Is there anyone else that finds all the micro BTC terms confusing?

[halfawake]

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this topic - it's either here or the general Bitcoin discussion forum. 

Personally, I find these micro bitcoin terms to be more confusing than useful.  I mean, one of the fundamental features of bitcoin is that it goes out to eight decimal places.  So why even use separate terms for smaller amounts?  I think 0.0006 BTC is much more clear than x mBTC.  Either way, you're working in decimals, so why create multiple units? 

I just think it's much more clear to either say everything is 0.0006 BTC, or alternatively 6 satoshis, than to invent all these other units that one has to keep track of.

[1715103692]

1715103692

[1715103692]

1715103692

[1715103692]

1715103692

[1715103692]

1715103692

[drakahn]

lol, bitcoin invented the metric system

[ThatDGuy]

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this topic - it's either here or the general Bitcoin discussion forum.  

Personally, I find these micro bitcoin terms to be more confusing than useful.  I mean, one of the fundamental features of bitcoin is that it goes out to eight decimal places.  So why even use separate terms for smaller amounts?  I think 0.0006 BTC is much more clear than x mBTC.  Either way, you're working in decimals, so why create multiple units?  

I just think it's much more clear to either say everything is 0.0006 BTC, or alternatively 6 satoshis, than to invent all these other units that one has to keep track of.

While I agree with you, I also think coming up with terms for the lower orders of magnitude could have a dramatic psychological effect in terms of increasing the userbase - especially over the next 2-4 years.  To a brand new user, hearing they would have to spend $118 for a single BTC is slightly intimidating considering it's risk assessment.  They would likely feel differently if they could drop $10 and get what they (initially) perceive as a "few" coins.

This is also considering sentiment from a US perspective, where the term "coins" is used for values <$1.

[lch]

While I agree with you, I also think coming up with terms for the lower orders of magnitude could have a dramatic psychological effect in terms of increasing the userbase - especially over the next 2-4 years.  To a brand new user, hearing they would have to spend $118 for a single BTC is slightly intimidating considering it's risk assessment.  They would likely feel differently if they could drop $10 and get what they (initially) perceive as a "few" coins.

This is also considering sentiment from a US perspective, where the term "coins" is used for values <$1.

Are there any experiments that show the effects of using these terms on people?

[halfawake]

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this topic - it's either here or the general Bitcoin discussion forum.  

Personally, I find these micro bitcoin terms to be more confusing than useful.  I mean, one of the fundamental features of bitcoin is that it goes out to eight decimal places.  So why even use separate terms for smaller amounts?  I think 0.0006 BTC is much more clear than x mBTC.  Either way, you're working in decimals, so why create multiple units?  

I just think it's much more clear to either say everything is 0.0006 BTC, or alternatively 6 satoshis, than to invent all these other units that one has to keep track of.

While I agree with you, I also think coming up with terms for the lower orders of magnitude could have a dramatic psychological effect in terms of increasing the userbase - especially over the next 2-4 years.  To a brand new user, hearing they would have to spend $118 for a single BTC is slightly intimidating considering it's risk assessment.  They would likely feel differently if they could drop $10 and get what they (initially) perceive as a "few" coins.

This is also considering sentiment from a US perspective, where the term "coins" is used for values <$1.

I think you've got a good point here, but with bitcoin being over $100, the psychological barrier is already there.  So unless someone successfully convinces all the exchanges to put the values in mBTC, which I don't think would be a good idea personally, my proposal wouldn't change the psychological effects here.

[solex]

People are adaptable to this type of problem. Consider when the new millennium rolled around and confusing dates like 01/02/03 were commonly seen. So people got used to automatically adding the century in the date when it was normal to leave it out before. Bitcoin amounts will get learned and standardized. I think micro-bitcoin will become a common unit, eventually.

[halfawake]

People are adaptable to this type of problem. Consider when the new millennium rolled around and confusing dates like 01/02/03 were commonly seen. So people got used to automatically adding the century in the date when it was normal to leave it out before. Bitcoin amounts will get learned and standardized. I think micro-bitcoin will become a common unit, eventually.

I don't think those dates are anywhere near as confusing as the microbitcoin terms that bitcoin has, personally.  That's just a four digit year, there's always the option of just displaying the entire century, it wasn't really a big hassle for anyone who wasn't in the software development industry around the late 1990's. 

[drakahn]

Most people probably don't need to adapt, the metric system has been around for a while

[halfawake]

Most people probably don't need to adapt, the metric system has been around for a while

True, I'm one of those Americans who never had to learn the metric system, so I and us fellow Americans are probably more confused than the rest of the world would be.

[niothor]

Most people probably don't need to adapt, the metric system has been around for a while

True, I'm one of those Americans who never had to learn the metric system, so I and us fellow Americans are probably more confused than the rest of the world would be.

When I went with my father to England and visited a friend who owned a few race horses I had a real headacke with 5 furlongs , 7 furlongs , 5 furlong and 16 yards  , 5 furlong and 182 yards.
At that time I wondered why can't they just go with 1000m , 1200m , 1300m.

But I bet a brit would be confused by the metric system as I am by theirs.

[CurbsideProphet]

While I agree with you, I also think coming up with terms for the lower orders of magnitude could have a dramatic psychological effect in terms of increasing the userbase - especially over the next 2-4 years.  To a brand new user, hearing they would have to spend $118 for a single BTC is slightly intimidating considering it's risk assessment.  They would likely feel differently if they could drop $10 and get what they (initially) perceive as a "few" coins.

This is also considering sentiment from a US perspective, where the term "coins" is used for values <$1.

Are there any experiments that show the effects of using these terms on people?

When a stock splits, it's typically a positive move on share price despite the fact that you aren't receiving a higher ownership %.  It's purely psychological but it happens all the time.

[nobbynobbynoob]

Most people probably don't need to adapt, the metric system has been around for a while

True, I'm one of those Americans who never had to learn the metric system, so I and us fellow Americans are probably more confused than the rest of the world would be.

When I went with my father to England and visited a friend who owned a few race horses I had a real headacke with 5 furlongs , 7 furlongs , 5 furlong and 16 yards  , 5 furlong and 182 yards.
At that time I wondered why can't they just go with 1000m , 1200m , 1300m.

But I bet a brit would be confused by the metric system as I am by theirs.

Britain has used and educated peeps in metric since ~ 1975. Horse racing, road signs and cricket are the exception.

I still make fairly frequent use of non-metric stuff mainly for the benefit of [some of] my American friends.

[niothor]

Most people probably don't need to adapt, the metric system has been around for a while

True, I'm one of those Americans who never had to learn the metric system, so I and us fellow Americans are probably more confused than the rest of the world would be.

When I went with my father to England and visited a friend who owned a few race horses I had a real headacke with 5 furlongs , 7 furlongs , 5 furlong and 16 yards  , 5 furlong and 182 yards.
At that time I wondered why can't they just go with 1000m , 1200m , 1300m.

But I bet a brit would be confused by the metric system as I am by theirs.

Britain has used and educated peeps in metric since ~ 1975. Horse racing, road signs and cricket are the exception.

I still make fairly frequent use of non-metric stuff mainly for the benefit of [some of] my American friends.

Hmm , I spent to little time there,  so you might be right but I can clearly remember that the first two houses we checked to buy near the Kempton racecourse had their surface advertised in sq feet.

[BitAddict]

I agree that all the micro BTC terms are confusing for the mayority. But we don't have easy solution.

Also telling I'm going to send you 0,00004356 is really hard and confusing when you're speaking, and is hard to remember.

[Welsh]

I used to struggle with it a lot, until reading a very useful article which I can't remember the url for. I think a lot of people struggle with it, that's why I normally tell people how much it is in original terms.

[Mike Christ]

It does take a lot of getting used to.  We're coming from a currency where one dollar could get you enough sundaes for all your family and friends, and now $5 will only get you one.  In the case of Bitcoin, it's going the exact opposite direction; 1 BTC might've gotten you a sundae (hypothetically), and later,  0.05 BTC would get you one.  As the price for a single BTC rises, the amount of BTC you need to buy just one thing will always go lower, and so it requires getting used to alternative denominations such as mBTC and eventually uBTC, lest we use 0.001 BTC as the normal denomination.  I believe it'll just take time, as 1 mBTC looks better than 0.001 BTC, and requires a lot less 0's.

[bb999]

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this topic - it's either here or the general Bitcoin discussion forum. 

Personally, I find these micro bitcoin terms to be more confusing than useful.  I mean, one of the fundamental features of bitcoin is that it goes out to eight decimal places.  So why even use separate terms for smaller amounts?  I think 0.0006 BTC is much more clear than x mBTC.  Either way, you're working in decimals, so why create multiple units? 

I just think it's much more clear to either say everything is 0.0006 BTC, or alternatively 6 satoshis, than to invent all these other units that one has to keep track of.

This discussion is another example of a non centrally controlled market in action.  If enough participants support one descriptor or another for sub bitcoin units then it will take off, if not it will simply remain .0000 whatever. 

Personally I think simplicity (fewer varieties) is better for widespread adoption but I love the fact that this has become significant enough to merit discussion.

[halfawake]

I used to struggle with it a lot, until reading a very useful article which I can't remember the url for. I think a lot of people struggle with it, that's why I normally tell people how much it is in original terms.

If you ever think of the name of the article, let me know, I'd love to have an article that explains it pretty clearly.

[AliceWonder]

Just don't switch in the same document / shopping cart and there shouldn't be problems.

US uses metric more than other countries give us credit for, only the most ignorant don't know what a mL vs L is.

[Lethn]

Honestly? I ignore it, it's a system made up by people who know nothing about maths, the only time I ever see this system being openly used is on those Bitcoin faucets and so on and I think it's just a way to disguise how much they're giving you. There's nothing difficult about writing or understanding 0.00005 BTC, this is coming from someone who scored an F in Maths.

[halfawake]

Honestly? I ignore it, it's a system made up by people who know nothing about maths, the only time I ever see this system being openly used is on those Bitcoin faucets and so on and I think it's just a way to disguise how much they're giving you. There's nothing difficult about writing or understanding 0.00005 BTC, this is coming from someone who scored an F in Maths.

Good idea.  That's probably the best approach to the micro BTC terms.  You're right, the faucets are the main places I've been seeing it lately, been using them a lot lately, so I have been seeing mBTC the other term a lot.

[AliceWonder]

Honestly? I ignore it, it's a system made up by people who know nothing about maths, the only time I ever see this system being openly used is on those Bitcoin faucets and so on and I think it's just a way to disguise how much they're giving you. There's nothing difficult about writing or understanding 0.00005 BTC, this is coming from someone who scored an F in Maths.

Actually the metric system was designed by people who do know about math.
It's a convention that reduces the amount of 0's you have to write or type (before or after the decimal).

But you don't want to switch. For example, in physics you typically use mks - meter, kilogram, second where in chemistry you typically use cgs - centimeter, gram, second

And you don't switch between them in your paper.
Once you paper uses mks you don't then give values in centimeter because your paper already uses meter.

With bitcoin, exchanges should always use a BTC (just like they always use a dollar)

For other applications, use the unit that results in the least number of needed repeated 0's thus reducing typos.
For me listing stuff for sale that's probably mBTC