Start Using mBTC as Standard Denomination?

[davidkassa]

LSD is worth 30,000$ per gram, doesn't stop people from "investing" into it even though they are buying 0.00005 of a gram for 20 bucks. Are drug users more enlightened than the average Bitcoin user?

They don't measure them in grams, but in "hits" (according to random internet searches), which is exactly the point being made here.

[1715107130]

1715107130

[jackjack]

LSD is worth 30,000$ per gram, doesn't stop people from "investing" into it even though they are buying 0.00005 of a gram for 20 bucks. Are drug users more enlightened than the average Bitcoin user?

They don't measure them in grams, but in "hits" (according to random internet searches), which is exactly the point being made here.

[mgio]

XBT to mean uBTC (or was it mBTC) is the worst idea ever. There is nothing useful in the name that is going to help you remember what portion of a bitcoin it is.

I think we should use mBTC for 1/1000 of a BTC. and it can be abbreviated in speech as "millcoin".

Transition should occur sometime after 1 BTC = $1000.

[giszmo]

wtf? Should we switch to $ct.? I mean people do if it applies and use $1M if it applies. Same with bitcoin. Please stop making problems where there are no problems.

(I met several people that did not understand that bitcoins are divisible and that is a problem. not the use of BTC or mBTC. Explain it well and assume people will miss the divisibility point.)

[bpd]

The whole unit change seems so disruptive and difficult to coordinate now -- do we really want to have to deal with another one later when there are way more people to try to coordinate? I really think we should look to the endgame and figure out where we want to be.

I'd propose moving to uB (micro-bitcoin = 1e-6) as the standard unit now and forever. For now, it can be referred to as uB or uBTC, but over time, once it's ubiquitous, it should just be called a bitcoin. Because the smallest unit is the satoshi (1e-8), this means uB-denominated prices would get 2 decimal places maximum, which is the most that any consumer wants to deal with anyway.

At the same time, I'd propose inverting the exchange rate, so instead of quoting uB/USD = .00013, it would be quoted as USD/uB = 7692. This is exactly the same way Yen are quoted relative to USD (USDJPY = 100.66), and is also the same way other private virtual currencies such as WoW gold are quoted.

[CLains]

For now the change to mBTC is easy.

1mBTC is around 0.14$ which works for 10x and 100x increase in value.

If we see 100x increase in price it'd be around 100-200 billion $ worth of coins in circulation (that's like  Russia or India). Satoshi? That's up to the gods.

[fiaskow]

The whole unit change seems so disruptive and difficult to coordinate now -- do we really want to have to deal with another one later when there are way more people to try to coordinate? I really think we should look to the endgame and figure out where we want to be.

I'd propose moving to uB (micro-bitcoin = 1e-6) as the standard unit now and forever. For now, it can be referred to as uB or uBTC, but over time, once it's ubiquitous, it should just be called a bitcoin. Because the smallest unit is the satoshi (1e-8), this means uB-denominated prices would get 2 decimal places maximum, which is the most that any consumer wants to deal with anyway.

At the same time, I'd propose inverting the exchange rate, so instead of quoting uB/USD = .00013, it would be quoted as USD/uB = 7692. This is exactly the same way Yen are quoted relative to USD (USDJPY = 100.66), and is also the same way other private virtual currencies such as WoW gold are quoted.

Amen. Think about the end game now, otherwise we'll have the same problem 5 years from now with mBTC. Besides, when bitcoin started out, the exchange rate was BTC10,000 / 2 pizzas. We can live with it for a while.

[intense]

The focus should be on making it user friendly and starting with the top end of the currency as the standard unit (bitcoin) and moving down the scale just isn't user friendly.

Setting the standard with 2 decimal places would be inline with most western based currencys which works great. Or if we could go with the smallest unit of currency as the standard which is similar to the yen.

I'd be in favor of microbit (uBTC / 1e-6) for these reasons:

• Solves having to re-denominate the currency again in the future.
• Only two decimal places which is inline with the western currency system making adoption easier.
• Easier to pronounce. "You can buy seventy seven thousand eight hundred and fifty one microbits (77,851 uBTC) for ten dollars" is easier to pronounce than "You can buy zero point zero seven seven eight five one bitcoins (0.077851) for $10"
• The psychological barrier of entry is much lower because you're getting tens of thousands of something instead of one of something or even a fraction of something.
• uBTC is already compatible with every finance based database in existance.
• People will get confused between microbits and millibits as they're both visually and audibly similar.

[ManBearPig]

No.

We want mass adoption and adding a "milli" to the name just at a time when most people identify Bitcoin as, "That crazy internet bubble the geeks got stung by" is not going to help its image in my opinion.

Just call an mBTC something ELSE, a bit less geeky.

[N12]

No.

We want mass adoption and adding a "milli" to the name just at a time when most people identify Bitcoin as, "That crazy internet bubble the geeks got stung by" is not going to help its image in my opinion.

Just call an mBTC something ELSE, a bit less geeky.

Apart from the US, the rest of the world is absolutely familiar in their daily lives with metric units like kilometers, milligrams, milliliters, millimeters, cents.

It's not geeky at all and entirely natural to use millibitcoins, millibits or whatever. I suppose you are from the US?

Look at all those geeks using those weird units.

[jackjack]

No.

We want mass adoption and adding a "milli" to the name just at a time when most people identify Bitcoin as, "That crazy internet bubble the geeks got stung by" is not going to help its image in my opinion.

Just call an mBTC something ELSE, a bit less geeky.

Apart from the US, the rest of the world is absolutely familiar in their daily lives with metric units like kilometers, milligrams, milliliters, millimeters, cents.

It's not geeky at all and entirely natural to use millibitcoins, millibits or whatever. I suppose you are from the US?

Look at all those geeks using those weird units.

GB in green? Hmmm...

[Razick]

No.

We want mass adoption and adding a "milli" to the name just at a time when most people identify Bitcoin as, "That crazy internet bubble the geeks got stung by" is not going to help its image in my opinion.

Just call an mBTC something ELSE, a bit less geeky.

Apart from the US, the rest of the world is absolutely familiar in their daily lives with metric units like kilometers, milligrams, milliliters, millimeters, cents.

It's not geeky at all and entirely natural to use millibitcoins, millibits or whatever. I suppose you are from the US?

Look at all those geeks using those weird units.

GB in green? Hmmm...

I'm not sure this is accurate, I watch Top Gear and they use MPH. Last I heard, Great Britain uses Standard or a mixture.

[N12]

Does this detail matter in the large picture?

Fact is, Bitcoin is supposed to be an international currency, and we have nearly the whole world population using the metric system.

Cyprus, China, Argentina, all the countries Bitcoiners are so hyped about use the metric system.

USA and UK will have to adapt, not the other way around.

[jackjack]

Does this detail matter in the large picture?

Fact is, Bitcoin is supposed to be an international currency, and we have nearly the whole world population using the metric system.

Cyprus, China, Argentina, all the countries Bitcoiners are so hyped about use the metric system.

No, not at all, that just caught my eye

USA and UK will have to adapt, not the other way around.

Wow, that should not be easy when you are used to make the entire world following you

As for celsius, do we really need a whole new system just to make it easier to remember the temperatures at which water boils and freezes? Really? 32, 212, that simple!

Are you suggesting to replace the international standard Kelvin by your degree Fahrenheit?

[Razick]

Does this detail matter in the large picture?

Fact is, Bitcoin is supposed to be an international currency, and we have nearly the whole world population using the metric system.

Cyprus, China, Argentina, all the countries Bitcoiners are so hyped about use the metric system.

USA and UK will have to adapt, not the other way around.

I completely agree that we should use metric prefixes for BTC. I don't like metric MEASUREMENTS, but it works for Bitcoin. Hell, even the US Dollar uses them.

Does this detail matter in the large picture?

Fact is, Bitcoin is supposed to be an international currency, and we have nearly the whole world population using the metric system.

Cyprus, China, Argentina, all the countries Bitcoiners are so hyped about use the metric system.

No, not at all, that just caught my eye

USA and UK will have to adapt, not the other way around.

Wow, that should not be easy when you are used to make the entire world following you

As for celsius, do we really need a whole new system just to make it easier to remember the temperatures at which water boils and freezes? Really? 32, 212, that simple!

Are you suggesting to replace the international standard Kelvin by your degree Fahrenheit?

No, but I am suggesting that the US  should continue to use Fahrenheit; there's no reason to switch.

This whole discussion is getting really off track, I brought it up sort of tounge in cheek (although my arguments are mostly real). Please, back to Bitcoin!

[BlueNote]

The base unit should just be the "bit" (the 4th decimal place). Smaller than that you have Satoshis.

This divides the range in half, and you never have to use a number larger than 9,999. A bitcoin is 10,000 bits; a bit is 10,000 Satoshis.

The names are very easy to remember, and "bit" fits Bitcoin perfectly as its base unit.

Metric prefixes are cumbersome and unnecessary.

[Razick]

The base unit should just be the "bit" (the 4th decimal place). Smaller than that you have Satoshis.

This divides the range in half, and you never have to use a number larger than 9,999. A bitcoin is 10,000 bits; a bit is 10,000 Satoshis.

The names are very easy to remember, and "bit" fits Bitcoin perfectly as its base unit.

Metric prefixes are cumbersome and unnecessary.

I think metric prefixes are a better fit for Bitcoin. Otherwise we have to argue over arbitrary names. Slang will develop over time, but the official names should remain SI

What about using words like "dime" or "penny"?

Too ambiguous given they are already used by USD.

[btcusr]

XBT, please.

I don't think this would scare new users. I hope this would benefit entire bitcoin ecosystem. Besides, these symbols (BTC, mBTC and XBT) can co-exist peacefully.

Here is a petition from change.org,

www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/six-interbank-clearing-include-a-symbol-for-bitcoin-in-iso-4217

Thanks.

[BitBank]

Our startup will be calling the mBTC a "bit", and using the symbol below.

Let the market decide.  Would your mother rather own a "mBTC" or a "Bit"?  a mBTC is a just a group of letters to a layman.  A Bit is something that gives life to the unit.  If bitcoins were called oTDC's, or "OogleToadcoins, how interested would a layman be in owning them, as opposed to branding them "bitcoins"?  Because to a layman, you might as well call a MilliBitcoin an OogleToadcoin. Sometimes I think we live with tunnel vision in bitcoin land, in ignoring the larger picture.  So unless our goal is to remain an exclusive club and disregard laymen, I think "bit" is the logical choice.



Also, there is a perfect unicode symbol that already exists (U+0180) ƀ

[btcusr]

Our startup will be calling the mBTC a "bit", and using the symbol below.
...
Also, there is a perfect unicode symbol that already exists (U+0180) ƀ

'Bits' would be best suited for colloquial / everyday usage, like bucks, grands.

Whether this 'bits' would be milli / micro BTC depends on the exchange rate.

Now it is perfectly fine to use 'bits' for 1 milli BTC, but you wouldn't be calling it 'bits', when 1 milli BTC costs around $100.

Still, we need a ISO standard currency code, XBT.

Again, all these currency codes (BTC, mBTC, uBTC, Bits, XBT) can coexist peacefully.