Why I'm switching to mXBT — and why you should too

[sgbett]

I actually believe this is a pretty big problem in the marketing aspect of this thing, and that it's not really a good idea to have the base-unit that everyone uses be 1/21million of the total units ever.

What's funny is that when I explain Bitcoin to people, the first question they have is "So what actually IS a bitcoin", and I have to explain that there's no such thing, that it's just a ledger with entries, and that the base-unit is actually a Satoshi which makes 1 BTC be 100million base-units. Then the reaction to that is usually "Oh so it's like futuristic "credits" from the sci-fi movies", which isn't all that inaccurate really. And people grew up watching all these sci-fi movies where in the future you just have ambiguous "credits", and that's how they relate to it.

If the base-unit was 1-credit (which is just 1 satoshi), then it would solve all these problems. You'd just buy 1million credits for like a dollar, and there would never be a need to adjust any of this stuff. Even if we start calling it mXBT, at some point that's going to become "too expensive" as well. Why not just use the actual base-unit and call the whole thing by its real name?

Thats an interesting point, and it begs the question, why wasnt the satoshi used right from the start? I'm going to go out on a limb and say its for the very same reason (but in reverse) that we are discussing now with regards the move from Bitcoins to micro-bitcoins. If the first block reward had been 50,000,000,000 satoshis (i may have got my zeros wrong. blame wild turkey) then it would have made everything 'seem' worthless. Even more so when mining 50 coins was no big deal. That first pizza would have cost trillions(?) of satoshi. (as it was 10,000 was quite a stretch).

So I think it goes to show how important the location of the decimal point is in the perception of things. I know I've certainly switched my QT miner to show mBTC does wonders for the soul!

[1715020682]

1715020682

[1715020682]

1715020682

[1715020682]

1715020682

[1715020682]

1715020682

[1715020682]

1715020682

[1715020682]

1715020682

[BlueNote]

well, i think the reason it does not have a 'spaced 3 digit increment name' only makes it special and in need of a name.
but if it is important to stick to the 3digit division we could move the 'bit' a decimal point up or down. 0.00001BTX, still less digits then using either extreme and starting to count from it.

The developer(s) gave us 8, so with equal division we're left with 2 four-decimal groups if we wish to describe the large range to the right of the decimal conveniently. If he/they had given us 9 spaces, then it would make sense to go with the convention of groups of threes that we use typically with large numbers above 1.

It doesn't matter in the least, however. Currencies typically have unique qualities like this. The dollar currently only goes two places to the right of decimal, but uses non-equal divisions of 1, 5, 10, 25, and 50 for coinage. Again, that's because it's a physical currency still. Other currencies have their own unique divisions and coinage - which, by the way, makes them interesting and fun. Currency is part of culture.

We don't have coinage in Bitcoin, so we only need a few convenient divisions. Because we have 8 decimal places, we must use either groups of two or groups of four. Two groups of four is the obvious choice.

I'm totally sold now on this idea of Bitcoin/bit/Satoshi. I think it's unbeatable. It even looks and feels artful when you lay it out like that. Very elegant.

[hello_good_sir]

I think that we should be going to microbits (100 satoshi = 1 microbit) but there is no support for my idea.  There seems to be support for moving the decimal about 4 places, which is better than nothing.

The problem is that people keep trying to tie this into the metric system, which is more hassle than it is worth.  For example the euro is not at all metric, even though it is a new currency that could easily been made metric.  So let's call the new unit millibit instead of millibitcoin.  Let's have the symbol be the actual mill symbol ₥ instead of the nonsense that is mBTC.

This idea isn't my favorite idea, but it is the idea that will have support:

1 millibit = 1₥, which currently costs about $0.11 on MtGox.

Again, this isn't my favorite idea but it is the idea that will have support.  Who is with me?  Its time to win.

[kakobrekla]

Here is what we use

1 drop of bitcoins = 1 satoshi = 0.00001 mBTC = 0.00000001 BTC
1 teaspoon of bitcoins = 120 satoshi = 0.0012 mBTC = 0.00000120 BTC
1 dessertspoon of bitcoins = 240 satoshi = 0.0024 mBTC = 0.00000240 BTC
1 tablespoon of bitcoins = 360 satoshi = 0.0036 mBTC = 0.00000360 BTC
1 cup of bitcoins = 5400 satoshi = 0.054 mBTC = 0.00005400 BTC
1 pint of bitcoins = 10800 satoshi = 0.108 mBTC = 0.00010800 BTC
1 quart of bitcoins = 21600 satoshi = 0.216 mBTC = 0.00021600 BTC
1 peck of (dry) bitcoins = 172800 satoshi = 1.728 mBTC = 0.00172800 BTC
1 hand-full of bitcoins = 20736000 satoshi = 207.36 mBTC = 0.20736000 BTC
1 piggy bank of bitcoins = 44375040 satoshi = 443.7504 mBTC = 0.4437504 BTC
1 black leather case (german made) of bitcoins = 995328000 satoshi = 9953.28 mBTC = 9.95328 BTC
1 shovel of bitcoins = 2388787200 satoshi = 23887.87 mBTC = 23.88787 BTC
1 bag of bitcoins = 7882997760 satoshi = 78829.9776 mBTC = 78.8299776 BTC
1 wheelbarrow of bitcoins = 33108590592 satoshi = 331085.90592 mBTC = 331.08590592 BTC
1 double cherry truck of bitcoins = 960149127168 satoshi = 9601491.27168 mBTC = 9601.49127168 BTC

mBTC conversion for tortilla.

[nyusternie]

I think that we should be going to microbits (100 satoshi = 1 microbit) but there is no support for my idea.  There seems to be support for moving the decimal about 4 places, which is better than nothing.

The problem is that people keep trying to tie this into the metric system, which is more hassle than it is worth.  For example the euro is not at all metric, even though it is a new currency that could easily been made metric.  So let's call the new unit millibit instead of millibitcoin.  Let's have the symbol be the actual mill symbol ₥ instead of the nonsense that is mBTC.

This idea isn't my favorite idea, but it is the idea that will have support:

1 millibit = 1₥, which currently costs about $0.11 on MtGox.

Again, this isn't my favorite idea but it is the idea that will have support.  Who is with me?  Its time to win.

your idea does have a great deal of support over here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=149150.msg1627177#msg1627177

i am 100% in support of using XBT (as official) vs BTC (as informal -- and rejected as a valid ISO)

BTC -> would remain 100,000,000 satoshis (called 1 Bit-Coin)
XBT -> would be 100 satoshis (called 1 Eks-Bit)

read the above posts (as well as the supporting arguments) and see if you don't agree
-----------------------------------

back to the OP; i totally agree that BTC is a complete turnoff -- as a self-proclaimed bitcoin evangalist its a pain in the ass trying to convince people to cough up >$100 just for 1. i speak from personal experience that a few mBTC to a n00b would be an EASY SELL

[AMuppInTime]

I created a new thread where I'd like to discuss the use of a 'Gavin' as a substitute name for 0.01BTC (or 'BitCent') at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=198618

[marcus_of_augustus]

This old chestnut ...   ... in computing age most people using computer are now familiar with kilo, mega and giga ... RAM, cpu HZ, networkspeeds, HD capacities, etc ... (millis, micros, nanos only specifically used)

==>

1 bitcoin = 100 megasatoshi

0.01 bitcoin = 1 megasatoshi

0.00001 bitcoin = 1 kilosatoshi

0.00000001 bitcoin = 1 satoshi

If we start using the base unit now then scaling down will enable using the familiar scientific positive exponent order of magnitude nomenclature ...

Also I just like the sound MEGAsatoshi  

and just for Vladimir:
(NB : 10 bitcoin = 1 gigasatoshi ... )

[adpinbr]

Bitcoin is known by many but owned by few.

Most of my friends know about Bitcoin. There are few exceptions. News coverage recently has been phenomenal.

But I can't say the same about their opinion of Bitcoin. One pointed out, "who would spend hundreds of dollars on that thing?". Another replied, "yeah, the price is way too high".

For perfectly rational human beings, the price is not an important factor. After all, a single bitcoin can be divided into 100000000 units—this is so large a number that the satoshi, worth 0.00000001 BTC, is worth a third that of the lowest physical denomination of currency: the Uzbekistani tiyin.

But rational and human together form an oxymoron. Whereas my friends were easily corrected on the ability to purchase fewer than one bitcoin, the psychological barrier cannot be ignored. People do not consider using something unless they have at least one of them. Nobody buys half a car, or 0.25 houses. We can't eat 0.03 apples, and we would reject a gift of 0.007 trees.

These comparisons obviously do not apply to bitcoins, as they are effectively divisible anywhere. But because Bitcoin is abstract, we tend to compare a bitcoin to something physical. As a result, we balk at not being able to own a single bitcoin.

This also hurts the economy. Most are so accustomed to spending dollars, quarters, etc. that the thought of spending 0.007 BTC is awkward. Even worse, some merchants reject Bitcoin because they feel that 0.05 BTC is unfair compensation for the products they offer.

What if we used mBTC by default? Then merchants would get payed 50 mBTC. The "dollar" store would offer products for 1 mBTC. Et cetera.

For those living in countries with a currency valued at or higher than the US dollar, also recall that most countries have lower-valued currencies. The mBTC, among currencies, would be right in the middle of the pack.

For all these reasons, I will begin to use mBTC. It just makes sense. And I hope we could demonstrate the power of the decentralized system of governance, and band together to do so. I aspire to transact with others only in mBTC by the end of May. And I hope you will too.

Great post

[Crypt_Current]

Here is what we use

1 drop of bitcoins = 1 satoshi = 0.00001 mBTC = 0.00000001 BTC
1 teaspoon of bitcoins = 120 satoshi = 0.0012 mBTC = 0.00000120 BTC
1 dessertspoon of bitcoins = 240 satoshi = 0.0024 mBTC = 0.00000240 BTC
1 tablespoon of bitcoins = 360 satoshi = 0.0036 mBTC = 0.00000360 BTC
1 cup of bitcoins = 5400 satoshi = 0.054 mBTC = 0.00005400 BTC
1 pint of bitcoins = 10800 satoshi = 0.108 mBTC = 0.00010800 BTC
1 quart of bitcoins = 21600 satoshi = 0.216 mBTC = 0.00021600 BTC
1 peck of (dry) bitcoins = 172800 satoshi = 1.728 mBTC = 0.00172800 BTC
1 hand-full of bitcoins = 20736000 satoshi = 207.36 mBTC = 0.20736000 BTC
1 piggy bank of bitcoins = 44375040 satoshi = 443.7504 mBTC = 0.4437504 BTC
1 black leather case (german made) of bitcoins = 995328000 satoshi = 9953.28 mBTC = 9.95328 BTC
1 shovel of bitcoins = 2388787200 satoshi = 23887.87 mBTC = 23.88787 BTC
1 bag of bitcoins = 7882997760 satoshi = 78829.9776 mBTC = 78.8299776 BTC
1 wheelbarrow of bitcoins = 33108590592 satoshi = 331085.90592 mBTC = 331.08590592 BTC
1 double cherry truck of bitcoins = 960149127168 satoshi = 9601491.27168 mBTC = 9601.49127168 BTC

mBTC conversion for tortilla.

I lol'd 
especially @ "1 peck of (dry) " ... BAHAHAHAHA

[Technomage]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=198952.0

[Prattler]

Now that the price has been stable at ~0.1 USD/mBTC, everyone should be thinking in terms of mBTC (or mXBT if you like that more). If we think bitcoin is here to stay, there is just no reason to stick to the old BTC unit.

Oh and I like being a µBTC millionaire!

[RationalSpeculator]

Nice post, I like mB, I have 1000 mB, is like having 1000 USD. And it's 10 bitcoins. Easy to remember.

[julius]

I would like to give my opinion about the issue. I think we should stop using Bitcoin as the name of the coin and just leave that term for naming the protocol or network. And then we should use independent names for the different current Bitcoin, milliBitcoin, microBitcon and so on.
For me, to start using mBTC to get people more confident just because they are dealing with smaller numbers does not make much sense. After all, people are stupid , but not THAT stupid. And I do not see why someone who is dubious about jumping into the wagon if 1 BTC = 130 $ would start buying if we display 1 mBTC = 0.13 $ instead.
However, I do believe people would be more confident if we actually go one step further and use independent names and drop the whole milli and micro terminology.
So, for example, we have 1 alpha = 1 000 betas = 1 000 000 gammas.
"Would you like to buy some Bitcoin? At the moment 1 beta  is 0.5 $" .
" You can pay in Bitcoin if you like. This hardrive is 350 gammas"
...
The names alpha, beta and gamma are just examples for potential names. What I want to emphasize is that to use the term Bitcoin (and derivatives) for both the network and the units is, in my opinion , a bad idea.

[cadmium]

not until BTC reaches 1 grand

[Rampion]

I happen to fully agree with this: we should start using mBTC

Psychological factor is VERY important. I'm sure that a lot of people would be eager to jump on the train if we started using mBTC, because +$100 for one unit of a currency, virtual or not, sounds way too expensive for the average Joe - even if technically is irrelevant.

[Peter Lambert]

I happen to fully agree with this: we should start using mBTC

Psychological factor is VERY important. I'm sure that a lot of people would be eager to jump on the train if we started using mBTC, because +$100 for one unit of a currency, virtual or not, sounds way too expensive for the average Joe - even if technically is irrelevant.

Maybe we should just start pricing things in satoshis, or sat? Currently 1 USD = 885000 sat.

[threeip]

But rational and human together form an oxymoron. Whereas my friends were easily corrected on the ability to purchase fewer than one bitcoin, the psychological barrier cannot be ignored. People do not consider using something unless they have at least one of them. Nobody buys half a car, or 0.25 houses. We can't eat 0.03 apples, and we would reject a gift of 0.007 trees.

Do these friends also get confused about say, a 0.25c phone call or a $100 bill?

[yona]

I would like to give my opinion about the issue. I think we should stop using Bitcoin as the name of the coin and just leave that term for naming the protocol or network. And then we should use independent names for the different current Bitcoin, milliBitcoin, microBitcon and so on.
For me, to start using mBTC to get people more confident just because they are dealing with smaller numbers does not make much sense. After all, people are stupid , but not THAT stupid. And I do not see why someone who is dubious about jumping into the wagon if 1 BTC = 130 $ would start buying if we display 1 mBTC = 0.13 $ instead.
However, I do believe people would be more confident if we actually go one step further and use independent names and drop the whole milli and micro terminology.
So, for example, we have 1 alpha = 1 000 betas = 1 000 000 gammas.
"Would you like to buy some Bitcoin? At the moment 1 beta  is 0.5 $" .
" You can pay in Bitcoin if you like. This hardrive is 350 gammas"
...
The names alpha, beta and gamma are just examples for potential names. What I want to emphasize is that to use the term Bitcoin (and derivatives) for both the network and the units is, in my opinion , a bad idea.

i agree that in the long run we need names, not milli and micro.
and as said here the first name should be of the middle unit between satoshi and bitcoin... 0.00001 bitcoins should have a name first because it makes more sense.

[Peter Lambert]

I would like to give my opinion about the issue. I think we should stop using Bitcoin as the name of the coin and just leave that term for naming the protocol or network. And then we should use independent names for the different current Bitcoin, milliBitcoin, microBitcon and so on.
For me, to start using mBTC to get people more confident just because they are dealing with smaller numbers does not make much sense. After all, people are stupid , but not THAT stupid. And I do not see why someone who is dubious about jumping into the wagon if 1 BTC = 130 $ would start buying if we display 1 mBTC = 0.13 $ instead.
However, I do believe people would be more confident if we actually go one step further and use independent names and drop the whole milli and micro terminology.
So, for example, we have 1 alpha = 1 000 betas = 1 000 000 gammas.
"Would you like to buy some Bitcoin? At the moment 1 beta  is 0.5 $" .
" You can pay in Bitcoin if you like. This hardrive is 350 gammas"
...
The names alpha, beta and gamma are just examples for potential names. What I want to emphasize is that to use the term Bitcoin (and derivatives) for both the network and the units is, in my opinion , a bad idea.

i agree that in the long run we need names, not milli and micro.
and as said here the first name should be of the middle unit between satoshi and bitcoin... 0.00001 bitcoins should have a name first because it makes more sense.

In the US we measure lengths in feet and inches and miles, we have names for each of these things and converting between them is a bitch. Elsewhere, people use millimeters and meters and kilometers, and converting between them can easily be done in your head.

Now you want to name something (0.00001) that is not the middle between bitcoins (1.0) and satoshis (0.00000001), the actual middle would be what some people above want to call bits (0.0001), but is also not millibits (0.001) or microbits (0.000001)? What you typed (0.00001) I guess could be a millibitcent, there were some people trying to name it that a while back, or you could call it a kilosatoshi. I would call it either 0.01 mB or 10 uB.

[michaelmclees]

Bitcoin is complicated enough as it is.  Why not merely say that on may buy 100 million Satoshis for 100 dollars?  1 dollar = 1 million Satoshis.  Later, 1 dollar = 100,000 Satoshis.  And so one until 1 dollar = 1 Satoshi.