cointon
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 10
Merit: 0
|
 |
May 11, 2013, 03:42:02 PM |
|
Why does everyone want to think in fractions of btc and introduce: centibit, milibit, microbit, satoshi, etc. into common usage?
The entire problem can be simply solved by naming a satoshi a 'bit', and using bit as the most common unit of denomination.
Everything in bit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Bitcoin: mining our own business since 2009" -- Pieter Wuille
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
johnyj
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1988
Merit: 1012
Beyond Imagination
|
 |
May 11, 2013, 03:43:18 PM |
|
1 bitcoin = 100 bitcarat
1 bitcarat = 100 bitgrain
1 bitgrain = 100 bitnano
1 bitnano = 100 satoshi
|
|
|
|
|
melvster (OP)
|
|
May 11, 2013, 04:42:38 PM |
|
1 bitcoin = 100 bitcarat
1 bitcarat = 100 bitgrain
1 bitgrain = 100 bitnano
1 bitnano = 100 satoshi
I think you mean 1 bitcoin = 100 bitcent 1 bitcent = 100 bitgrain 1 bitgrain = 100 microbit 1 microbit = 100 satoshi |
|
|
|
|
|
uMMcQxCWELNzkt
|
|
May 11, 2013, 05:11:41 PM |
|
One thing I hope we can agree on is that our native currencies are not incorporated into the Bitcoin terminology. I already dislike the fact Bitcoins has thosenvertical bars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
R2D221
|
|
May 11, 2013, 06:27:07 PM |
|
But back in the Victorian days, there was 12 pence in one shilling, and 20 shillings in one pound. That means one penny was £0.00416... and not £0.01.
Also, “tupence” is just “two pence”, and “fiver” and “tenner” are just 5er and 10er. If we follow this logic, then the most suitable names would be millies and mickeys, since they come from the suffix (milli- and micro-).
That the Victorians were happy with unusual names and units isn't what I'd call a great reason to continue in their ways. I actually agree with you. I think we should stop this naming discussion and just use SI prefixes. |
An economy based on endless growth is unsustainable.
|
|
|
BitBank
Member
Offline
Activity: 74
Merit: 10
|
|
May 11, 2013, 11:32:06 PM |
|
0.001 BTC = 1 bit
1000 bit = 1 BTC
0.01 BTC = bcent
I'm pretty sure that 0.001 BTC will be eventually be called 1 bit. |
|
|
|
|
BitBank
Member
Offline
Activity: 74
Merit: 10
|
|
May 11, 2013, 11:32:58 PM |
|
Love the references to Austrians, however you need to realize that 99.999% of people who use bitcoins have no idea who Carl Menger is. |
|
|
|
|
Stephen Gornick
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2506
Merit: 1010
|
|
May 12, 2013, 01:45:54 AM
Last edit: May 12, 2013, 04:53:53 AM by Stephen Gornick |
|
Anyway, I'd say 0.0001 BTC is called "a hundred microBit" or "point one milliBit".
In writing: 0.1 mBTC or 100 uBTC
I agree with this. Keep it simple. Agreed here as well. Just like we didn't automatically switch to using mBTC once a bitcoin passed parity with the dollar, there won't be any urgent need to jump to uBTC once prices below a single mBTC are more common. |
|
|
|
BlueNote
Member
Offline
Activity: 75
Merit: 10
|
|
May 12, 2013, 02:32:38 AM |
|
Bitcoin/bit/Satoshi
I've been pushing that we call the midpoint at .0001 simply a bit. The symbol is BIT. Fits perfectly with BITcoin. Gets us away from bulky metric prefixes. It also cleanly divides the 8 decimal places in two. We can describe the whole range with these three terms. These terms are cool, snappy, logical, marketable.
A bit right now is only $.0115. Imagine that we adopt this unit and the exchanges display this price. What's to stop people from buying thousands of bits? Looks like the sale of the century compared to $115 per BTC, which is a strong psychological turnoff. It'll look like a penny stock.
It would almost be like re-issuing the currency with clever marketing and a low price. It's a fresh start to begin the next phase of adoption.
I think that mBTC and suchlike are just awful. We have no coinage, so we don't need to use names like this. All we need to do is describe a range of this number. A bitcoin is a number. With three non-mathematical names that are easy to remember we can forever describe any amount.
You have one rule of thumb for conversion: 10,000.
A Bitcoin is 10,000 bits.
A bit is 10,000 Satoshis.
Simple. Elegant. No mouthful of metric jumbles and eyesores. No list of 8 geeky multi-syllabic names.
What else should the acting base unit of Bitcoin be called other than a bit?
Got bits?
|
1HQbvGAEKKSrwCHv9RZNHoQPGmtLQmiu85
|
|
|
BitBank
Member
Offline
Activity: 74
Merit: 10
|
|
May 12, 2013, 02:37:10 AM |
|
It also cleanly divides the 8 decimal places in two.
actually, Gavin is almost cutting the number of decimal places in half with the newest release of the official client. I believe 0.00053 is now going to be the lowest possible amount that can be sent. If a bit is classified as a mBTC (0.001) that would work perfectly. |
|
|
|
|
BlueNote
Member
Offline
Activity: 75
Merit: 10
|
|
May 12, 2013, 02:46:33 AM |
|
The entire problem can be simply solved by naming a satoshi a 'bit', and using bit as the most common unit of denomination.
Everything in bit.
Bit is a perfect name, but it has to be at the midpoint of .0001 and then we keep Satoshi for the smallest units. Otherwise the numbers will be too large to manage. Calling the midpoint a bit means that our numbers will not exceed 10,000. If you have 10,000 Satoshi's, you have 1 bit. If you have 10,000 bits, you have 1 BTC. These numbers and names are eminently manageable, and their presentation is very clean and elegant. |
1HQbvGAEKKSrwCHv9RZNHoQPGmtLQmiu85
|
|
|
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 5194
Merit: 12977
|
|
May 12, 2013, 02:51:16 AM |
|
A Bitcoin is 10,000 bits.
A bit is 10,000 Satoshis.
Simple. Elegant. No mouthful of metric jumbles and eyesores. No list of 8 geeky multi-syllabic names.
What else should the acting base unit of Bitcoin be called other than a bit?
I like the idea of having units for 1 BTC, 0.0001 BTC and 1 satoshi rather than using SI units, but "bit" seems too ambiguous. Too much like bit coin. People will say stuff like, "Send me 1 bit coin," which is confusing. |
1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
|
|
|
BlueNote
Member
Offline
Activity: 75
Merit: 10
|
|
May 12, 2013, 02:54:08 AM |
|
It also cleanly divides the 8 decimal places in two.
actually, Gavin is almost cutting the number of decimal places in half with the newest release of the official client. I believe 0.00053 is now going to be the lowest possible amount that can be sent. If a bit is classified as a mBTC (0.001) that would work perfectly. That's a temporary change. Everyone knows that Bitcoin comes with 8 places. We'll have to divide them equally when we assign names to a range. The 4th place is the midpoint, and so the perfect place for the bit. |
1HQbvGAEKKSrwCHv9RZNHoQPGmtLQmiu85
|
|
|
BlueNote
Member
Offline
Activity: 75
Merit: 10
|
|
May 12, 2013, 03:06:12 AM |
|
A Bitcoin is 10,000 bits.
A bit is 10,000 Satoshis.
Simple. Elegant. No mouthful of metric jumbles and eyesores. No list of 8 geeky multi-syllabic names.
What else should the acting base unit of Bitcoin be called other than a bit?
I like the idea of having units for 1 BTC, 0.0001 BTC and 1 satoshi rather than using SI units, but "bit" seems too ambiguous. Too much like bit coin. People will say stuff like, "Send me 1 bit coin," which is confusing. I don't see how it's confusing when the difference is a factor of 10,000. A bit sounds naturally like the sub-unit of Bitcoin. Hell, even if people took to calling them "coins" or "the bit coin" it would still work. You're not going to mistake a tiny unit for a large one in context. Besides, aren't you dying to hear, "That'll be 500 bits, Mac." when you buy a sandwich from a street vendor? |
1HQbvGAEKKSrwCHv9RZNHoQPGmtLQmiu85
|
|
|
BitBank
Member
Offline
Activity: 74
Merit: 10
|
|
May 12, 2013, 04:02:46 AM |
|
Here's my one reservation I have with designating bit as 0.0001 instead of 0.001...
familiarity. people (at least in the United States) aren't used to paying a few thousand units of a currency for small purchases. for instance, lunch at Panera bread would cost about 1,000 bits.
|
|
|
|
|
bitbadger
Member
Offline
Activity: 115
Merit: 10
|
|
May 12, 2013, 09:32:16 AM |
|
Here's my one reservation I have with designating bit as 0.0001 instead of 0.001...
familiarity. people (at least in the United States) aren't used to paying a few thousand units of a currency for small purchases. for instance, lunch at Panera bread would cost about 1,000 bits.
At present it would cost 1000 Bits, but if Bitcoin appreciates in future as people expect, then the price will come down. If and when Bitcoin appreciates by 1000% the lunch bread will cost just 100 Bits. 10,000% appreciation and it will cost 10 Bits. Alternatively the denomination could be set to 1000 BIT = 1 BTC rather than 10,000. That way the item will cost 100 Bit straight away and falling to 10 or 1 Bit after the same value appreciation in the future. That may be a better denomination. You could also have 100 Bitcents in 1 BIT. There could be a problem using 1000 or 10 000 as the multiple. Currencies usually use multiples of 100, so this could be a source of confusion. |
|
|
|
|
|
Inedible
|
|
May 12, 2013, 02:20:16 PM
Last edit: May 12, 2013, 04:30:17 PM by Inedible |
|
Why the fascination to deviate from a working standard?
Do we WANT Bitcoin to have unusual units?
Are we looking for unusual units for vanity reasons?
It'll be a bit like when we ended up with kilobyte/kibibyte, megabyte/mibibyte.
Maybe we should have Bitcoin in base 2 too?
If you deviate from the standard, it's going to make it much harder for everyone to use/integrate.
Edited: megabite/megabyte?
|
If this post was useful, interesting or entertaining, then you've misunderstood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
BitshireHashaway
|
|
May 12, 2013, 09:33:29 PM |
|
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...  +1 Definitely won't confuse people right? |
|
|
|
|
|
