Forget mBTC. Use Satoshis.

[Abdussamad]

Hello

Instead of using mBTCs I suggest we start using Satoshis. Here's why:

No decimal point - The chief complaint among ordinary people is that they are confused by the long line of digits after the decimal point. If we use Satoshis alone there will be no confusing decimal points. It'll be all integers.

Lots of precedents - While at first glance it might appear that 100 million Satoshis (1BTC) is a large number that people will struggle with, the reality is quite different. Quite a few countries have currencies where a single unit isn't worth much. Examples are Japan, Indonesia, Turkey, South Korea, India, Pakistan etc. People in these countries have adapted to prices in thousands and millions of currency units. So people will not find using Satoshis problematic.

Easy to articulate - Most languages have names for large denominations like "millions" or "thousands". In India for example people use crore (10 million) and lac (100,000) so 1 BTC would be 10 Crore. Another example in English speaking countries we use the kilo suffix 'k' to mean thousand. Lots of existing words that can be reused. People will not have to learn new terms like "mBTC".

So what do you guys think?

[tutkarz]

If we would use mBTC now then later with BTC increase of value we would have to do it again to uBTC and finally to satoshi. What you are proposing would be one and final denomination which is good because it get rid of problem forever.

[agnostic98]

might still be better to use the larger denomination as the standard since it does sometimes help to have decimals, much like pennies and dimes for dollars.

[tutkarz]

might still be better to use the larger denomination as the standard since it does sometimes help to have decimals, much like pennies and dimes for dollars.

but then you would have to come with new name for 100satoshi

[Abdussamad]

might still be better to use the larger denomination as the standard since it does sometimes help to have decimals, much like pennies and dimes for dollars.

Dollars go to 2 decimal places at most. Bitcoins to 8. People find that a bit too much to grasp.

If we would use mBTC now then later with BTC increase of value we would have to do it again to uBTC and finally to satoshi. What you are proposing would be one and final denomination which is good because it get rid of problem forever.

Yep! Exactly.

[jdbtracker]

That decimal point does something funny to the way the currency works.

There are 8.2 trillion U.S dollars in circulation
500 trillion Japanese yen
50 trillion Chinese Yuan

         $8,200,000,000,000 USD
         ¥500,000,000,000,000 YEN
         ¥50,000,000,000,000 Yuan
         BTC11,500,000.000,000,00


As money gets moved through the system that value moves back and forth over that decimal point.

right now it is sitting at  130 USD per bitcoin.

That's 1.5 billion USD to move, it just goes two places back.


In japan its 13,200 yen,  that's 151.8 trillion yen, three places behind the decimal point.

That limit of 21 million is creating a starting point for scarcity, it is the psychological starting point and to change that consensus now would be very difficult to create; It would make those holding it now super rich, increase liquidity of the coin and hence immediately devalueing it,  people buying in would have problems depending on where they are from.

without that decimal point it becomes difficult to exchange between different currencies or use it meaningfully in economies with a different exchange rate, Consider that at an exchange different exchange rates will make it necessary to have more zeros past the decimal point, to transfer value accurately.

but it does create value due to the way people normally have encountered these currencies, they have never seen one that has so many decimal points, so will use it as normal without seeing the mechanism by which it works. In trying to get into the market, they speak in coins as the established marker of exchange limited because the majority of people are considering to use it that way. You'll have to convince someone to accept 120 dollars for a mBTC, a tough psychological barrier to break when you are in the minority to think that way.

having a total in circulation of 2.1 quadrilion at once, would make the value seem limitless, possibly making it always a 1 to 1 value exchange between it's benchmark the USD, but if that became the exchange medium it makes it hard to transfer directly to yen, you'll have to add one more step to complete the exchange.

The biggest currency, the yen, when entered into that amount can still be subdivided one more space back when all of it's currency is fully absorbed into bitcoin.

I believe the system is designed to effectively manage the differences between the amount of specific currencies in circulation and the value that they have independently of each other without adding or subtracting value due to rounding out a transaction from BTC to fiat.

If the creators had decided to use the yen and just think maybe they will print 4 times more bills in the future.  2.1 quadrillion and add .00 at the end, but what if the american dollar had prevailed? then certain amounts would be nontransferable with accuracy if the exchange rate between yen and dollars became too great.

You create a great upper limit for future money creation but the lower limit would be too shallow to account for extreme money fluctuations think of the zimbabwe dollar, anyone want a trillion dollar bill?

for something to exchange value properly it has to take these examples into account.  and the current limit of 21 million is useful to create fluctuations in the currencies value through perceived scarcity, a sort of pressure valve measuring over all system pressure. if it had been 210 million the pressure to move in value wildly would be lessened.

I can already tell that bitcoin is not suitable for extreme economic movement. if Bitcoin absorbed the whole Japanese currency and you had to exchange 1 yen for Zimbabwe dollars there would be a lower limit as to how much of those dollars you could actually have. right now Bitcoin would handle well a trillion dollar economy with a exchange to a larger currency denomination like the yen and still have extra zeros for accounting purposes, percentages, taxes, exchange...

you got to remember the exchange rates go back to 5 places past the decimal point, adding my suspicion Satoshi only measured the largest currency amounts(yen) vs the USD( 5 decimal places plus 3 extra to compensate for future money printing.) Bitcoin can't handle exchange disparities of larger than 3 decimals.

[BitAddict]

I like using directly satoshi... but in Europe/USA we will have big problems. We don't use that large numbers :/

[Razick]

Hello

Instead of using mBTCs I suggest we start using Satoshis. Here's why:

No decimal point - The chief complaint among ordinary people is that they are confused by the long line of digits after the decimal point. If we use Satoshis alone there will be no confusing decimal points. It'll be all integers.

Lots of precedents - While at first glance it might appear that 100 million Satoshis (1BTC) is a large number that people will struggle with, the reality is quite different. Quite a few countries have currencies where a single unit isn't worth much. Examples are Japan, Indonesia, Turkey, South Korea, India, Pakistan etc. People in these countries have adapted to prices in thousands and millions of currency units. So people will not find using Satoshis problematic.

Easy to pronounce - Most languages have names for large denominations like "millions" or "thousands". In India for example people use crore (10 million) and lac (100,000) so 1 BTC would be 10 Crore. Another example in English speaking countries we use the kilo prefix 'k' to mean thousand. Lots of existing words that can be reused. People will not have to learn new terms like "mBTC".

So what do you guys think?

I disagree for a few reasons:

1. It's bad enough how little a uBTC is worth, why make it worse?
-
2. It's better to have the decimal points for a few reasons, one of them being that it looks more familiar to newcomers.
-
3. In first world nations with (relatively) high value currency, no one wants to spend 2,307,692,308 (2.3 billion) for a loaf of bread.
-
4. Even in third world nations, no one uses billions!
-
5. Why?? What purpose could it serve.
-
6. Do we really want to push the image that Bitcoin is worthless?
-
7. Do we really need 2,100,000,000,000,000 (2.1 quadrillion) units?

[Abdussamad]

I disagree for a few reasons:

1. It's bad enough how little a uBTC is worth, why make it worse?
-
2. It's better to have the decimal points for a few reasons, one of them being that it looks more familiar to newcomers.
-
3. In first world nations with (relatively) high value currency, no one wants to spend 2,307,692,308 (2.3 billion) for a loaf of bread.
-
4. Even in third world nations, no one uses billions!
-
5. Why?? What purpose could it serve.
-
6. Do we really want to push the image that Bitcoin is worthless?
-
7. Do we really need 2,100,000,000,000,000 (2.1 quadrillion) units?

3. A loaf of bread costs BTC 23? That's $3000! No where in the world is bread that expensive.

5. See 6.

6. Actually the problem is that people think bitcoin is too expensive:

• Bitcoins are too expensive. People simply can't work with a $100+ coin. This urgently needs addressing IMHO.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=209048.0

Jesus christ $13 for one bit penny? Fuck that, I can buy a brand new game with $13! That is WAY too expensive for American consumers.

If they want that new currency to actually matter, they better bring down that exchange rate significantly

http://indiegames.com/2013/05/the_new_indie_bundle_with_a_bi.html#comment-903751392

As you can see they just don't get the near endless divisibility of the currency.


7. 2.1 quadrillion units has ALWAYS been the upper limit of Satoshis.

Also, BTW, according to wolfram alpha 2.1 quadrillion is 100 times the number of red blood cells in the human body. I wonder whether Nakamoto thought of that when he designed this limit?

[jackjack]

Hurray for Satoshis!

[Razick]

I disagree for a few reasons:

1. It's bad enough how little a uBTC is worth, why make it worse?
-
2. It's better to have the decimal points for a few reasons, one of them being that it looks more familiar to newcomers.
-
3. In first world nations with (relatively) high value currency, no one wants to spend 2,307,692,308 (2.3 billion) for a loaf of bread.
-
4. Even in third world nations, no one uses billions!
-
5. Why?? What purpose could it serve.
-
6. Do we really want to push the image that Bitcoin is worthless?
-
7. Do we really need 2,100,000,000,000,000 (2.1 quadrillion) units?

3. A loaf of bread costs BTC 23? That's $3000! No where in the world is bread that expensive.

5. See 6.

6. Actually the problem is that people think bitcoin is too expensive:

• Bitcoins are too expensive. People simply can't work with a $100+ coin. This urgently needs addressing IMHO.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=209048.0

Jesus christ $13 for one bit penny? Fuck that, I can buy a brand new game with $13! That is WAY too expensive for American consumers.

If they want that new currency to actually matter, they better bring down that exchange rate significantly

http://indiegames.com/2013/05/the_new_indie_bundle_with_a_bi.html#comment-903751392

As you can see they just don't get the near endless divisibility of the currency.


7. 2.1 quadrillion units has ALWAYS been the upper limit of Satoshis.

Also, BTW, according to wolfram alpha 2.1 quadrillion is 100 times the number of red blood cells in the human body. I wonder whether Nakamoto thought of that when he designed this limit?

3. I wan't really awake yet haha. It would be in the millions though.

6. Which is why I support mBTC or even uBTC. I do not want Satoshi though.

7. Of Satoshis, not the primary denomination of currency though. 2.1 trillion divisible to the hundreths place is enough.

By the way, that means if we use uBTC, we'd have the same as the number of red blood cells in the human body. Maybe Satoshi agrees with me after all.

[Geez]

I have a different idea: We all just use BTC. 

[jackjack]

I have a different idea: We all just use BTC. 

[D.H.]

What I like about this is that if we start talking in terms of "million satoshis" we also have an alternative name for that: bitcent. I have always thought that bitcents (or just cents) would be easier for people to adopt than mBTC/mb/millibit.

[BlueNote]

I recommend just using "bit" (for the midpoint at the 4th decimal place) and Satoshi.

A bitcoin is 10,000 bits, and a bit is 10,000 Satoshis.

So you never have to use numbers larger than 9,999 for the whole decimal range.

[joele]

I prefer BTC and Satoshi.

[Abdussamad]

Looks like Nakamoto himself advocated the use of Satoshis:

Eventually at most only 21 million coins for 6.8 billion people in the world if it really gets huge.

But don't worry, there are another 6 decimal places that aren't shown, for a total of 8 decimal places internally.  It shows 1.00 but internally it's 1.00000000.  If there's massive deflation in the future, the software could show more decimal places.

If it gets tiresome working with small numbers, we could change where the display shows the decimal point.  Same amount of money, just different convention for where the ","'s and "."'s go.  e.g. moving the decimal place 3 places would mean if you had 1.00000 before, now it shows it as 1,000.00.

[mprep]

Guess Satoshis could occupy the position. Some people, however, tend to get mixed up with huge amounts of 0.

[mc_lovin]

I like using all satoshis.. Except for gavin's new dust rule, which makes 5430 satoshi's unspendable by default...

[ktttn]

I show my btc conversion in rubles. It's a tad more exact. Naming conventions will always be hard. The mBTC change is probably going to have an effect on exchange rates as it is, so bringing the idea to its logical conclusion will probably have a more drastic effect.