Bitcoin Forum
October 17, 2017, 01:59:24 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: A new Catchy name for 0.0001 BTC?  (Read 6276 times)
Stephen Gornick
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2282



View Profile
May 12, 2013, 04:00:18 PM
 #61

Maybe we should have Bitcoin in base 2 too?

Like this?
 - http://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tonal_Bitcoin

1508248764
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508248764

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508248764
Reply with quote  #2

1508248764
Report to moderator
1508248764
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508248764

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508248764
Reply with quote  #2

1508248764
Report to moderator
1508248764
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508248764

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508248764
Reply with quote  #2

1508248764
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1508248764
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1508248764

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1508248764
Reply with quote  #2

1508248764
Report to moderator
BitshireHashaway
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182



View Profile WWW
May 12, 2013, 09:33:29 PM
 #62

How about...

Bitcoin ?



Using names other than Bitcoin - Andresen, Millibit, Satoshi etc will just confuse people.

Instead, redenominate the Bitcoin as 0.0001 BTC and rename the present Bitcoin a Satoshi.

So you will have

1.0 BTC old Bitcoins  = 1 Satoshi.

0.0001 BTC old Bitcoins = 1 (new) Bitcoin




Yeah, that won't confuse people, I'm sure...  Grin


+1 Grin Definitely won't confuse people right?
saudibull
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 28


- World BitCoin Explorer -


View Profile
May 12, 2013, 10:14:08 PM
 #63

The more BTC is implemented into the real world, I think we will see fraction terms such as these, lets say BTC had a value over 1k$, peopel are going to be trading and buying in fractions, there will be names..

-Rep- https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=200390.msg2119145#msg2119145
rafsoaken
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 166


View Profile
May 13, 2013, 02:42:33 PM
 #64

Cross post from other thread:

I definitely think new names would reduce the chance of confounding denominations, as well as make handling smaller amounts of BTC much simpler.
Additionally those new names should not have the same sound to them, as that also facilitates confusion when two parties negotiate over price or when you send funds.
Third, in this stage of bitcoin, it seems futile to me to try press names into a scheme mirroring the Dollar-Cents relationship, because we have no idea where the valuation of bitcoin will end up in 1, 2, 5 years from now.
It might make more sense to use first names of people that heavily contributed to the bitcoin ecosystem (as in 1 Satoshi), in steps of 1000 as that is the scheme every SI unit generally follows. For all practical purposes the "cent" denominations can be added to the main denomination like so:

My official proposal:
1 Bitcoin, == 100 Bitcoincent (or 1 Bitcent),
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 Gavin (or Gav for short)
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 00 Gavincent (or Gavcent)
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 000 Finney (or Fin for short)
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 000 00 Finneycent (=Fincent, or Satoshi)

Pairs: Bitcoin/Bitcoincent, Gavin/Gavincent, Finney/Finneycents(Satoshis)

Advantage of that scheme is, that whatever the current valuation of bitcoin, you can always use bitcoin in the familiar way you handle the Dollar/cents pair.
So eg use Bitcoin/Bitcents for denominations of Bitcoin < 100$, Gavin/Gavincents for denominations of Bitcoin at 100$ and above, and later at maybe around 10k USD use Finneys/Finneycents(Satoshis).

ScaryHash
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 528


View Profile
May 13, 2013, 03:42:02 PM
 #65

.1 BTC= decibit
.01 BTC = centibit
.001 BTC = miliBit
.0001 BTC = squaredcentibit (.01 * .01).

Simple



R2D221
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658



View Profile
May 13, 2013, 04:06:46 PM
 #66

Cross post from other thread:

I definitely think new names would reduce the chance of confounding denominations, as well as make handling smaller amounts of BTC much simpler.
Additionally those new names should not have the same sound to them, as that also facilitates confusion when two parties negotiate over price or when you send funds.
Third, in this stage of bitcoin, it seems futile to me to try press names into a scheme mirroring the Dollar-Cents relationship, because we have no idea where the valuation of bitcoin will end up in 1, 2, 5 years from now.
It might make more sense to use first names of people that heavily contributed to the bitcoin ecosystem (as in 1 Satoshi), in steps of 1000 as that is the scheme every SI unit generally follows. For all practical purposes the "cent" denominations can be added to the main denomination like so:

My official proposal:
1 Bitcoin, == 100 Bitcoincent (or 1 Bitcent),
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 Gavin (or Gav for short)
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 00 Gavincent (or Gavcent)
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 000 Finney (or Fin for short)
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 000 00 Finneycent (=Fincent, or Satoshi)

Pairs: Bitcoin/Bitcoincent, Gavin/Gavincent, Finney/Finneycents(Satoshis)

Advantage of that scheme is, that whatever the current valuation of bitcoin, you can always use bitcoin in the familiar way you handle the Dollar/cents pair.
So eg use Bitcoin/Bitcents for denominations of Bitcoin < 100$, Gavin/Gavincents for denominations of Bitcoin at 100$ and above, and later at maybe around 10k USD use Finneys/Finneycents(Satoshis).

Why Finney and not Hal? Gavin and Satoshi are first names, but Finney is a last name. I think if we are going to use names, we should use them consistently.

Your system has units with 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 zeros. Why not 2, 4, 6, 8? This would be much simpler and easier to understand.

Finally, you say it's your “official proposal”. What makes this official, compared to the other proposals in this forum?

An economy based on endless growth is unsustainable.
R2D221
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658



View Profile
May 13, 2013, 04:09:16 PM
 #67

.1 BTC= decibit
.01 BTC = centibit
.001 BTC = miliBit
.0001 BTC = squaredcentibit (.01 * .01).

Simple
SI doesn't have name for all positions. Just for 1000^n, and the exceptions of deci/deca and centi/hecto.

An economy based on endless growth is unsustainable.
TimJBenham
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 266


View Profile
May 13, 2013, 04:25:05 PM
 #68

I call 0.0001 BTC a "virtue". The term arose by misunderstanding on reddit.

You are a warlord in the outskirts of the known world struggling to establish a kingdom in the wild lands.
yona
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 93



View Profile
May 13, 2013, 06:02:07 PM
 #69

i like bit or mid for the 0.0001btc
it sounds good and short enough to work prefix like bitcent/midcent or kilobit/kilomid
rafsoaken
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 166


View Profile
May 13, 2013, 07:06:06 PM
 #70

Cross post from other thread:

I definitely think new names would reduce the chance of confounding denominations, as well as make handling smaller amounts of BTC much simpler.
Additionally those new names should not have the same sound to them, as that also facilitates confusion when two parties negotiate over price or when you send funds.
Third, in this stage of bitcoin, it seems futile to me to try press names into a scheme mirroring the Dollar-Cents relationship, because we have no idea where the valuation of bitcoin will end up in 1, 2, 5 years from now.
It might make more sense to use first names of people that heavily contributed to the bitcoin ecosystem (as in 1 Satoshi), in steps of 1000 as that is the scheme every SI unit generally follows. For all practical purposes the "cent" denominations can be added to the main denomination like so:

My official proposal:
1 Bitcoin, == 100 Bitcoincent (or 1 Bitcent),
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 Gavin (or Gav for short)
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 00 Gavincent (or Gavcent)
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 000 Finney (or Fin for short)
1 Bitcoin, == 1000 000 00 Finneycent (=Fincent, or Satoshi)

Pairs: Bitcoin/Bitcoincent, Gavin/Gavincent, Finney/Finneycents(Satoshis)

Advantage of that scheme is, that whatever the current valuation of bitcoin, you can always use bitcoin in the familiar way you handle the Dollar/cents pair.
So eg use Bitcoin/Bitcents for denominations of Bitcoin < 100$, Gavin/Gavincents for denominations of Bitcoin at 100$ and above, and later at maybe around 10k USD use Finneys/Finneycents(Satoshis).

Why Finney and not Hal? Gavin and Satoshi are first names, but Finney is a last name. I think if we are going to use names, we should use them consistently.

Your system has units with 2, 3, 5, 6, and 8 zeros. Why not 2, 4, 6, 8? This would be much simpler and easier to understand.

Finally, you say it's your “official proposal”. What makes this official, compared to the other proposals in this forum?

1) I went with Finney because I like the two syllable sound of it. Consistently using first names would be nicer, I agree with you there. We cound make that a Hal

2) The denominations come naturally when you descend down in steps of 10^3, name the units and add a cent denomination. Ie:
1 Bitcoin
1 Gavin (1/1000 Bitcoin)
1 Finney (1/1000 Gavin) (or a Hal)

Very clear and distinct for my feeling. Now to add some ease in handling these units, you add cents to each of them:

1 Bitcent (1/100 Bitcoin)
1 Gavincent (1/100 Gavin),
1 Finneycent (1/100 Finney), or also called Satoshi

That would make it nicely fit our familiarity with fiat denominations at whatever bitcoins trading range is atm.

3) Official means "my official" proposal, for what it's worth Smiley








BitBank
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 74



View Profile
May 13, 2013, 08:11:33 PM
 #71

Naming denominations after people is the most asinine idea I've ever heard.  It's almost like you guys WANT bitcoin to bask in obscurity.
rafsoaken
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 166


View Profile
May 13, 2013, 08:21:23 PM
 #72

Naming denominations after people is the most asinine idea I've ever heard.  It's almost like you guys WANT bitcoin to bask in obscurity.

So calling it 10 Nanobitcoins instead of 1 Satoshi is a better idea?

WilderedB
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 93


View Profile
May 13, 2013, 08:25:24 PM
 #73

I agree with bitbank.

Using names is plain silly. We need something that the public can understand and feel comfortable using, not some World of Warcraft style.... guild or something.

For my own suggestion:

Centibit

Millibit

Microbit

Nanobit

Satoshi - only acceptable as it's already in use and being the smallest it's easy to remember.



Sez you?


BTCLuke
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 524


My other Avatar is also Scrooge McDuck


View Profile WWW
May 13, 2013, 08:40:43 PM
 #74

I believe a name will eventually appear out of the blue and just click. We shouldn't be looking for one. I bet there wasn't any meeting to decide the name for nickels or dimes.
Thank you...

These things just stick out of popular usage, which never, ever can be dictated.

So far I've seen the following trends stick out in popular usage:

0.1 = one bitdime
0.05 = one bitnickle
0.01 = one bitcent (or bitpenny)
0.0001 = one millibitcoin
0.00000001 = one satoshi

Excepting for the last two (Which were introduced by the head coders) these have something important in common that all languages have in common:

An existing, familiar concept. (Pennies look like 0.01 to the layman)

What does 0.000001 look like to the layman? That's what's going to catch on.

Luke Parker
Journalist, BraveNewCoin
Inedible
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686


What doesn't kill you only makes you sicker!


View Profile
May 13, 2013, 08:48:56 PM
 #75

I think too many people are coming from an Anglo-centric viewpoint.

To me, those suggesting anything but SI units might as well be advocating Imperial units.

If this post was useful, interesting or entertaining, then you've misunderstood. 1N6rmaDiPf8ke3mx8217NykAMDZXkX713x
Blueberry408
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 99


One American Sumbitch Which Love 8


View Profile
May 14, 2013, 03:14:58 AM
 #76

Ok we call it a litecoin.

Feel free to send along any spare floating point remainders: 1CVTqVbqHTw35xGKfp4vmxggKdkMVwswtr
Walter Rothbard
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476


Bytecoin: 8VofSsbQvTd8YwAcxiCcxrqZ9MnGPjaAQm


View Profile WWW
May 14, 2013, 05:12:41 AM
 #77

I privately call it a "bitmilray."

Ekaros
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728



View Profile
May 14, 2013, 11:10:56 AM
 #78

hemicro coin Grin

Hehto-micro bitcoin for 0.000 100
deka-micro bitcoin or demicro for 0.000 010

Also for:
hehto-milli bitcoin 0.100 hemill
deka-milli bitcoin 0.010 demill

And then:
hehto-nano 0.000 000 100 hena
deka-nano  0.000 000 010 dena

12pA5nZB5AoXZaaEeoxh5bNqUGXwUUp3Uv
http://firstbits.com/1qdiz
Feel free to help poor student!
marhjan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 215


Poorer than I ought to be


View Profile
May 14, 2013, 04:50:27 PM
 #79


0.0001 BTC

Lets call it 10,000 Satoshis


that's exactly what it is 10,000sat or 10ksat

Donations happily accepted @ 15qxNsc7pBiz5kXpAJykw4etzMbZitm2mk
omgitsmehehe
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 129


View Profile
May 14, 2013, 05:09:26 PM
 #80

titbit
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!