We will have dollar parity all over again

[Le Happy Merchant]

I think you're thinking too much, one thing at a time...

The renaming is already planned for when 1 satoshi = 1$

What do we do in the mean time?

"Ok sir, a gallon of milk, six apples, a loaf of bread, and a tin of sardines... your total comes to 0.0134 BTC."

I don't know about you, but I foresee this as an issue. The guy could just denominate his prices in cBTC and say "That will be 13.40 cBTC."

I know its semantics, but I think the easier the transition into Bitcoins is for people, the better.

[1714818985]

1714818985

[SgtSpike]

I think it's pretty simple to just announce the change to the world as you would with a stock.  I.e., a stock split, then just move the decimal place after the announcement.

"Bitcoin shares split 1,000x"

Then again, some idiots would spin that as "ZOMG BITCOIN IS INFLATING LOOK AT ALL THE BITCOINS NOW!!!!"

[Melbustus]

I like thinking in mBTC. SealsWithClubs already does that.

So we can start using mBTC s the default when we refer to a quantity of "bitcoin", and then just use something like "kilo coin" to refer to the 100,000,000 satoshis quantity (1 full/current btc).

There are SI standard prefixes for a reason.  Arbitrarily changing kilo to mean a multiplier of 1/100000000 instead of a multiplier of 1000 would not be productive.

No, you're looking at it from the wrong side. The fact that we call 100,000,000 satoshis "1 BTC" is arbitrary. What I'm saying above amounts to suggesting that we start calling 100,000 satoshis "1 BTC". Then what we currently call "1 BTC" would indeed be a "kilo coin" in the revised nomenclature.

I shouldn't say that the original selection of 100,000,000 satoshis = 1 BTC was arbitrary... It needed to yield numbers that were reasonable to work with while bitcoin was small in order to encourage adoption. Humans hate dealing with numbers that are too big or too small. But that sweet spot changes as bitcoin grows. I think the nomenclature needs to be such that the amounts we deal with day-to-day are generally within 3 or 4 orders of magnitude of the base unit.

[oakpacific]

Maybe something like a "bitcent"? If the price ever goes to over $10000/BTC, then I think we just don't need to worry about this anymore, as people will adapt, in a variety of ways.

[notme]

I like thinking in mBTC. SealsWithClubs already does that.

So we can start using mBTC s the default when we refer to a quantity of "bitcoin", and then just use something like "kilo coin" to refer to the 100,000,000 satoshis quantity (1 full/current btc).

There are SI standard prefixes for a reason.  Arbitrarily changing kilo to mean a multiplier of 1/100000000 instead of a multiplier of 1000 would not be productive.

No, you're looking at it from the wrong side. The fact that we call 100,000,000 satoshis "1 BTC" is arbitrary. What I'm saying above amounts to suggesting that we start calling 100,000 satoshis "1 BTC". Then what we currently call "1 BTC" would indeed be a "kilo coin" in the revised nomenclature.

You're right, I misunderstood you.

I shouldn't say that the original selection of 100,000,000 satoshis = 1 BTC was arbitrary... It needed to yield numbers that were reasonable to work with while bitcoin was small in order to encourage adoption. Humans hate dealing with numbers that are too big or too small. But that sweet spot changes as bitcoin grows. I think the nomenclature needs to be such that the amounts we deal with day-to-day are generally within 3 or 4 orders of magnitude of the base unit.

I'm pretty sure we aren't going to be redefining 1 BTC.  I also see no problem with millibits(or mBTC if you prefer) and microbits.  Once we hit $100, $1 will be worth 10 millibits.  If we hit a million dollars per btc, $1 will be worth 1 microbit or 100 satoshis.

These prefixes are only 3 digits apart and two of them can cover the entire range of subbitcoin values.  Satoshi can be used if we get much higher than a million a piece, although that isn't really necessary since 1 satoshi is equal to 0.01 microbits.

Are milli- and micro so difficult to work with that you think it is easier to redefine what a bitcoin is?

[sgbett]

I personally wish the original protocol had used 9 decimal places, because I like the name "nano" for the smallest unit.  It just sounds cool to me.  Maybe someday it will.

Sorry. Computers think in groups of 8. Just the way life is.

8 bits in a byte yes, but the 8 digits we are talking about represent a decimal number. 8 digits needs 27bits (with room to spare & 28 if you want it unsigned).

Agree 9 would have been better (and would have fit inside 32 bits). nano bit is very cool name

could have made the whole thing 18 digits and multiplied everything thing by 10! I'm not sure the satoshi is going to be small enough!

[DoomDumas]

I think it should just skip right to milliBTC (mBTC).  Now, one mBTC is trading around 9.2 US cents.  I think this is a fine trading unit.

I also like mBTC.  It will be good for a while and many smaller things are price-able in it.  Larger price, then BTC.

+1 we should aim at mBTC really fast.. I'll try to use this term as much as possible in the future !