Is the goal of milliBit parity irrational?

[molecular]

I think it's time to talk about bitcoin price in terms of the milliBit. (has a better name emerged?).

With bitcoin price now at $0.17 we are looking towards parity with the dollar.

Is that irrational? I think not.

Why? Because - to borrow a phrase from the silver crowd - the fundamentals are as solid as ever: Bitcoin really is a viable alternative to the global banking and monetary system (which requires trust that is continually being eroded - for a reason). It's a viable alternative to both the USD and paypal. Plus: the bulk of the population is still standing on the sidelines or wholly ignorant to even the problem, much less to Bitcoin being the solution.

I can currently see one possible danger that has the potential to stop Bitcoin in its roots: regulation, i.e. a Bitcoin prohibition.

How can we avoid something like a Bitcoin prohibition? It's quite simple really: if enough of the population have endorsed Bitcoin, are trusting and using it (for saving and payment), then a negative regulation is likely to be rejected by the constituents of the democracies in the west (where such regulation is most probably going to be tried to be introduced first).

I don't want 1 hedge fund to invest 100 Million USD, I'd rather like to see 10 Million people invest 10 USD each. That's much more powerful and a lot safer and it's going to probably reduce volatility by a lot.

So why do I think we're falling behind on general population adoption (and buying) of bitcoin? Because I hear it from all my friends: "I'm not buying, Bitcoin is too expensive now, it's in a bubble and I'll buy when it dips back to $30". $170 really does sound expensive, doesn't it? Does $0.17 sound expensive? No!

So here's what I'll do: I'm going to keep telling people about Bitcoin (not pester them to invest, just tell them what it is and why I love it). I'm going to explain to them why it's a viable alternative to the global banking and monetary system and why. I'm going to tell them how it works if they want to know. I'm going to tell them - to borrow another phrase from a metal stacker - to become their own central bank.

And I'm also going to tell them that just 21,000 milliBits will represent a 100 millionth of the wealth on earth should Bitcoin be successful in it's endeavor to conquer the world and become the no. 1 currency. I'm going to tell them that the global monetary base is about 2,000 trillion Dollars (correct me, please). A hundred millionth of that is 20,000,000 Dollars. I'm going to tell them that 21,000 milliBits might some day be worth as much as 2 million Dollars are worth today.

(of course I'll use EUR and with some people I'll use 2,100 milliBits)

[1715442623]

1715442623

[1715442623]

1715442623

[Mike Christ]

I'm gonna call them Mickeys.  $0.17 a Mickey doesn't sound expensive at all; it would be the new dollar, when BTC hit $1k a pop.  Most people don't buy whole gold bars; they'll buy ounces, whenever they can.  So it shouldn't seem all that expensive.

[Beauxe]

You have got it exactly right.  Just don't lose sight of time.  These things take time.  Sometimes generations.  But your basic analysis is sound. 

Ps...as a note, regulation mostly would be good for Bitcoin, as long as there is not an outright ban and bankster lobbiest don't create barriers to favor the usual suspects (that is the most likely hurdle to overcome).

[keatonatron]

All very good points!

I like the idea of using a separate name for a smaller portion of one coin, like dollars and cents or even the (confusing to me) way the British used to have pounds, pence, guineas, shillings and more...

Physiologically, any number smaller than 1 feels insignificant to us humans. Even if 0.1 bitcoin was worth $100, people will think "I can only afford 0.1?? Why even bother!" Yet simply changing the phrasing to 10 [name for 100th of a btc] instantly makes it sound more attractive.

I think we(someone) should decide on official terminology for each scale (diving by 100 each time, or not!) and encourage people to use those names instead of a decimal point and many zeros for all applications where dealing with small increments is the norm.

It would be similar to dealing in litecoin, except it would be actual bitcoins and not some "cheap knockoff" 

[crazy_rabbit]

Maybe this would actually psychologically give rise to more buying.

[wopwop]

it doesn't matter what you call it

bitcoin's eventual price depends on how much people are willing to pay per day to keep the system from dying.

which is totally knarly

[molecular]

All very good points!

I like the idea of using a separate name for a smaller portion of one coin, like dollars and cents or even the (confusing to me) way the British used to have pounds, pence, guineas, shillings and more...

Physiologically, any number smaller than 1 feels insignificant to us humans. Even if 0.1 bitcoin was worth $100, people will think "I can only afford 0.1?? Why even bother!" Yet simply changing the phrasing to 10 [name for 100th of a btc] instantly makes it sound more attractive.

I think we(someone) should decide on official terminology for each scale (diving by 100 each time, or not!) and encourage people to use those names instead of a decimal point and many zeros for all applications where dealing with small increments is the norm.

It would be similar to dealing in litecoin, except it would be actual bitcoins and not some "cheap knockoff" 

I agree with your points, but I would make the divisor 1000 instead of 100. Because then 1 satoshi is 0.01 microBTC. This has been discussed to no end a lot of times and I agree we should try to agree on a terminology.

[molecular]

Maybe this would actually psychologically give rise to more buying.

That's my point. Especially buying by "the little guy". A hedge fund isn't scared by a price of USD 170 and doesn't think he's not getting much because he uses "calculation" instead of "intuition" to judge wether or not a price is high.

[wopwop]

Maybe this would actually psychologically give rise to more buying.

That's my point. Especially buying by "the little guy". A hedge fund isn't scared by a price of USD 170 and doesn't think he's not getting much because he uses "calculation" instead of "intuition" to judge wether or not a price is high.

yeah gotta get more stupid suckers in by changing the decimal points
hueahuehuaehuahe

[molecular]

Maybe this would actually psychologically give rise to more buying.

That's my point. Especially buying by "the little guy". A hedge fund isn't scared by a price of USD 170 and doesn't think he's not getting much because he uses "calculation" instead of "intuition" to judge wether or not a price is high.

yeah gotta get more stupid suckers in by changing the decimal points
hueahuehuaehuahe

not "stupid suckers". Future wealthy people.

njhaehaehaehaehaeaeae

[rpietila]

I think it is a reasonable goal.

Despite previously being an advocate of Bitcent myself,

Last Friday I officially changed all my business into mBTC. Today I sold 11,918 mBTC for 2000 euros, for example.

We can hope to agree, but eventually the change will come because of self-serving individuals bringing it about. It is much easier to convince people to buy mBTC priced at 0.16 rather than BTC at 160 €.

[keatonatron]

I agree with your points, but I would make the divisor 1000 instead of 100.

I had thought of that too. It would be like giving names for multiples of Satoshi (like we do with million, billion, etc.) instead of going the other way and breaking down one Btc into cents (and smaller).

Sorry if I rehash old topics that have been discussed before.  

By the way, would 8 bitcoins be one bytecoin ?

[molecular]

I agree with your points, but I would make the divisor 1000 instead of 100.

I had thought of that too. It would be like giving names for multiples of Satoshi (like we do with million, billion, etc.) instead of going the other way and breaking down one Btc into cents (and smaller).

Sorry if I rehash old topics that have been discussed before.  

By the way, would 8 bitcoins be one bytecoin ?

haha, lol.

back in 2011 there was someone religiously opting for use of the tonal system. That would've killed bitcoin in my mind. It's better than decimal for various reasons, but introducing a new notation (base 16) for numbers is just too steep a learning curve for people to accept.

[IIOII]

I think it's merely a question of habituation if a price of one bitcoin > $ 100 appears large.

I don't see a need for special psychological intervention - an equilibrium of price/utility perception will develop automatically.

Of course - if Bitcoin value increases constantly - at some point people will use smaller denominations (mBTC, µBTC, Satoshi), as quoting prices with many zeroes after the decimal point becomes impractical.