Bitcoin needs to do a "stock split" and add new (sub)names

[Moshi]

I'm finding myself in a very similar scenario. Incidently, the same people turned off by the $190/BTC exchange were the ones telling me that this was an "illegal nerd currency", all now just writhing to get their hands on them - provided they don't pay "alot" 

I've talked my roommate into looking into the system - enticed by the concept of cheap, nearly-instantaneous transfers of funds after he had waited a few days to pay for Bioshock. Suddenly can't stop mining, and now gawking at the exchange rate. Beautiful stuff.

[barbarousrelic]

I think we should move the Bitcoin decimal point six places to the right, and primarily use the unit kBTC. (new kilobitcoins)

1 old BTC = 1,000,000 new BTC = 1,000 kBTC (new) = $190

10 kBTC = $1.90

The reason for this is that it is relatively futureproof, and that people are more comfortable handling very large numbers than very small numbers. It also leaves two decimal points of Bitcoin, just as most national currencies have two decimal points.

[Newscastix]

I think we should move the Bitcoin decimal point six places to the right, and primarily use the unit kBTC. (new kilobitcoins)

1 old BTC = 1,000,000 new BTC = 1,000 kBTC (new) = $190

10 kBTC = $1.90

The reason for this is that it is relatively futureproof, and that people are more comfortable handling very large numbers than very small numbers. It also leaves two decimal points of Bitcoin, just as most national currencies have two decimal points.

+1

I don't like all this milli and mikro...

[DeathAndTaxes]

The decimal place will NEVER (not today, not next year, not 20,000 years from  now) ever be moved.  To do so would require a 100% consensus of all users active and inactive.  Not just all miners but all exchanges, all merchants, all speculators, all bitcoin holders.  Litterally everyone on the planet in unison agreeding to the change.  Baring a complete consensus the network would fork and both forks would be valid and incompatible, both called Bitcoin.  The result would be complete and utter chaos and massive destruction of value.  It isn't going to happen.

For all intents and purposes the money supply of BTC is locked at 21M BTC.  The good thing is it is highly divisible right now having 2.1 quadrillion discrete units (more than US money supply) but 1 BTC will always be ~1/21,000,000 of available money supply.

[600watt]

The decimal place will NEVER (not today, not next year, not 20,000 years from  now) ever be moved.  To do so would require a 100% consensus of all users active and inactive.  Not just all miners but all exchanges, all merchants, all speculators, all bitcoin holders.  Litterally everyone on the planet in unison agreeding to the change.  Baring a complete consensus the network would fork and both forks would be valid and incompatible, both called Bitcoin.  The result would be complete and utter chaos and massive destruction of value.  It isn't going to happen.

For all intents and purposes the money supply of BTC is locked at 21M BTC.  The good thing is it is highly divisible right now having 2.1 quadrillion discrete units (more than US money supply) but 1 BTC will always be ~1/21,000,000 of available money supply.

thx for this information. but what about mbtc ?

[alexeft]

I'd say we will never have to worry about the indivisibility of a satoshi. Ever.

Hmmmm, consider that various countries around the world are inflating their currencies to oblivion to get rid of debt. Never say never!!!

[cr1776]

I agree about the names.  Yes, we have the 1 BTC, plus the satoshi.  It would be useful to have a name - "a dime" or some shorthand.  Yes, it means the same thing, but this is a marketing issue so your parents or grandparents can say "I'd like one BitEagle" which is 1/100th of a BTC.  Or whatever. 

It is all about ease of use for the non-tech user.
 

I think we should move the Bitcoin decimal point six places to the right, and primarily use the unit kBTC. (new kilobitcoins)

1 old BTC = 1,000,000 new BTC = 1,000 kBTC (new) = $190

10 kBTC = $1.90

The reason for this is that it is relatively futureproof, and that people are more comfortable handling very large numbers than very small numbers. It also leaves two decimal points of Bitcoin, just as most national currencies have two decimal points.

+1

I don't like all this milli and mikro...

[Adrian-x]

I just thought it relevant to cross post, let's call it a branding exercise not a share split, the new values all have names already, I like the penny stock idea listed below.

To fule the next opportunity I think we should rebrand Bitcoin lets call it Microbit or μBTC  

It is like a stock split we can start trading at $0.014

*edit* It's hard to keep up with deflation. $0.014 $0.019 per μBTC

[ehoffman]

$0.019 per μBTC

I just wish  I guess you meant $0.19 per mBTC!

[XXthetimeisnowXX]

I always ask anyone I'm talking with whether they've heard of bitcoins. 99% of the time the answer is no (and I mix with some clued up people). Within a minute most of them are intrigued. But now when they hear that the price is ~$150+ their response is, "Oh it's too high. It's risen too fast, too quickly." If however, the price was $1.50 or even $15+ they would probably jump in and spend just as much money. It's a psychological thing, like buying a thousand penny stocks vs spending $600 on a single share of Google. I think the bitcoin powers that be, need to think about naming the equivalent dimes, nickels and pennies of the BTC world so that newcomers aren't faced with sticker shock. One of the most common newbie misunderstandings is that bitcoins aren't divisible and a well presented naming convention would really help. Just my ever humble opinion, but what do others think? Do those names exist already?

I cant agree with you more...

and i agree even more than that.

[bitrick]

But now when they hear that the price is ~$150+ their response is, "Oh it's too high. It's risen too fast, too quickly." If however, the price was $1.50 or even $15+ they would probably jump in and spend just as much money. It's a psychological thing, like buying a thousand penny stocks vs spending $600 on a single share of Google. ...

I think the key is how you describe it from the beginning. Try this:
"A bitcoin is like a one ounce gold coin, although it actually works better. There aren't that many bitcoins. There are 500 ounces of gold in the world for every bitcoin. An ounce of gold is currently valued at about $1600. A bitcoin is less than $200. The millibitcoin, which is one thousandth of a bitcoin, is more akin to the U.S. dollar and currently costs 19 cents."
Of course, you'll want to balance that with a realistic discussion of the risks.

[zeetubes]

(m/u)BTC right now needs some serious evangelism. The other thing I tell people is that 35 years ago, someone told me to send them an email - I had no clue what they meant. Same with text messages and mp3s 15 years back. These are still the very early days, where I'm guessing one in a thousand people have heard of bitcoins. Hopefully the end result is similar for BTC. This has the potential to be the next X industry, think cars, computers, oil etc. But that next step will require some nurturing. The people who can seriously influence the market are the people who 1) have money and 2) want somewhere to put it to work. The mainstream financial media will never mention it because the stockbrokers they cater to can't sell shares in bitcoins. Yet. When a bitcoin ETF starts up is the day when you know it's arrived. Like gold and silver five years ago, BTC is too damn hard to buy at the moment.

[Ottoman1]

I as many of you am looking around for a comprehensive answer to the decimal issue.
So far from what I read from "the BTC giants" is that BTC will never be split or in any other way be altered, i.e. There will never be any other unit of account (in the network or the blockchain) than BTC, not mBTC or satoshis. 

So, that leads me to the next part of my question; then the unit of account ( to satoshis or whatever) conversion happens at the individual transaction between buyer and seller? And if this is a correct understanding - in order to transact those individuals need what? Is it sufficient with any wallet? I cannot see this option in mine at least....

I have also heard that all wallets are set up to handle mBTC etc.  So does that mean that I as a potential buyer of whatever can "flick" a switch in my wallet and I have all my BTC turned into Satoshis?

Thanks for your input

[DeathAndTaxes]

Nothing needs to be converted.  Yes in the QT wallet you can have it display your balance as BTC, mBTC uBTC, or satohis it isn't converting your coins it is simply changing how they are displayed.

At the protocol level everything is already recorded in satoshis. Always.  Every tx since the very first block.  So if you receive 1 BTC it will be recorded in the blockchain as an unsigned 64bit integer 100,000,000.  Your client "knows" it takes 100,000,000 units to be a BTC and thus displays it as 1.0 BTC by default but you can easily change how it is displayed.  How it is displayed has no effect on how it is transmitted or stored in the blockchain.

[Fiery Winds]

I posted this in the "Economics" sub-forum, as an attempt to standardize how we refer to small values of BTC (without touching the protocol at all).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1833.msg1776572#msg1776572

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It may seem complicated, but I think that with practice, this could be a manageable system for both online AND offline payments.  

Given that this is a global currency, and the metric system is used by the majority of the population, we should stick to a metric prefix system, similar to other ideas here in this thread.  I've added a few "rules" to help standardize and simplify the system.

Like so:

1 BTC = 1 Bit
0.1 BTC = 1 Decibit/Dec (Optional)
0.01 BTC = 1 Centibit/Cent
0.001 BTC = 1 Millibit/Mil
0.000,001 BTC = 1 Microbit/Micro
0.000,000,01 BTC = 1 Satoshi

In another form:

1 Bit = 10 Decs
1 Dec = 100 Cents
1 Cent = 100 Mils
1 Mil = 1,000 Micros
1 Micro = 100 Satoshi

Rules:  

1) The smallest unit possible is generally used.  Anything over 1 BTC is generally referred to in decimal (e.g. 1.35 BTC = "One point three five Bits")

2) Trailing zeroes should be used when interpretation of units is ambiguous or unclear. (See examples below)

3) Commas are used to the right of the decimal point every three spaces to assist unit assignment

4) Avoid awkward prices (e.g. 1.500,004,80 BTC).  Even so, could be read as "1.5 Bits and 480 Satoshi"

With this, you can easily speak lower prices without talking in decimals all the time. Generally, the fewer non-zero numbers in a BTC price, the better.

Examples:

0.40 BTC = 4 Decs OR 40 Cents
0.45 BTC = 45 Cents
0.452 BTC = 452 Mils
0.002,500 BTC = 2500 Micros OR 0.002,5 = "Two and a half Mils"
0.087 BTC = 87 Mils
0.000,346 BTC = 346 Micros
0.000,049 BTC = 49 Micros
0.000,000,12 = 12 Satoshi
0.000,003,12 BTC = 312 Satoshi

Thoughts, suggestions, criticisms? Having just 8 decimal places instead of 9 makes it slightly less intuitive than it could be when dealing with hundreds of Satoshi, but it's no different than saying that $1.32 is 132 cents.

[barbarousrelic]

The decimal place will NEVER (not today, not next year, not 20,000 years from  now) ever be moved.  To do so would require a 100% consensus of all users active and inactive.  Not just all miners but all exchanges, all merchants, all speculators, all bitcoin holders.  Litterally everyone on the planet in unison agreeding to the change.  Baring a complete consensus the network would fork and both forks would be valid and incompatible, both called Bitcoin.  The result would be complete and utter chaos and massive destruction of value.  It isn't going to happen.

For all intents and purposes the money supply of BTC is locked at 21M BTC.  The good thing is it is highly divisible right now having 2.1 quadrillion discrete units (more than US money supply) but 1 BTC will always be ~1/21,000,000 of available money supply.

In that case, I propose that 10^-6 BTC = 1 Turing. 1,000,000 Turings = 1 BTC. The Turing can be broken into two decimal points. The unit "kiloturing" or KT should be the most commonly referred-to unit unless the price increases by a few more orders of magnitude, in which case the most commonly referred to unit will be the Turing itself.

10 Kiloturings is currently worth $2.

The Turing and the Kiloturing should be the only units needed, to preserve simplicity.

"One million dollars" is equal to "five million KT." The Kiloturing is within an order of magnitude of the dollar.

[Rygon]

The decimal place will NEVER (not today, not next year, not 20,000 years from  now) ever be moved.  To do so would require a 100% consensus of all users active and inactive.  Not just all miners but all exchanges, all merchants, all speculators, all bitcoin holders.  Litterally everyone on the planet in unison agreeding to the change.  Baring a complete consensus the network would fork and both forks would be valid and incompatible, both called Bitcoin.  The result would be complete and utter chaos and massive destruction of value.  It isn't going to happen.

For all intents and purposes the money supply of BTC is locked at 21M BTC.  The good thing is it is highly divisible right now having 2.1 quadrillion discrete units (more than US money supply) but 1 BTC will always be ~1/21,000,000 of available money supply.

Nothing needs to be converted.  Yes in the QT wallet you can have it display your balance as BTC, mBTC uBTC, or satohis it isn't converting your coins it is simply changing how they are displayed.

At the protocol level everything is already recorded in satoshis. Always.  Every tx since the very first block.  So if you receive 1 BTC it will be recorded in the blockchain as an unsigned 64bit integer 100,000,000.  Your client "knows" it takes 100,000,000 units to be a BTC and thus displays it as 1.0 BTC by default but you can easily change how it is displayed.  How it is displayed has no effect on how it is transmitted or stored in the blockchain.

Correct, so we could arbitrarily agree as a community that the old mBTC is the "New BTC" and that there are 21 Billion "New BTC" available. The clients could just change the format, and then we'd say that the new BTC was only divisible by 10^5. No miner agreement or fork necessary. Done. No chaos, destruction, or cats marrying dogs.

Of course, the real issue is that it becomes uneconomical to send less than 1 mBTC (100,000 Satoshis) and have it confirmed quickly due to fees that the client and/or miners require. Fees will only get more expensive as traffic increases. There are other threads looking at that issue though.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Correct, so we could arbitrarily agree as a community that the old mBTC is the "New BTC" and that there are 21 Billion "New BTC" available.

What if everyone doesn't agree?  I don't.  So yes as I pointed out if you have complete unanimous agreement of every coinholders, merchant, developer, exchange, etc then sure you can make a change.  Baring that what happens when some sites start advertising prices in old BTC and some in new BTC?  Someone on new version of client sends 1 BTC to someone with newever version of client.  Each one things the other messed up because on their clients they see a different amount.    MtGox prices in "old BTC" but doesn't call it old BTC it simply is BTC and BTC-e prices in "new BTC" but also calls it BTC.

Quick 1.23 BTC is it old BTC or new BTC?

It isn't going to happen just like tomorrow we could decide a meter isn't a meter it is a "new meter" which will also confusingly be called a meter expect it is 3x as long as an "old meter" which will also be called a meter.  That could happen, but it won't because it would be stupid and pointless.

Of course, the real issue is that it becomes uneconomical to send less than 1 mBTC (100,000 Satoshis) and have it confirmed quickly due to fees that the client and/or miners require. Fees will only get more expensive as traffic increases. There are other threads looking at that issue though.

Fees have been reduced in the past, will be reduced again in the next version, and will likely be continually reduced and decentralized more in the future.   There is no required fee on high priority transactions.  The min mandatory fee only exists as a spam prevention mechanism to protect the network from Denial Of Service attacks.  It can be continually lowered to a point which balances the needs of the network with the need to protect the network.

[600watt]

Correct, so we could arbitrarily agree as a community that the old mBTC is the "New BTC" and that there are 21 Billion "New BTC" available.

What if everyone doesn't agree?  I don't.  So yes as I pointed out if you have complete unanimous agreement of every coinholders, merchant, developer, exchange, etc then sure you can make a change.  Baring that what happens when some sites start advertising prices in old BTC and some in new BTC?  Someone on new version of client sends 1 BTC to someone with newever version of client.  Each one things the other messed up because on their clients they see a different amount.    MtGox prices in "old BTC" but doesn't call it old BTC it simply is BTC and BTC-e prices in "new BTC" but also calls it BTC.

Quick 1.23 BTC is it old BTC or new BTC?

It isn't going to happen just like tomorrow we could decide a meter isn't a meter it is a "new meter" which will also confusingly be called a meter expect it is 3x as long as an "old meter" which will also be called a meter.  That could happen, but it won't because it would be stupid and pointless.

Of course, the real issue is that it becomes uneconomical to send less than 1 mBTC (100,000 Satoshis) and have it confirmed quickly due to fees that the client and/or miners require. Fees will only get more expensive as traffic increases. There are other threads looking at that issue though.

Fees have been reduced in the past, will be reduced again in the next version, and will likely be continually reduced and decentralized more in the future.   There is no required fee on high priority transactions.  The min mandatory fee only exists as a spam prevention mechanism to protect the network from Denial Of Service attacks.  It can be continually lowered to a point which balances the needs of the network with the need to protect the network.

"old" and "new" will confuse like hell. the metric system is used in science and economy. no one needs to agree to
1 btc = 1000 mbtc
because it is a fact.
the rest of the issue is agreement in the community using the same language. the question is not "should we do it this way?" it´s:

mbtc or game over

[zeetubes]

Nothing against any of the other crypto currencies out there but the average person might think BTC's price is too high and opt for litecoin instead. I remember when Myspace was unstoppable ... but sadly so did they and they forgot to adapt when facebook came along. Btw one of the better bitcoin articles I've read from Jeff Tucker today at Laissez faire books.

http://lfb.org/today/what-bitcoin-is-teaching-us/