Start Using mBTC as Standard Denomination?

[leopard2]

m is not the solution, because a mBTC can only be split in 100 000 units. How would you define dust?

It does not solve the problem, this is a ridiculous idea. What is needed is a 1:100 split so that everyone owns 100x more BTC. The granularity would remain as-is, 1/100 000 000 and the new BTC would be around 4,50$ which makes it a lot easier to use.

In the coming years further splits could ensure that BTC keeps a reasonable ratio to USD, as well as maintaining a sufficient supply of BTC for everyone to utilize for payments - while preserving the value of existing wallets.

Splits make stocks optically cheaper which is good to attract new buyers, same here

If this is NOT done, it will promote the migration of value into altcoins that are less "fractional"

[1715104238]

1715104238

[1715104238]

1715104238

[1715104238]

1715104238

[bitcoinforhelp]

mBTC will be popular in future, in year or two... now price is too small to this be that important

[grifferz]

mBTC will be popular in future, in year or two... now price is too small to this be that important

One mBTC is currently worth about 46 cents. That doesn't sound unreasonable.

[paulsonnumismatics]

mBTC will be popular in future, in year or two... now price is too small to this be that important

One mBTC is currently worth about 46 cents. That doesn't sound unreasonable.

My vote is for Satoshis. In fact, previous to ask myself this kind of stuff, i was speaking in satoshis all the way while evangelizing friends :-) And yes, i do believe as well that eventually a satoshi can reach a tenth or a hundredth of us dollar cent. In the new multi-quantified internet, the 100ths of a cent will be counted. Bonus for logging, for spending time on a web, for word written... Dunno how to say it, i simply envision this too clearly.

[101111]

Are there any good reasons we can't just use Satoshi's for smaller? mbits are ok ish but only a bandaid solution; some of the suggested alternative nomenclatures are just confusing.

In general people are used to thinking in higher (123,456) rather than lower (BTC0.000123456) orders of magnitude; and people actually like to talk higher orders "I just tipped ten k" vs "I just tipped point zero zero zero zero zero one" (and yes lower order is very prone to mistake). In addition, the Bitcoin system is already programmed in satoshi's so it would just require in some cases different display formatting.

[grifferz]

Are there any good reasons we can't just use Satoshi's for smaller?

There was a serious suggestion on the development mailing list for wallet developers to standardise on microbitcoins (uBTC, 0.000001, 100 satoshi each) on the basis that if we go to milli- now we will only have to go to micro- later anyway, and it would be better to only have one transition:

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/bitcoin-development/thread/52853D8A.6010501%40monetize.io/#msg31639713

Also that unless the number of digits were increased in the protocol, displaying in uBTC would mean a maximum of two decimal places, which some people find easier to comprehend.

However it seems that the latest round of releases for various wallets chose to standardise on mBTC by default, and uBTC proponents were not heeded.

[sgk]

I voted for yes, when the BTC prices go higher than $1000, for obvious reason of pricing things in less awkward way; for example pricing a sandwich for 1 mBTC instead of 0.001 BTC.
Until then I'm good with BTC. And frankly, I really like the way it sounds : 1 BTC = 850 $ !!!  Makes the dollar look so puny

[101111]

Are there any good reasons we can't just use Satoshi's for smaller?

There was a serious suggestion on the development mailing list for wallet developers to standardise on microbitcoins (uBTC, 0.000001, 100 satoshi each) on the basis that if we go to milli- now we will only have to go to micro- later anyway, and it would be better to only have one transition:

http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/bitcoin-development/thread/52853D8A.6010501%40monetize.io/#msg31639713

Also that unless the number of digits were increased in the protocol, displaying in uBTC would mean a maximum of two decimal places, which some people find easier to comprehend.

However it seems that the latest round of releases for various wallets chose to standardise on mBTC by default, and uBTC proponents were not heeded.

Thanks for your reply.  Agree microbits is an improvement, but I think we need a change equivalent to going from using ip addresses to domain names if we want to see bitcoin used where it can most benefit people. The unix gurus/CS guys etc seem comfortable with the status quo but they really need to put on the 'common man's hat' and think again; people like to and can think in big numbers, not microscopically small ones.

I voted for yes, when the BTC prices go higher than $1000, for obvious reason of pricing things in less awkward way; for example pricing a sandwich for 1 mBTC instead of 0.001 BTC.
Until then I'm good with BTC. And frankly, I really like the way it sounds : 1 BTC = 850 $ !!!  Makes the dollar look so puny

Yes BTC1 = $850 sounds good, but how does having 100 million sound? 

[grifferz]

people like to and can think in big numbers, not microscopically small ones.

If we take the example of a purchase of a $3 cup of coffee with today's prices, then it would look like either:

• BTC0.00660778 or;
• mBTC6.60778 or;
• uBTC6,607.78

Out of those, the microbitcoin one does look quite appealing due to the limit of two decimal places. The mobile wallet could of course help the millibitcoin situation by emphasising the significant digits and showing USD equivalent, e.g.:

mBTC6.60778
(about $3.00)

If we imagine a world where bitcoin is worth 10 times as much (more likely if bitcoin is much more widespread?) then it's more like:

• BTC0.00066078 or;
• mBTC0.66078 or;
• uBTC660.78

mBTC0.66078
(about $3.00)

I'm still really liking the microbitcoin approach here. 660.78 reads fairly easily compared to 0.66078, even with user interface assistance.

So anyway, I do agree with you but I do think standardisation amongst wallet developers will come; when it does I would probably prefer microbitcoins depending on what the typical exchange rate is.

[btcpay86]

so, if the uBTC as a unit,  1 Satoshi = 0.01 uBTC, I think it is fit for financially. so, we suggest Bitcoin may change its unit to uBTC.

[LMGTFY]

so, if the uBTC as a unit,  1 Satoshi = 0.01 uBTC, I think it is fit for financially. so, we suggest Bitcoin may change its unit to uBTC.

Bitcoin's unit is already the µBTC. µBTC and mBTC are both subdivisions of BTC. They are available as options in the Bitcoin-QT client.

Changing to µBTC simply requires you to decide to make the change.

[Zosergag]

and what will change if we start using mBTC as the standard denomination?

[grifferz]

and what will change if we start using mBTC as the standard denomination?

Nothing; it's a wallet / software / usability issue.

Don't underestimate the effect that user interface design can have though.

[Bitcoin Magazine]

people like to and can think in big numbers, not microscopically small ones.

If we take the example of a purchase of a $3 cup of coffee with today's prices, then it would look like either:

• BTC0.00660778 or;
• mBTC6.60778 or;
• uBTC6,607.78

Out of those, the microbitcoin one does look quite appealing due to the limit of two decimal places. The mobile wallet could of course help the millibitcoin situation by emphasising the significant digits and showing USD equivalent, e.g.:

mBTC6.60778
(about $3.00)

If we imagine a world where bitcoin is worth 10 times as much (more likely if bitcoin is much more widespread?) then it's more like:

• BTC0.00066078 or;
• mBTC0.66078 or;
• uBTC660.78

mBTC0.66078
(about $3.00)

I'm still really liking the microbitcoin approach here. 660.78 reads fairly easily compared to 0.66078, even with user interface assistance.

So anyway, I do agree with you but I do think standardisation amongst wallet developers will come; when it does I would probably prefer microbitcoins depending on what the typical exchange rate is.

i look at those numbers and shudder at the thought of spending even 0.0006 for a "cup of cofffee"

coffee is worth only 0.0000005 BTC look it up

[jetspot]

perhaps start assigning (colloquially at least) the word BitDollar, or something else.

Bit Currency has a more universal sound to it, therefore, would be more universally accepted. The title of something gives the first impression, and we all know the power of first impressions.

[101111]

coffee is worth only 0.0000005 BTC look it up

yes, that's a big part of the problem, people get lost amongst the zeroes. The average joe 6pak would rather not save a few % than have to struggle with this.

[zolace]

yeah I gotta start learning this too, is kinda confusing at time, cause I got so used to just using btc and decimals

[jorgecam]

who knows' for that to happen ... but it's very possible that we achieve

[oskuro]

1 mBTC = 0.001 BTC right???

For example...

239,26 mBTC = 0.23926 BTC ??

[101111]

1 mBTC = 0.001 BTC right???

For example...

239,26 mBTC = 0.23926 BTC ??

Yes that's correct.