I was wondering, could the decimal place be moved?

[Stampbit]

One of the hurdles facing bitcoin as it grows in value is the naming scheme of the coin. We are used to .00 divisions of the dollar as our base unit, but with bitcoin we will end up with a plethora of confusing subdivisors and no one wants to regard one coin as something worth more than they have. So would it be technically possible to move the decimal down to the last two digits and then what is today 1 bitcoin would then be 1,000,000.00 bitcoins? The value of a coin of course would then be 1/1,000,000th of what it was but those holding 1 pre-coin would still have an equivalent amount in dollars.

[1714829792]

1714829792

[1714829792]

1714829792

[1714829792]

1714829792

[1714829792]

1714829792

[1714829792]

1714829792

[Muis]

Yes. The current client supports up to 8 digits behind the comma, but in theory that number is infinite. Even if all coins are destroyed and there is only one single coin left, the whole economy could just use fractions of it and continue.

[Stampbit]

Well even if we did just use fractions of a coin, it would help the btc economy if the naming/numbering scheme of the coin matched that of the dollar. What would it take to do this?

[Muis]

There is already a mBTC (micro btc), which can be compared to a cent. So if this growth continues eventually people will start using smaller units like mBTC to think/trade in, and the problem will solve itself.

[Gabi]

Well even if we did just use fractions of a coin, it would help the btc economy if the naming/numbering scheme of the coin matched that of the dollar. What would it take to do this?

Dollar? Do you think america is the world? 

[NikolaTesla]

There already is a naming scheme, it's just based on the same naming scheme as the metric system (which the whole English-speaking world uses, except the United States for some reason.)

m = milli = .001
μ = micro = .000001
n = nano = .000000001

The smallest division is the Satoshi which is 10 nano's (.00000001) if I'm not mistaken.

Are you saying these should all just be scaled up? So what used to be a milli would now be a Bitcoin and what used to be a micro would now be a milli, etc?

I wouldn't see any problem with doing that; it would be analogous to share-splitting a stock which happens all the time.

[Aahzman]

I think the OP is suggesting moving the decimal 6 places to the right, so that we only have 2 digits after the decimal/comma, to be more in line with common dollar-based denominations.

I actually prefer the 8 subdivisions, as it gives us a much deeper currency to work with. If BTC flourishes, as we all hope it does, some day a Satoshi could hold significant value by itself, and we'll start to seriously measure transactions in satoshis, rather than full bitcoins, bitdimes/quarters/nickels, or bitmils.

[NikolaTesla]

I think the OP is suggesting moving the decimal 6 places to the right, so that we only have 2 digits after the decimal/comma, to be more in line with common dollar-based denominations.

I actually prefer the 8 subdivisions, as it gives us a much deeper currency to work with. If BTC flourishes, as we all hope it does, some day a Satoshi could hold significant value by itself, and we'll start to seriously measure transactions in satoshis, rather than full bitcoins, bitdimes/quarters/nickels, or bitmils.

I hope so too, but in that case we would probably need to be able to subdivide further than the Satoshi, don't you think? Since there's no limit to how many digits can be place to the left of the decimal we could just do a coin-split and say everyone who had a micro now has a Bitcoin, so everyone has 1000 times as much but the exchange rate drops by a thousand-fold.

[prof7bit]

There already is a naming scheme, it's just based on the same naming scheme as the metric system (which the whole English-speaking world uses, except the United States for some reason.)

Not only the English-speaking world. The entire world uses it, even the US is using it for everything that can not be directly measured in ancient pounds or beer barrels or barn doors.

m = milli = .001
μ = micro = .000001
n = nano = .000000001

the nano-bitcoin is also called a Satoshi.

Unfortunately there exist only 8 decimal digits (for nano you need 9), so 1 satoshi = 0.00000001 = 10 nano.

[NikolaTesla]

Unfortunately there exist only 8 decimal digits (for nano you need 9), so 1 satoshi = 0.00000001 = 10 nano.

Yeah, I realized my mistake there and edited my post shortly after.

[Aahzman]

I think the OP is suggesting moving the decimal 6 places to the right, so that we only have 2 digits after the decimal/comma, to be more in line with common dollar-based denominations.

I actually prefer the 8 subdivisions, as it gives us a much deeper currency to work with. If BTC flourishes, as we all hope it does, some day a Satoshi could hold significant value by itself, and we'll start to seriously measure transactions in satoshis, rather than full bitcoins, bitdimes/quarters/nickels, or bitmils.

I hope so too, but in that case we would probably need to be able to subdivide further than the Satoshi, don't you think? Since there's no limit to how many digits can be place to the left of the decimal we could just do a coin-split and say everyone who had a micro now has a Bitcoin, so everyone has 1000 times as much but the exchange rate drops by a thousand-fold.

Hrm. Guess i'm just not seeing the need to do something like that. The system, as it is now, works just fine...

[pcannon]

Isn't 1/100,000,000 BTC equal to 1 Satoshis informally? What you are suggesting will become more common place as the BTC usage rises -- more people will hopefully think of Satoshis (or whatever you call it) -- may be bTC?

[NikolaTesla]

I think the OP is suggesting moving the decimal 6 places to the right, so that we only have 2 digits after the decimal/comma, to be more in line with common dollar-based denominations.

I actually prefer the 8 subdivisions, as it gives us a much deeper currency to work with. If BTC flourishes, as we all hope it does, some day a Satoshi could hold significant value by itself, and we'll start to seriously measure transactions in satoshis, rather than full bitcoins, bitdimes/quarters/nickels, or bitmils.

I hope so too, but in that case we would probably need to be able to subdivide further than the Satoshi, don't you think? Since there's no limit to how many digits can be place to the left of the decimal we could just do a coin-split and say everyone who had a micro now has a Bitcoin, so everyone has 1000 times as much but the exchange rate drops by a thousand-fold.

Hrm. Guess i'm just not seeing the need to do something like that. The system, as it is now, works just fine...

Right now, yes, there is no need to do it. But if "someday the Satoshi holds significant value by itself" as you speculated then wouldn't it need to be subdivided? If one Satoshi could buy a pizza, you'd need to subdivide it to buy a coke. And/or do a coin-split.

[nellybear]

There already is a naming scheme, it's just based on the same naming scheme as the metric system (which the whole English-speaking world uses, except the United States for some reason.)

Not only the English-speaking world. The entire world uses it, even the US is using it for everything that can not be directly measured in ancient pounds or beer barrels or barn doors.

LOL!  That reminded me of this:

http://d24w6bsrhbeh9d.cloudfront.net/photo/5911183_700b.jpg

And this:

http://www.damnlol.com/i/25b59b9c70adf8d7b509384ccd32a64b.jpg

[Accumulate]

The bitcoin protocol is limited to 21million-ish bit coins. This is done to simulate scarce resources, such as oil. The first barrels of oil are easy to mine, yet the last barrels of oil are incredibly tough to mine. As the cost increases, and more computing power is required, the price of the bitcoin rises (not the only factor). The solution to this is that you can use fractions that represent smaller amounts that we're used to pay for smaller purchases such as a sandwich.

My question is, what does it mean for the bitcoin user when the number of decimals is expanded? What if we end up paying 0.000000000000000001 bitcoin for a sandwich? Is a deflated market not just as bad as an inflated market? The people that get in first will have the biggest supply of bitcoins, and they will rise because it will cost more energy to harvest new bitcoins. That means the system will either fail prematurely (it won't), or the people who got in first will become the technocrats of the bitcoin economy. The problem of the "1%" or winner takes all problem leads me to believe that the bitcoin is flawed, (less, but different flaws compared to regular currency).

If, in a hypothetical world, the bitcoin would be the world wide currency, then those that get in early and do not spend, will be the millionairs of the world, and those who start late can hardly afford paper to wipe their ass with.

What am I missing here?

[NikolaTesla]

The bitcoin protocol is limited to 21million-ish bit coins. This is done to simulate scarce resources, such as oil. The first barrels of oil are easy to mine, yet the last barrels of oil are incredibly tough to mine. As the cost increases, and more computing power is required, the price of the bitcoin rises (not the only factor). The solution to this is that you can use fractions that represent smaller amounts that we're used to pay for smaller purchases such as a sandwich.

My question is, what does it mean for the bitcoin user when the number of decimals is expanded? What if we end up paying 0.000000000000000001 bitcoin for a sandwich? Is a deflated market not just as bad as an inflated market? The people that get in first will have the biggest supply of bitcoins, and they will rise because it will cost more energy to harvest new bitcoins. That means the system will either fail prematurely (it won't), or the people who got in first will become the technocrats of the bitcoin economy. The problem of the "1%" or winner takes all problem leads me to believe that the bitcoin is flawed, (less, but different flaws compared to regular currency).

If, in a hypothetical world, the bitcoin would be the world wide currency, then those that get in early and do not spend, will be the millionairs of the world, and those who start late can hardly afford paper to wipe their ass with.

What am I missing here?

The rich early-adopters will be more spend-happy later and still stimulate the economy. In fact, you have much more class mobility without inflation, since inflating currency is used to limit class mobility.

[Aahzman]

I think the OP is suggesting moving the decimal 6 places to the right, so that we only have 2 digits after the decimal/comma, to be more in line with common dollar-based denominations.

I actually prefer the 8 subdivisions, as it gives us a much deeper currency to work with. If BTC flourishes, as we all hope it does, some day a Satoshi could hold significant value by itself, and we'll start to seriously measure transactions in satoshis, rather than full bitcoins, bitdimes/quarters/nickels, or bitmils.

I hope so too, but in that case we would probably need to be able to subdivide further than the Satoshi, don't you think? Since there's no limit to how many digits can be place to the left of the decimal we could just do a coin-split and say everyone who had a micro now has a Bitcoin, so everyone has 1000 times as much but the exchange rate drops by a thousand-fold.

Hrm. Guess i'm just not seeing the need to do something like that. The system, as it is now, works just fine...

Right now, yes, there is no need to do it. But if "someday the Satoshi holds significant value by itself" as you speculated then wouldn't it need to be subdivided? If one Satoshi could buy a pizza, you'd need to subdivide it to buy a coke. And/or do a coin-split.

Bitcoin would need to be worth around $10,000USD/BTC for a satoshi to be worth $0.01USD. Say a pizza is $10.  Bitcoin (unless my math is off by a zero or a decimal point would need to be worth $10,000,000USD/BTC for a satoshi to be worth $10USD

[Stampbit]

There already is a naming scheme, it's just based on the same naming scheme as the metric system (which the whole English-speaking world uses, except the United States for some reason.)

m = milli = .001
μ = micro = .000001
n = nano = .000000001

The smallest division is the Satoshi which is 10 nano's (.00000001) if I'm not mistaken.

Are you saying these should all just be scaled up? So what used to be a milli would now be a Bitcoin and what used to be a micro would now be a milli, etc?

I wouldn't see any problem with doing that; it would be analogous to share-splitting a stock which happens all the time.

Psychologically speaking people like the idea of having a dollar than having a microdollar. Its hard to find value in something that shares the same scale as atoms and molecules. 

[NikolaTesla]

Psychologically speaking people like the idea of having a dollar than having a microdollar. Its hard to find value in something that shares the same scale as atoms and molecules. 

Yeah, but eventually the metric terminology would become in wide enough use that people would think of a "micro" on the scale that they think of a dollar now. People wouldn't even use the terms "milli" or even "Bitcoin", they'll just say a thousand micros or a million micros.

Sure, 1 million micros equals a Bitcoin, but it would be thought of as 1 million micros, not as a Bitcoin. The holder of such would be regarded as a millionaire.