.1 - 10Bitcent (100BTM)
0.01 - 1Bitcent (10BTM)
0.001 - 1BTM (100K SAT)
0.0001 - 10k SAT
0.00001- 1kSAT
0.000001 100 SAT
0.0000001 10 SAT
0.00000001 -1 SAT

[Dalkore]

1        - Bitcoin
0.1      - Bitcent  = .99 - .999 are all Bitcents
0.01     - Bitcent
0.001    - Bitcent
0.0001   - Microbit = .00009 - .000099 are all Microbit
0.00001  - Microbit
0.000001 - Millibit = 
0.0000001 - Satoshi
0.00000001 -Satoshi


I will need to sit down with paper and get it all perfect, but you should catch my drift.   I think this should be a nice simple way to tell people amounts.


What do you think about these naming conventions?

Bitcoin
Bitcent
Microbit
Millibit
Satoshi



-----
Dalkore

[Michael_S]

Broad brush?  I have never used such an idiotic term.  Never heard anyone else use it either.  If a single person uses a term somewhere, someplace it means the "community" uses it?

I stumbled over it quite a few times, probably mostly in the context of various Android bitcoin apps:

• "bitcoin wallet" by the respected community member Andreas Schildbach (or here)
• my-wallet-android
• "Blockchain" Android app

You can always read: "Support for millibitcent and smaller values (0.0001)". Seems that one of those guys started writing it, and the others just copied it without thinking and realizing that it makes no sense...

(I don't remember now where I saw 0.01 and 0.00000001 as alleged "millibitcents")

[Mike Christ]

.005  Ha'bit.

[Michael_S]

1        - Bitcoin
0.1      - Bitcent  = .99 - .999 are all Bitcents
0.01     - Bitcent
0.001    - Bitcent
0.0001   - Microbit = .00009 - .000099 are all Microbit
0.00001  - Microbit
0.000001 - Millibit =  
0.0000001 - Satoshi
0.00000001 -Satoshi

I will need to sit down with paper and get it all perfect, but you should catch my drift.   I think this should be a nice simple way to tell people amounts.

Are you trolling? Two definitions of "satoshi" and three definitions of "bitcent", and microbit being 1e-4 or 1e-5 instead of 1e-6 BTC, and millibit being what a microbit actually should be, and being even less than a microbit???

--> Almost none of these proposals makes any sense!

Just stick to standardized units "milli" = 1/1000, "micro" = 1/Million, and "cent" = 1/100, and that's all we need. This is what everyone knows and understands from today's everyday's life of the pre-bitcoin-era (like in mm, mg, ml, mbar units, or µm, µg, or "cent" (EUR/USD), or centimeter).

Making it more complicated and inventing one name for each of the 8 digits after the comma will just cause confusion and will definitely not be adopted.

But actually I did not want to start a thread on naming conventions in general, I was just wondering about whether the particular term "millibitcent" has any reasonable justification, and as it seems, it turned out that it is a nonsense term without justification.

I don't care if someone says "millibit" or "millibitcoin" or "bitmill" or "mBTC" or "BTM", whether one says "microbit" or "microbitcoin" or "µBTC", or whether one says "bitcent" or "bitcoincent" or "centibit" or "cBTC", in all of these cases it is clear what is meant from use of the standardized units, so no need for any "standardization" - let the people decide what turns out to be the most frequent usage. ("Satoshi" is the only bitcoin-era-specific term that adds on top of this)


PS: On naming conventions, I just found this old thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3574.0
(the term "millibitcent" is only shortly mentioned there in the last post of 25 June 2011, again  as 0.1 mBTC instead of 0.01 mBTC)

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

1        - Bitcoin
0.1      - Bitcent  = .99 - .999 are all Bitcents
0.01     - Bitcent
0.001    - Bitcent
0.0001   - Microbit = .00009 - .000099 are all Microbit
0.00001  - Microbit
0.000001 - Millibit =  
0.0000001 - Satoshi
0.00000001 -Satoshi

I will need to sit down with paper and get it all perfect, but you should catch my drift.   I think this should be a nice simple way to tell people amounts.

Are you trolling? Two definitions of "satoshi" and three definitions of "bitcent", and microbit being 1e-4 or 1e-5 instead of 1e-6 BTC, and millibit being what a microbit actually should be, and being even less than a microbit???

--> Almost none of these proposals makes any sense!

Just stick to standardized units "milli" = 1/1000, "micro" = 1/Million, and "cent" = 1/100, and that's all we need. This is what everyone knows and understands from today's everyday's life of the pre-bitcoin-era (like in mm, mg, ml, mbar units, or µm, µg, or "cent" (EUR/USD), or centimeter).

Making it more complicated and inventing one name for each of the 8 digits after the comma will just cause confusion and will definitely not be adopted.

But actually I did not want to start a thread on naming conventions in general, I was just wondering about whether the particular term "millibitcent" has any reasonable justification, and as it seems, it turned out that it is a nonsense term without justification.

I don't care if someone says "millibit" or "millibitcoin" or "bitmill" or "mBTC" or "BTM", whether one says "microbit" or "microbitcoin" or "µBTC", or whether one says "bitcent" or "bitcoincent" or "centibit" or "cBTC", in all of these cases it is clear what is meant from use of the standardized units, so no need for any "standardization" - let the people decide what turns out to be the most frequent usage. ("Satoshi" is the only bitcoin-era-specific term that adds on top of this)


PS: On naming conventions, I just found this old thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3574.0
(the term "millibitcent" is only shortly mentioned there in the last post of 25 June 2011, again  as 0.1 mBTC instead of 0.01 mBTC)

I certainly hope Darklore is trolling.

Here:

1 = bitcoin
0.1 = 0.1 bitcoins
0.01 = 0.01 bitcoins
0.001 = 1 mBTC
0.0001 = 0.1 mBTC
0.00001 = 0.01 mBTC
0.000001 = 100 satoshi
0.0000001 = 10 satoshi
0.00000001 = 1 satoshi

[marhjan]

I certainly hope Darklore is trolling.

Here:

1 = bitcoin
0.1 = 0.1 bitcoins = 100btm
0.01 = 0.01 bitcoins = 10btm
0.001 = 1 mBTC = 1btm
0.0001 = 0.1 mBTC = 10ksat
0.00001 = 0.01 mBTC = 1ksat
0.000001 = 100 satoshi = 100sat
0.0000001 = 10 satoshi = 10sat
0.00000001 = 1 satoshi = 1sat

The above is CORRECT...  well if you're me that is.  Honestly I think it makes the most sense and would be a nice consensus

[Michael_S]

I certainly hope Darklore is trolling.

Here:

1 = bitcoin
0.1 = 0.1 bitcoins = 100btm
0.01 = 0.01 bitcoins = 10btm
0.001 = 1 mBTC = 1btm
0.0001 = 0.1 mBTC = 10ksat
0.00001 = 0.01 mBTC = 1ksat
0.000001 = 100 satoshi = 100sat
0.0000001 = 10 satoshi = 10sat
0.00000001 = 1 satoshi = 1sat

The above is CORRECT...  well if you're me that is.  Honestly I think it makes the most sense and would be a nice consensus

This makes most sense to me, too!

[barbarousrelic]

I certainly hope Darklore is trolling.

Here:

1 = bitcoin
0.1 = 0.1 bitcoins = 100btm
0.01 = 0.01 bitcoins = 10btm
0.001 = 1 mBTC = 1btm
0.0001 = 0.1 mBTC = 10ksat
0.00001 = 0.01 mBTC = 1ksat
0.000001 = 100 satoshi = 100sat
0.0000001 = 10 satoshi = 10sat
0.00000001 = 1 satoshi = 1sat

The above is CORRECT...  well if you're me that is.  Honestly I think it makes the most sense and would be a nice consensus

This makes most sense to me, too!

This is absolutely correct, with the addition of .01 = 1 bitcent

The term "millibitcent" should never be used under any circumstances.