A proposal: Forget about mBTC and switch directly to Satoshis

[integrity42]

I'll get straight to the point.

We should move straight to Satoshi's instead of bother with mBTC.

Problems with mBTC:
- It's not small enough (1mBTC is already $1.10 in china).  This means that micropayments already need to deal with fractions of mBTC.
- The general public doesn't like to think in fractions. They would like to avoid them if possible.
- As the price rises, we'll have to switch to a lower unit all over again, introducing more confusion for the masses and newbies.
- It's psychologically confusing and ugly for new users. Nobody likes owning a fraction of anything. They'd rather own a multiple of something.
- We might all be mathematically inclined, but the masses are scared of fractions.  mBTC does not solve the fraction and decimal problem.


Advantages of switching straight to Satoshi's:

- No fractions or decimals.

- The units are easier to deal with. 1000=1Ks, 1Million= 1Ms . I can now pay the blog a micropayment of 500 Satoshis instead of 0.005 mBTC.

- Names of satoshi amounts are well known to common people. i.e.  10 million satoshis are "10 Megas" is much nicer then 10 "millibits".   Everyone is already used to calling $1000 a 'K'...  5000 satoshis could therefore be called '5 K'.  (K for kilosatoshi)

- Makes micro-payments much easier to deal with.  mBTC was supposed to get rid of the too-many-decimals problem of using BTC. Now that the price has risen so high, mBTC is sort of pointless.  Blogs who want to offer articles to read for 1/10th of a penny have to charge .005mBTC. It would be better to charge 500 S

- Psychologically, the average person doesn't want to own a fraction of something. They'd rather have 500 S instead of .005 mBTC

- We can make the switch once and be done with it.  Wallet software will have to replace mBTC with uBTC as the price rises.  Switch to satoshi's directly and get is over with.


The price will soon be high enough that we can go straight to satoshi's.  mBTC in my opinion is an exercise in futility and confusion.


EDIT: Please keep this thread ON-TOPIC.  The topic is mBTC vs Satoshis.  Arguments that Satoshi's are too big of a unit don't hold water here.  Please make another topic for that.  We're not debating what will happen in 50 years.  mBTC will be useless in the next year or two.  Satoshi is currently the smallest unit. The dev's won't be dividing satoshis for a long time (if ever). Thank you.

EDIT 2: It is a common misconception that BTC is the base unit. Infact, the base unit in the code are Satoshis.  Satoshi himself admitted that 1BTC was arbitrarily chosen, and that he could change it later if he wanted to.  Satoshis do not break the orders of magnitude. Choosing 1BTC = 100Ms breaks the orders of magnitude.

EDIT 3:
Update:  Bitcoin magazine tends to agree that decimals aren't a good idea.
http://bitcoinmagazine.com/8274/the-psychology-of-decimals/

[1715221000]

1715221000

[1715221000]

1715221000

[MoonShadow]

Sounds good.  What's stopping you now?

[Liquid]

How many Satoshis = $1

[C. Bergmann]

the magic of bitcoin is that we have now 1btc worth more than 200 dollar. thats great.

[BitAddict]

How many Satoshis = $1

500k satoshis are $1 with bitcoin at $200  

[dree12]

A satoshi is an nonsensical unit. People throw around the argument that "a satoshi is the smallest possible division of a bitcoin" without considering how temporary such a designation is. The mill ($0.001) was once the smallest subdivision of many major currencies. Now, its use has become cumbersome and the smallest subdivision has adapted to the cent ($0.01) in many cultures.

A similar fate will happen to the satoshi because it simply isn't granular enough to sustain an economy consisting of 7 billion people. Ignoring potential impacts of fractional reserve, when considering lost bitcoins, there will only ever by 2 quadrillion satoshis to work with. Even with the most equal distribution, at 285714 satoshis per person, this isn't enough for day-to-day use. Most people in the United States, for example, have over $3000.00 of cash savings, which is already more than the 285714 smallest subdivisions. This ignores businesses, which are like people in their own right, and often have even greater cash reserves.

Fact is, Bitcoin was never designed with the satoshi as the smallest subdivision in mind. Initial versions of the client showed only 2 decimal digits, though all 8 were tracked. Satoshi believed that the subdivisions will be changed as time goes on to accommodate usage patterns. Thus, there is no reason to measure prices with 0.00000001 of a bitcoin, since that measurement has only temporal significance. In a decade or so, the last languages to use 58-bit integers (JavaScript primarily) will have gained 64-bit (and likely 128-bit) integers as well. There will then be no encumbrance in subdividing the bitcoin further.

If we believe mBTC to be too large a unit, perhaps we should use nBTC. This will do everything a satoshi does without using an awkward power of 10 not commonly seen in today's society.

This argument itself is weak anyways. Humans are not averse to changing units every few years or every few decades. Allow me to give a common example: computing. Today, disk capacity is measured in TB. Not long ago, this was measured solely in GB, and before that in MB. In the not-so-distant future we will be measuring it in PB. Such rapid unit-switching has failed to even faze the consumer base; indeed, if anything, it has taught the average person something about SI prefixes. Even using different units simultaneously fails to confuse people. My RAM is 16 GB whereas my disk drive is 5 TB. The HD video takes up 5 GB but the MP3 file only 5 MB. And my word document clocks in at merely 10 kB. Am I confused? No, and rightly not.

There is no reason to believe steadily changing units as the conditions recommend will cause confusion. Indeed, this steady replacement of units need not even be mandated by a "Units Commission". Businesses and consumers will simply change units themselves as convenience dictates, and the rest will follow eventually, some earlier and some later. Countries used to worthless base units, such as Iran, may switch to μBTC quicker than Canada would. Fearful of large numbers thanks to historical inflation, Zimbabweans may choose to stick with the mBTC until the bitter end.

And the best part is that nobody will be confused.

[MoonShadow]

A satoshi is an nonsensical unit. People throw around the argument that "a satoshi is the smallest possible division of a bitcoin" without considering how temporary such a designation is. The mill ($0.001) was once the smallest subdivision of many major currencies. Now, its use has become cumbersome and the smallest subdivision has adapted to the cent ($0.01) in many cultures.

A similar fate will happen to the satoshi because it simply isn't granular enough to sustain an economy consisting of 7 billion people. Ignoring potential impacts of fractional reserve, when considering lost bitcoins, there will only ever by 2 quadrillion satoshis to work with. Even with the most equal distribution, at 285714 satoshis per person, this isn't enough for day-to-day use. Most people in the United States, for example, have over $3000.00 of cash savings, which is already more than the 285714 smallest subdivisions. This ignores businesses, which are like people in their own right, and often have even greater cash reserves.

Fact is, Bitcoin was never designed with the satoshi as the smallest subdivision in mind. Initial versions of the client showed only 2 decimal digits, though all 8 were tracked. Satoshi believed that the subdivisions will be changed as time goes on to accommodate usage patterns. Thus, there is no reason to measure prices with 0.00000001 of a bitcoin, since that measurement has only temporal significance. In a decade or so, the last languages to use 58-bit integers (JavaScript primarily) will have gained 64-bit (and likely 128-bit) integers as well. There will then be no encumbrance in subdividing the bitcoin further.

If we believe mBTC to be too large a unit, perhaps we should use nBTC. This will do everything a satoshi does without using an awkward power of 10 not commonly seen in today's society.

Really?  This is your argument?  That the satoshi is too large of a unit to use in daily transactions for 7 billion people?  Roughly 30K people use bitcoins sometimes, and less than 100 use them daily and exclusively.  Do you really think that bitcoins will ever be the exclusive, or even primary, unit of exchange for all the people on this planet?  I doubt it.  Yes, there can be unit divisions less than a satoshi.  So what?  How many decades before we need to even name that unit?

[Shallow]

Too soon to switch.

[dree12]

A satoshi is an nonsensical unit. People throw around the argument that "a satoshi is the smallest possible division of a bitcoin" without considering how temporary such a designation is. The mill ($0.001) was once the smallest subdivision of many major currencies. Now, its use has become cumbersome and the smallest subdivision has adapted to the cent ($0.01) in many cultures.

A similar fate will happen to the satoshi because it simply isn't granular enough to sustain an economy consisting of 7 billion people. Ignoring potential impacts of fractional reserve, when considering lost bitcoins, there will only ever by 2 quadrillion satoshis to work with. Even with the most equal distribution, at 285714 satoshis per person, this isn't enough for day-to-day use. Most people in the United States, for example, have over $3000.00 of cash savings, which is already more than the 285714 smallest subdivisions. This ignores businesses, which are like people in their own right, and often have even greater cash reserves.

Fact is, Bitcoin was never designed with the satoshi as the smallest subdivision in mind. Initial versions of the client showed only 2 decimal digits, though all 8 were tracked. Satoshi believed that the subdivisions will be changed as time goes on to accommodate usage patterns. Thus, there is no reason to measure prices with 0.00000001 of a bitcoin, since that measurement has only temporal significance. In a decade or so, the last languages to use 58-bit integers (JavaScript primarily) will have gained 64-bit (and likely 128-bit) integers as well. There will then be no encumbrance in subdividing the bitcoin further.

If we believe mBTC to be too large a unit, perhaps we should use nBTC. This will do everything a satoshi does without using an awkward power of 10 not commonly seen in today's society.

Really?  This is your argument?  That the satoshi is too large of a unit to use in daily transactions for 7 billion people?  Roughly 30K people use bitcoins sometimes, and less than 100 use them daily and exclusively.  Do you really think that bitcoins will ever be the exclusive, or even primary, unit of exchange for all the people on this planet?  I doubt it.  Yes, there can be unit divisions less than a satoshi.  So what?  How many decades before we need to even name that unit?

The satoshi is around half of the Uzbek tiyin by value. This is the lowest denomination of any government currency (which admittedly is not often used). With only the 30000 people using Bitcoin now, the satoshi is already comparable with lower denominations of government currency. If even a billion people used Bitcoin, it would make transactions in numerous countries difficult.

Also consider the transaction fee. If I were to buy a bottle of water for 10 satoshis, I certainly do not want to pay a 1 satoshi fee (that would be 10%). But there is no option to pay less. Even off-chain transaction processors are likely to charge a 1-satoshi usage fee to avoid DDOS. Once a satoshi rises too much in value, that would become an obscene fee for a microtransaction.

[integrity42]

People throw around the argument that "a satoshi is the smallest possible division of a bitcoin" without considering how temporary such a designation is. The mill ($0.001) was once the smallest subdivision of many major currencies. Now, its use has become cumbersome and the smallest subdivision has adapted to the cent ($0.01) in many cultures.

dree12, Your entire post is off-topic.  This topic is about using Satoshis instead of mBTC.

If you think satoshi's are too big, please create another topic about 'Skip satoshi's and use 0.1 Satoshi's or nB'.

Thank you.

Everyone, please keep this thread ON TOPIC... The debate is mBTC vs Satoshis.  Not whether satoshi's are too big.  Almost everyone will say that Satoshi's wont have to be divided for a very long time.  mBTC will be useless in a year or two.

[Mike Christ]

I got this great idea: let's denominate our BTC in whichever way is most understandable at the time.

I am glad we have resolved this, OP please lock thread.

[integrity42]

No. uBTC would not be the obvious unit of choice. 

The bitcoin economy wants to avoid decimals.

Satoshi would be the obvious unit of choice.

[integrity42]

I got this great idea: let's denominate our BTC in whichever way is most understandable at the time.

I am glad we have resolved this, OP please lock thread.

Satoshi is most understandable.  100Ms is equal to 1 bitcoin.  Much nicer then saying 1000 mBTC is equal to one bitcoin.

People like to have 100 Million of something rather then 1000 of something.  Psychology.

[justusranvier]

Everyone, please keep this thread ON TOPIC...

There's a feature called "self moderated threads" on this forum which might interest you.

[MoonShadow]

Also consider the transaction fee. If I were to buy a bottle of water for 10 satoshis, I certainly do not want to pay a 1 satoshi fee (that would be 10%). But there is no option to pay less. Even off-chain transaction processors are likely to charge a 1-satoshi usage fee to avoid DDOS. Once a satoshi rises too much in value, that would become an obscene fee for a microtransaction.

While this is a fair point, it has zero relation to the OP proposal.

[arsenische]

Originally I thought we should stick to SI prefixes with bitcoin (e. g. satoshi is 10 nBtc).

But it won't be convenient to say "it costs 12 KnBtc", so now I think that if Bitcoin really becomes that expensive, we could use SI prefixes with satoshi.

If we believe mBTC to be too large a unit, perhaps we should use nBTC. This will do everything a satoshi does without using an awkward power of 10 not commonly seen in today's society.

If we use satoshi as a base unit, then the only awkward power of 10 will be used to specify bitcoin. 1 btc = 100M satoshis. Yes, it is a bit awkward, but it is quite understandable and easy to remember. And probably won't be used in everyday life anyway. And it is much better than fractions in everyday life. Fractions are really confusing.

[Littleshop]

How many Satoshis = $1

500k satoshis are $1 with bitcoin at $200  

Which makes Satoshis silly at this point.  Someday maybe but not now.

A mBTC is 20 cents, $1 = 5 mBTC so right now very useful for most transactions I deal with.  I have my daily spender wallet set in mBTC most of the time now.  

[Rupture]

Satoshi's aren't worth enough yet

[exstasie]

I concur...there are way to many zeros that need to be written for 1 satoshi...so complicated!

[Mike Christ]

Satoshi is most understandable.  100Ms is equal to 1 bitcoin.  Much nicer then saying 1000 mBTC is equal to one bitcoin.

People like to have 100 Million of something rather then 1000 of something.  Psychology.

It's the least understandable; 100 pennies making a dollar is understandable, a hundred million satoshis making one bitcoin is overkill when bitcoin isn't worth more than 200$ a pop.  People prefer to have 8 slices of a pizza, not 8 million; the slices would be so incredibly tiny that the pie would turn to mush.  The logic doesn't follow here; when that bitcoin pie is way bigger so 100 million slices made logical sense, then we'll start using satoshis.

[arsenische]

It's the least understandable; 100 pennies making a dollar is understandable, a hundred million satoshis making one bitcoin is overkill when bitcoin isn't worth more than 200$ a pop. 

200$ is just an arbitrary number. BTC was 0.02$, 0.2$, 2$, 20$... there is no reason to think $200 is the limit.

I think mBTC, uBTC, nBTC are much less convenient than Ks, Ms, Gs, Ts.

[npl]

It seems to me the problem is entirely one of nomenclature. After all, as units of account all these values already exist, of course.

So why not name them? The OP has a strong point that:
 

- Psychologically, the average person doesn't want to own a fraction of something. They want to own a multiple of something.  They'd rather have 500 S instead of 0.005mBTC

So let's name them - and then these units will go in an out of use as they become useful (in terms of exchange rate, as the currency matures). At the moment Satoshis have little utility except for the few hardcore users, but in the future it will become more useful.


As mentioned above, subdivisions of 10 are a bad idea since people are not used to them, so subdivisions of a 100 would be employed.

Here are my suggestions:

1 Bitcoin = 100 Laszlos

1 Laszlo = 100 Cryptos

1 Crypto = 100 ?
.
.
.
1 Satoshi = 100 ?

[Mike Christ]

It's the least understandable; 100 pennies making a dollar is understandable, a hundred million satoshis making one bitcoin is overkill when bitcoin isn't worth more than 200$ a pop. 

200$ is just an arbitrary number. BTC was 0.02$, 0.2$, 2$, 20$... there is no reason to think $200 is the limit.

I think mBTC, uBTC, nBTC are much less convenient than Ks, Ms, Gs, Ts.

Sure; I didn't mean to put forth the idea that BTC wouldn't shift in price.  My point is that right now it is, so using denominations like 0.01 BTC still makes good sense.  It's a problem that isn't really looking for a solution; I don't know what I'm going to wear on this day five years in the future, though I'm certain I'll be able to solve this one once the moment arises.  If you like those denominations, you should use them; that's all I'm asserting.  I always see these threads saying "we should use X denomination" and we never shift from what works best at the moment

[Rluner]

For the majority of the users currently using these forums I guess the decimal places are not an issue. I certainly have no issue with it.

However and it's a big however, as I spread the word to my IRL friends I always get asked questions like how many BTC do I mine in a single daily, once I either give them [silly to them] numerous decimal places, or I need to talk about mining over much larger periods, I can see in their faces they have lost interest in bitcoin. First impressions count.

The hard drive increase in capacity illustration above is very true, my IRL friends are now comfortable with ever changing units for HD capacities, and therein I see no issues with changing units as and when required to keep the majority of the population interested.

It's been said earlier but I feel it needs repeating, most people don't like decimals,

One last thought :- Before you can dine with the classes you must first serve the masses.

We need to serve the masses to get bitcoin mainstream.

[laowai80]

I think the common unit of accounting shouldn't be lower than the transaction fee, which is currently 0.0001 BTC, correct? The reason is payments less than the transaction fee aren't practical and are currently mostly done for fun and testing purposes. So, the mBTC is the lowest accounting unit we can go to right now. I am not sure if the transaction fee is variable and can go lower, please feel free to enlighten me on this, I am still a newbie. If the transaction fee can go lower, then we can lower the common accounting unit.

[MargaretsDream]

I personally thinking in terms of mBTC unless I buy product worth more than 1 BTC

[Robin]

I also think in terms of milli/micro/nano...
Satoshis are nice (everybody likes to own multiples instead of fractions) but break the fundamental standard of "three orders of magnitude" between major units.

[Bitcoinpro]

[teknohog]

Satoshis are nice (everybody likes to own multiples instead of fractions) but break the fundamental standard of "three orders of magnitude" between major units.

It's not exactly universal. In Chinese numerals, there is a standard of 4 orders of magnitude. For example, 1 million translates to Chinese as "bai wan", meaning 100 * 10000. I don't know what they use in Japan, but it's not hard to imagine that something similar is used in neighboring countries.

[MoonShadow]

It seems to me the problem is entirely one of nomenclature. After all, as units of account all these values already exist, of course.

So why not name them? The OP has a strong point that:
 

- Psychologically, the average person doesn't want to own a fraction of something. They want to own a multiple of something.  They'd rather have 500 S instead of 0.005mBTC

So let's name them -

They are named.  I, personally, was the person who suggested naming the units after important figures in bitcoin's history, and I suggested that the most important figures would have the lowest denominations.  I did this after how the US FRN has the pictures of the early presidents in order of those who are considered the "greatest" presidents, starting with Washington on the $1 bill and Jefferson on the $2 bill.  I suggested that the smallest current unit be called a satoshi, and (IIRC) someone else suggested that 1000 satoshis be called a gavin.  That pattern continued up the list of core programmers at the time, but no consensus about the names of other units (other than a satoshi) ever developed.  I'm pretty sure that thread died without resolution.  If you really want to reopen this debate, return to that thread and awaken it, please.

[devthedev]

I think the use of satoshi is misleading, it's like instead of saying 10 dollars you say 1000 pennies. mBTC is a lot easier to keep track of than Satoshi, in my opinion.

[Ecurb123]

I like this idea of using the satoshi. In fact I think I will incorporate it into my little raspberry pi bank project.

[worldtreasurefinders]

I do think the 1 BTC denomination is now too high for people to relate it to everyday purchases.  Now that 1 BTC is worth hundreds of dollars, the closest BTC denomination to $1 will have the most success in attracting new users.  So if that's 0.01 or 0.001 BTC, either one would be a better choice than a single satoshi, at this point in time.

[Abdussamad]

I made this proposal a few months back:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=222442.0

[Inedible]

Perhaps the OP could be reframed as:

We need to change where the decimal place is used.

1) Whole Bitcoins are cumbersome to denominate everyday goods in
2) Psychological phenomenon dictates that people prefer whole units of something rather than fractions
3) Improve uptake of Bitcoin

Additionally:

a) This change in denomination should be reasonably future-proof
b) This future-proofing has an upper limit due to the transaction fee becoming a significant proportion of the actual transaction (this fact is due to the limited flexibility of changing the transaction fee size)

These things being true, it would suggest that a unit should be easy to come to.

Milli is out as it's not future-proof. Nano is out because the transaction fee size. That simply leaves us with Satoshi and micro.

Personally, I think it would be travesty to use Satoshi only because it's an odd unit. It'll be a nightmare integrating it into payment systems. It would need a special exception everywhere and I think this would slow it's adoption or certainly make it a nuisance for everyone to use.

As someone already mentioned, China likes to denominate in units of 10,000 and it's a collosal pain. Having personally dealt with it, I can tell you that the Satoshi would be the same thing.

That being said, it would be very much appreciated in China so I guess it's East vs West on that front.

Someone mentioned that it would be ridiculous to want 50000 slices of pizza instead of 5. I don't think that's the case as people used to sell Bitcoin in lots of 10,000 for a few Dollars. It's not unreasonable to buy 50000micro Bitcoins for a Dollar. Should they eventually appreciate, people will wonder why they didn't buy more, just as has happened for the rest of us.

I think Bitcoin should be re-denominated to a smaller unit, just not the Satoshi.

My vote - go with the Micro then once the transaction fee gets lowered, go for the pico.



================

Slightly off-topic but for those that are interested:

Milli
Micro
Nano
Pico
Femto

[integrity42]

I also think in terms of milli/micro/nano...
Satoshis are nice (everybody likes to own multiples instead of fractions) but break the fundamental standard of "three orders of magnitude" between major units.

This is wrong. Satoshi's do not break orders of magnitude because they are the base unit in the code.  

A Bitcoin was arbitrarily decided to be 100M satoshi's by satoshi.  He also stated that he would consider changing the value of a 'Bitcoin'.

So, to summarize.  1BTC = 100Ms  is breaking the standard of 'three orders of magnitude' since Satohsis are the fundamental 'base unit'.

Hope this clears things up.

[integrity42]

I personally thinking in terms of mBTC unless I buy product worth more than 1 BTC

Same here. I'll just stick to the metric system. Satoshi's are only useful for faucets imo.

Using Satoshis means you're sticking to the metric system since Satoshi's are the base unit in the code. 

1BTC = 100Ms was arbitrarily chosen by satoshi.

[integrity42]

I think the use of satoshi is misleading, it's like instead of saying 10 dollars you say 1000 pennies. mBTC is a lot easier to keep track of than Satoshi, in my opinion.

They do this in Japan, 1 Yen is 1 penny. Everything is priced in Yen.  It works fine over there. 

mBTC is already too big of a unit.  We want to avoid decimals.  No countries in the world price things in 0.0000X of a unit.  They all tend to go the other way, i.e. some countries have currencies that take 10,000 units to buy a bottle of water. 

It's like that because of human psychology.  Using mBTC is un-natural to 90% of the world that are not mathematically inclined.  By using mBTC or other units that cause lots of decimals, you're fighting a losing battle, and making things more complicated for a majority of the worlds population.

[roflmao129]

Actually I dont see the points in that. Its a pretty easy system already.

[ilpirata79]

Instead of calling it mBTC, give it a fancy name as someone suggested:

ringo
and things like that

Best regards,
ilpirata79

[geraFoerra]

I think the use of satoshi is misleading, it's like instead of saying 10 dollars you say 1000 pennies.

If someone would tell me it costs 10.000 pennies it would take me time to understand what he means, and there would be chance of me making error 

[Nikinger]

Why not just using "Bitcoin cents" when suitable? The term "cent" should be familiar.

100 Centibitcoin (¢BTC) = 1 Bitcoin

1 000 000 Satoshis = 1 ¢BTC

[MoonShadow]

Why not just using "Bitcoin cents" when suitable? The term "cent" should be familiar.

100 Centibitcoin (¢BTC) = 1 Bitcoin

1 000 000 Satoshis = 1 ¢BTC

Because it is familiar, and thus confusion with it's other contexts cannot be avoided.

[BitTrade]

1 mBTC is not a "fraction" of anything if you don't treat it as such, or brand it as a "bit".  It then becomes its own unit.

[arsenische]

There is no problem with millibitcoins and megasatoshis. Both are valid (and metric) options. Just use what is convenient for you. For large sums it might be convenient to speak in terms of bitcoins, bitcoin-cents (0.01 btc) and millibitcoins (0.001 btc). For smaller sums it might be more convenient to speak in terms of satoshis, kilosatoshis, megasatoshis.

Though 1 megasatoshi is 10 times larger than millibitcoin and is equal to 1 bitcoin cent. So I'd stick to bitcoin, bitcoin-cents and satoshis with SI prefixes (kilo, mega). But if people find millibitcoins to be more convenient - no problem.

[kriwest]

Come to think of it, I would expect a store clerk to not even mention "bitcoin" or "bits" or any other abbreviation.
If you consider how people speak in daily life.. he'd just say "that'll be three fifty".. and you'd know he meant 3.5 mbtc by simple deduction.

E.g. you go to a McDonalds.. the sign reads 1 mbtc for a happy meal, 0.5 mbtc for a coke. "that'll be one fifty".

[Elwar]

For my website I am currently displaying everything in mBTC. I am figuring BTC will be worth about $1,000 in the next few years during the main stages of the website's beginnings so 1mBTC/dollar will make it easy for the users to understand.

If I were to use Satoshis, the numbers would be too extreme and I believe that some may consider Satoshis just as relevant as a LTC or PPC. Bitcoin has gained its place as the main cryptocurrency through its standing as the first and most well known cryptocurrency. There may even be a better alt currency but it will not catch on the way Bitcoin has without some major media and marketing which would take a huge undertaking.

If down the road the price is up over $100,000/BTC then a move to uBTC would be practical, and at that point it would be so well known that people would understand what a uBTC is.

As for decades down the road when it would make sense to use Satoshis...I do not expect there to even be Federal Reserve Notes that far down the road so there will be bigger things to worry about between now and then.

[arsenische]

Bitcoin has gained its place as the main cryptocurrency through its standing as the first and most well known cryptocurrency. There may even be a better alt currency but it will not catch on the way Bitcoin has without some major media and marketing which would take a huge undertaking.

If down the road the price is up over $100,000/BTC then a move to uBTC would be practical, and at that point it would be so well known that people would understand what a uBTC is.

As for decades down the road when it would make sense to use Satoshis...

Maybe I am way too optimistic, but Bitcoin is growing really fast and I am not sure mBTC will be small enough in the next couple of years.

But your arguments are valid, the name is important. Probably more people heard about Bitcoin than about Satoshi, so just to avoid confusion I am changing my mind: millibitcoin looks better than megasatoshi.

I don't like fractions, but fraction of known is better than tons of unknown

[DeathAndTaxes]

satoshi is simply too small for the intermediate future.


A large number of zeroes is annoying and excessive in either direction
0.015 BTC - cumbersome
1,500,000 sat - cumbersome
15 mBTC - just right.

[Nikinger]

Because it is familiar, and thus confusion with it's other contexts cannot be avoided.

What's the confusion exactly?

[integrity42]

satoshi is simply too small for the intermediate future.


A large number of zeroes is annoying and excessive in either direction
0.015 BTC - cumbersome
1,500,000 sat - cumbersome
15 mBTC - just right.

You did it wrong.

1.5 MS - just right.
15 mBTC - cumbersome.

see how that works ?

[dree12]

Bitcoin is naturally deflationary, so units will have to change. Just like we no longer use MB and instead measure disk capacity in TB, we will eventually have to change units.

Going from BTC to mBTC to μBTC to (eventually) nBTC is the natural direction. As time goes on, prefixes get stronger. This is how it works with disk capacity (kB to MB to GB to TB and eventually to PB), which people are familiar with. This is how it works with frequencies (MHz to GHz and eventually to THz). This is how it works with die sizes in semiconducting (μm to nm and eventually to pm).

Humans like to have prefixes increase in intensity as time goes on, not decrease. This is not possible with using Msat, because instead of going to the intuitive Gsat, it goes to ksat. The prefixes are not increasing in intensity. Worse yet, when the prices go from ksat to sat, the next step is msat. From here on, prefixes do go in order of increasing intensity. Not only is using satoshi cumbersome and unprecedented, but it is also inconsistent in the long run.

[DeathAndTaxes]

You did it wrong.

1.5 MS - just right.
15 mBTC - cumbersome.

see how that works ?

Well feel free to use whatever you want but I really doubt people are going to use MSat, kSat, etc.  mBTC covers the common expenditure range for most purchases with a single prefix and without having too many forward or trailing zeros.

Then again I might be wrong we will see.  Nobody can force a standard, it will evolve to what people (collectively) want to use.

[MoonShadow]

Because it is familiar, and thus confusion with it's other contexts cannot be avoided.

What's the confusion exactly?

With various local fiat currencies that use the cent model.

[OleOle]

Because it is familiar, and thus confusion with it's other contexts cannot be avoided.

What's the confusion exactly?

With various local fiat currencies that use the cent model.

I remember I once met a person who got confused between American cents, Australian cents and Euro cents. Strange guy, never met another person like that

[MoonShadow]

Because it is familiar, and thus confusion with it's other contexts cannot be avoided.

What's the confusion exactly?

With various local fiat currencies that use the cent model.

I remember I once met a person who got confused between American cents, Australian cents and Euro cents. Strange guy, never met another person like that

Sure, that's uncommon; but that's because there are not many people that are exposed to more than one monetary system that uses cents.  If bitcoin were to adopt a cent model, there would be a lot more of such confusion wherever cents are the local fiat model.  It'd be much better to use the mills system mentioned earlier, since it's no longer in common use otherwise.

[integrity42]

Bitcoin is naturally deflationary, so units will have to change. Just like we no longer use MB and instead measure disk capacity in TB, we will eventually have to change units.

Going from BTC to mBTC to μBTC to (eventually) nBTC is the natural direction. As time goes on, prefixes get stronger. This is how it works with disk capacity (kB to MB to GB to TB and eventually to PB), which people are familiar with. This is how it works with frequencies (MHz to GHz and eventually to THz). This is how it works with die sizes in semiconducting (μm to nm and eventually to pm).

Humans like to have prefixes increase in intensity as time goes on, not decrease. This is not possible with using Msat, because instead of going to the intuitive Gsat, it goes to ksat. The prefixes are not increasing in intensity. Worse yet, when the prices go from ksat to sat, the next step is msat. From here on, prefixes do go in order of increasing intensity. Not only is using satoshi cumbersome and unprecedented, but it is also inconsistent in the long run.

You're wrong. Humans would rather have 1Ms and know that the buying power of their satoshis are increasing, instead of changing units.

It's not cumbersome. It's only unprecedented because it hasn't been needed yet. But will soon.  Infact, satoshi's are used on all the dice sites. Everyone talks about how many satoshis they won/lost.

[DeathAndTaxes]

You're wrong. Humans would rather have 1Ms and know that the buying power of their satoshis are increasing, instead of changing units.

Good thing you speak for all humans.  Of course since everyone wants that it will happen and there is no need for a proposal.  Job well done everyone.

[dree12]

Bitcoin is naturally deflationary, so units will have to change. Just like we no longer use MB and instead measure disk capacity in TB, we will eventually have to change units.

Going from BTC to mBTC to μBTC to (eventually) nBTC is the natural direction. As time goes on, prefixes get stronger. This is how it works with disk capacity (kB to MB to GB to TB and eventually to PB), which people are familiar with. This is how it works with frequencies (MHz to GHz and eventually to THz). This is how it works with die sizes in semiconducting (μm to nm and eventually to pm).

Humans like to have prefixes increase in intensity as time goes on, not decrease. This is not possible with using Msat, because instead of going to the intuitive Gsat, it goes to ksat. The prefixes are not increasing in intensity. Worse yet, when the prices go from ksat to sat, the next step is msat. From here on, prefixes do go in order of increasing intensity. Not only is using satoshi cumbersome and unprecedented, but it is also inconsistent in the long run.

You're wrong. Humans would rather have 1Ms and know that the buying power of their satoshis are increasing, instead of changing units.

It's not cumbersome. It's only unprecedented because it hasn't been needed yet. But will soon.  Infact, satoshi's are used on all the dice sites. Everyone talks about how many satoshis they won/lost.

Great, so those same "humans" would rather have 1000000000000000 B disk drives, right?

[jmw74]

This proposal is nonsensical to me.

MS (mega satoshi) is okay, but mB (milli bitcoin) is not?

What is the difference? You can't be seriously suggesting that one is 'psychologically' better than the other? Whether it 'feels' small or large is irrelevant, since you'll be both receiving and paying.

[OleOle]

Maybe we can move beyond all these comments and put the matter to a vote? The title of the thread essentially requests a yes or no answer, sure there is room for other suggestions and if anyone wanted to put a vote topic together collating the suggestions on this thread, it might be easier if people voted so that we can get a snapshot of what people think as a whole rather than endless variations being discussed here which aren't really all that individually relevant unless they happen to become the dominant viewpoint.

For what it is worth (and that's not very much) I'd say Yes, forget about mBTC and switch directly to Satoshis.

Why? Well, the finance sector doesn't even use BTC, it uses XBT so if we're going to go mainstream with bitcoins, new adopters won't have a clue what mBTC is, they might not even know exactly what BTC is because the increasingly internationally accepted term is XBT. It's easy to then explain that Satoshis are parts of a bitcoin named after the guy who created them.

Check out 'The World's Favorite Currency Site' www.xe.com it includes bitcoins, type 'XBT' or even 'bitcoin' into the converter field, up it comes, type 'BTC' into it and it defaults back to XBT.

Anyway, on a scale of one to ten on whether I care what they're called, it's a three or maybe a two

[MoonShadow]

Maybe we can move beyond all these comments and put the matter to a vote?

It doesn't really matter what we do here.  It's not really up to us.  The membership who would vote on such a thing, in an obscure forum, in a particular thread, have no more authority to make any such determination than a church business meeting in Kansas has any authority to vote on the legality of pot in Germany.  No one gives a shit, and our opinion matters not at all.

In the long run, the market will tell us what the answer is.

[jambola2]

I prefer metric .
I would love to see micro after the milli , and maybe some popularity for centibitcoins.
Satoshis are too small and confusing in my opinion.

[crazy_rabbit]

Satoshis are too small to switch to for the near future. mBTC makes total sense though.

[finder_keeper]

I've made a (somewhat silly) attempt at making mBTC sound a bit less abstruse:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=327752.msg3518845#msg3518845

[MaxBTC1]

Im with you on this OP.

I tell my friends about bitcoin and they go 'well it costs over $300' how can I afford that???

I try to explain that, no, you don't need a whole one, and yes, you can buy half or a quater or whatever.
Hopeless.

[laowai80]

Have to do it gradually, amounts measured in mBTC look natural to the eye at this moment of time.

But micro is too small, not to mention satoshi, those would be cumbersome to count in at this point.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Im with you on this OP.

I tell my friends about bitcoin and they go 'well it costs over $300' how can I afford that???

I try to explain that, no, you don't need a whole one, and yes, you can buy half or a quater or whatever.
Hopeless.

Tell them a mBTC is only $0.30 and it can be used anywhere that takes BTC so they can buy thousands of them. 

[integrity42]

Great, so those same "humans" would rather have 1000000000000000 B disk drives, right?

You don't write 1000000000000000 B.  You write 1 TB.

You don't write 100,000,000 S. You write 1 Ms.

Hopefully that clears things up.

[integrity42]

I prefer metric .
I would love to see micro after the milli , and maybe some popularity for centibitcoins.
Satoshis are too small and confusing in my opinion.

Satoshi are the base unit.  If you want to do 'metric' you have to use satoshis.

BTC was arbitrarily chosen by satoshi to be 100,000,000 satoshis. BTC breaks orders of magnitude, not satoshis.

[integrity42]

Satoshis are too small to switch to for the near future. mBTC makes total sense though.

Theres no difference in writing 0.1 Ms, 100Ks, or 1mBTC.

But there is a difference in using mBTC just to throw it away later.  Using satoshi's solves that problem.

[zeetubes]

FWIW I tried explaining bitcoins to a bank manager in Malaysia yesterday. All was going well until I told her what the current price was and you could tell she had lost interest. If BTC/XBT hits $1K then human psychology is going to kick in as a barrier to acceptance for the average Joe and Jane. It probably would have been better if the value of satoshis and BTC were reversed, then we could talk in MBTC, GBTC like disk space.  I think this is an urgent issue and one of the most pressing for the (healthy) future of bitcoins. If a new and sensible naming convention can be decided upon, it will be a very positive step.

[DeathAndTaxes]

I think this is an urgent issue and one of the most pressing for the (healthy) future of bitcoins.

Lolz.  If you think this is the biggest challenge facing mass adoption of Bitcoin well all I got to say is lolz.

In the meantime tell your bank manager a "millibit" is still under a buck.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Theres no difference in writing 0.1 Ms, 100Ks, or 1mBTC.

But there is a difference in using mBTC just to throw it away later.  Using satoshi's solves that problem.

Who says it will be thrown away later?  Isn't this kinda a carriage before the horse thinking.  Even if it is "thrown away" later ... later might be decades from now. 

[zeetubes]

"Lolz.  If you think this is the biggest challenge facing mass adoption of Bitcoin well all I got to say is lolz."

The only other barriers are technology, regulation and politics. The average end user has zero input into any of those areas. Unless the average end user feels comfortable with BTC it will die a death. Period. But I'll eagerly await your inspired insights.

[DeathAndTaxes]

"Lolz.  If you think this is the biggest challenge facing mass adoption of Bitcoin well all I got to say is lolz."

The only other barriers are technology, regulation and politics. The average end user has zero input into any of those areas. Unless the average end user feels comfortable with BTC it will die a death. Period. But I'll eagerly await your inspired insights.

So Bitcoin will die from being too valuable.   Has that ever happened to anything ever in the history of mankind.

If less people adopted Bitcoin wouldn't the price go down?  If the price goes down wouldn't Bitcoin be less valuable and thus solve the problem of dying from being too valuable?

The idea that something can both be excessively valuable and die is ... well silly.  Lots of things could kill Bitcoin, it being too valuable isn't one of them.

[zeetubes]

True, but I'm not worried about bitcoins being too valuable; I'd like that a lot in fact. But at the moment for most buyers, BTC is an investment and speculation vehicle, not a parallel way for everyday people to buy and sell stuff. Widespread acceptance requires that the average user and merchant/seller feel at least as comfortable as buying something at Amazon or Ebay. And first they have to buy some bitcoins. And that will require something that they can easily understand. I like the intent of this thread (thanks OP) and hopefully the BTC gods are also thinking this through. If I had been able to tell the bank manager that she could buy a (fractional) BTC for a few bucks, the veil may have stayed up. 

[BitCloud]

FWIW I tried explaining bitcoins to a bank manager in Malaysia yesterday. All was going well until I told her what the current price was and you could tell she had lost interest. If BTC/XBT hits $1K then human psychology is going to kick in as a barrier to acceptance for the average Joe and Jane.

The satoshi idea is nice... but:

people keep on buying Berkshire Hathaway stock at around $100k a share

1 BTC becoming more and more expensive will turn it into a diamond like asset

keep BTC unique and let it flourish.

[MoonShadow]

Again, it doesn't matter what we decide to do here.  Literally no one, inside or outside of this forum, gives a flying f##k what our opinion on the proper bitcoin unit may be.

Including me.

[beetcoin]

FWIW I tried explaining bitcoins to a bank manager in Malaysia yesterday. All was going well until I told her what the current price was and you could tell she had lost interest. If BTC/XBT hits $1K then human psychology is going to kick in as a barrier to acceptance for the average Joe and Jane.

The satoshi idea is nice... but:

people keep on buying Berkshire Hathaway stock at around $100k a share

1 BTC becoming more and more expensive will turn it into a diamond like asset

keep BTC unique and let it flourish.

well, the problem is that people don't really "spend" diamonds; they just store it away. if that were to happen to BTC, it would be a predominantly speculative currency/commodity.

[mgio]

No, mBTC makes far more sense right now.

If I am buying something that costs $50, I want to pay 125 mBTC, not 12,500,000 satoshis.

Using satoshis is just ridiculous and even worse than just staying with straight BTC.

[tspacepilot]

I don't fully understand.  Don't people use both these units?  I mean I just use unit that's relevant for the amount I'm talking about.

[MoonShadow]

I don't fully understand.  Don't people use both these units?  I mean I just use unit that's relevant for the amount I'm talking about.

Yes, most people have no problem using both of these unit standards where appropriate.  These guys just seem to think that they are important somehow.

[hieroglyph]

I also see no reason why both units can't be used.  It is understandable to use satoshi now that bitcoin is becoming more well known and using mbtc makes sense also so why not use them both and explain there meanings.

[archangel689]

If bitcoin becomes inflationary, I wouldn't hold btc for longer than it took to make a payment, and I would only make a payment using btc if it had some kind of utility over other mediums. I would simply save elsewhere. I would spend the same in either case.

[integrity42]

No, mBTC makes far more sense right now.

If I am buying something that costs $50, I want to pay 125 mBTC, not 12,500,000 satoshis.

Using satoshis is just ridiculous and even worse than just staying with straight BTC.

Hi mgio, thanks for your feedback... You have just made a common mistake.

You would not pay 12,500,000 satoshis.  You would pay 12.5 Ms  (or 12.5 'Megas')

This sounds much better then 125 "millis" , and we never have to change units again for a long long time. Already mBTC is too big for small purchases.

Human psychology doesn't want a fraction of a big unit. They want a lot of a small unit.  Satoshi's are the smallest unit. Lets give them a lot of satoshis.

Thanks.

[obeygiant]

For some reason I like only Bitcoin or Satoshi.

I usually visualize Bitcoin amounts as a "fixed-point" number, always with eight decimal places. So that I can see both the Satoshi count and the Bitcoin count.

-- Obey

[bryant.coleman]

It is absolute craziness to use Satoshi right now, considering the value.

[lindatess]

Why don't we just leave it the same as it is now...

Just use blockchain's $ figure to trade and purchase items...

Click on the green BTC button and it turns to USD$.

[integrity42]

It is absolute craziness to use Satoshi right now, considering the value.

Hi,

Thank you for your comment, it is a common misconception that its crazy to use satoshi's.

For example, using satoshis is no harder then mBTC.  

You can write .01 BTC = 10 mBTC = 1Ms  

But it makes a lot more sense when you look at something like this:
.00000500 BTC = 0.005mBTC  = 500 s

[99Percent]

I think we need to find a name for an intermediate unit between 1 BTC and 1 Satoshi - 0.0001 BTC

mBTC or µBTC are just too awkward.

How about Nakamoto? or just Naka? or Moto?

[MoonShadow]

I think we need to find a name for an intermediate unit between 1 BTC and 1 Satoshi - 0.0001 BTC

mBTC or µBTC are just too awkward.

How about Nakamoto? or just Naka? or Moto?

It's called a gavin.

[DeathAndTaxes]

I think we need to find a name for an intermediate unit between 1 BTC and 1 Satoshi - 0.0001 BTC

mBTC or µBTC are just too awkward.

How about Nakamoto? or just Naka? or Moto?

A millie.  Like as Gavin showed me today the orphan cost for a miner is ~3.3 millies per kilobyte of block size.

[integrity42]

The problem with using a fractional unit, is that the average person can't wrap their head around the fact that something small like a 'milli-bitcoin' will be worth $100's of dollars.

'herp. derp.  why's it worth so much?  its has a small sounding name!'  'herp derp.'

Satoshis are the real base unit in bitcoin.  BTC doesn't even exist in the code, it was made up by satoshi arbitrarily.  a mBTC is a fraction of a non-SI unit of an arbitrarily made up amount. 

[bryant.coleman]

I think we need to find a name for an intermediate unit between 1 BTC and 1 Satoshi - 0.0001 BTC

mBTC or µBTC are just too awkward.

How about Nakamoto? or just Naka? or Moto?

I 'd vote for Laszlo.

He was the first user who bartered the "virtual" BTCs for "real" stuff.

[faizaa123]

I honestly think that Bitcoins will always be denominated in full "Bitcoins".

We have worked so hard to try and slip Bitcoin into mainstream society and we're right on the cusp, if we switch now I worry we would be undermining our efforts.

[btcbible]

I like the idea of "coining" new terms for smaller denominations of BTC but I think the term "Satoshi" puts too much emphasis on the unknown identity of BTC's creator and may be unattractive and seem cult-like to newcomers. I like "Bitcents"

[lebing]

Too soon to switch.

We will hit millibit parity soon (2-4 weeks probably) and then it will be time.

[o3u]

Why not just say 1 BTC is worth what 0.001 BTC was worth yesterday.

We just note it down in the blockchain somewhere so everyone can verify that and sync themselves i mean way i see it the bockchain is one of the coolest features of bitcoin.

We can keep doing that everytime it multiplies by 1000x etc.

It sounds crazy, i wanted to say it as a joke but now that i think about it it might not be that bad if it was realistically possible?

[sp4ke]

I totally agree to this idea. It's even more important considering the low value of many third world countries fiat currencies.

As an example, in my country 1$ = 80 local currency on the official gouvernement exchange and more than 100$ in the black market exchange ( which is the biggest exchange ). So people are more comfortable using big numbers instead of fractions.

I propose we should fix a date on which all the community agree to switch to satoshi units.

[s2]

I tend to agree that using satoshi's will inevitably become the word used but I think we are still long number of years away from this. 

If you don't believe me, try explaining to someone new how a physical note from monopoly is worth far more than 1 satoshi but they should care as someday it's going to be worth more... just watch how little interest they show in Bitcoin until you tell them they'll need over £400 for 1 bitcoin.

Also, slightly off topic, the word Bitcoin for the unit of currency is bloody confusing as it's the protocol name and indicates it's the atomic unit hence Satoshi is much better as this is the atomic unit.  So as the OP says I'm in agreement g,m,k Satoshi's are the way forward, just not for the next couple years please!

[nomailing]

Yes this idea is much better then mBTC.
It is much more future proof, because it is well known that a lot of people feel much more comfortable to deal with integer numbers than with decimal numbers.
I know that for most people here in the forum this is not the case, but you have to keep the average user in mind. I know that a lot of my friends are not comfortable with unit conversions.

Just ask yourself which of these numbers are easier to deal with when you think about your dumbest friend:
0.000123 BTC = 0.123 mBTC = 12.3 kSatoshi = 12 300 Satoshis

[niothor]

Yes this idea is much better then mBTC.
It is much more future proof, because it is well known that a lot of people feel much more comfortable to deal with integer numbers than with decimal numbers.
I know that for most people here in the forum this is not the case, but you have to keep the average user in mind. I know that a lot of my friends are not comfortable with unit conversions.

Just ask yourself which of these numbers are easier to deal with when you think about your dumbest friend:
0.000123 BTC = 0.123 mBTC = 12.3 kSatoshi = 12 300 Satoshis

Your dumbest friend won't use btc , so problem solved.

[neutrinox]

I like the idea of "coining" new terms for smaller denominations of BTC but I think the term "Satoshi" puts too much emphasis on the unknown identity of BTC's creator and may be unattractive and seem cult-like to newcomers. I like "Bitcents"

+1

Bitcent is a pretty nice term in my opinion!

[nomailing]

Yes this idea is much better then mBTC.
It is much more future proof, because it is well known that a lot of people feel much more comfortable to deal with integer numbers than with decimal numbers.
I know that for most people here in the forum this is not the case, but you have to keep the average user in mind. I know that a lot of my friends are not comfortable with unit conversions.

Just ask yourself which of these numbers are easier to deal with when you think about your dumbest friend:
0.000123 BTC = 0.123 mBTC = 12.3 kSatoshi = 12 300 Satoshis

Your dumbest friend won't use btc , so problem solved.

I think we agree, that we would like to change that, don't we?

[niothor]

Yes this idea is much better then mBTC.
It is much more future proof, because it is well known that a lot of people feel much more comfortable to deal with integer numbers than with decimal numbers.
I know that for most people here in the forum this is not the case, but you have to keep the average user in mind. I know that a lot of my friends are not comfortable with unit conversions.

Just ask yourself which of these numbers are easier to deal with when you think about your dumbest friend:
0.000123 BTC = 0.123 mBTC = 12.3 kSatoshi = 12 300 Satoshis

Your dumbest friend won't use btc , so problem solved.

I think we agree, that we would like to change that, don't we?

I already did that , I got no dumb people for friends

[Vigil]

We need to name a unit which is two or three decimal places to the left of BTC1 and use that as standard.

There was an article somewhere regarding the psychological effects of the nominal value of a currency. Will people be reluctant to buy BTC.1 for $100 or $1000 or more?

The problem is that "Bitcoin" is already established as the name of the "currency".

[vane91]

1BTC should be 1 million coins, and 0.01 coin a satoshi !!!!  

we're all millionaires !  


coin or credits!

[tspacepilot]

Warning: rant below.

[rant]
I hate to be a troll, but I really think this thread is quite silly.  I mean, there's really no conflict.  Why on earth should there be some proclaimation that on a given date "we starting using the word Satoshis".  All correct terms can be in use at the same time.  People will naturally use the most relevant demarcation.  Jeesus, if I have 25 cents, I can refer to that as 0.25 dollars, and likewise if I have 1Kdollars, I can refer to that as 100Kcents.  I don't understand the hype here.  Please.
[/rant]

[XertroV]

There was a proposal on the dev mailing list (from Mark Friedenbach) that I quite like which doesn't seem to have been mentioned here.

Set XBT = 100 Satoshis = 1 uBTC = 0.000001 BTC

This should scale nicely for a little while at least.
This also intrinsically supports a standard unit of 1 uBTC.

Currently:
$700 ~ 1 BTC
$0.7 ~ 1 mBTC
$0.0007 ~ uBTC

$7 for a beer (here in Aus) should be like 10 mBTC or 10,000 uBTC / XBT, so XBT is a little cumbersome at the moment, but that might not last long.

[niothor]

Warning: rant below.

[rant]
I hate to be a troll, but I really think this thread is quite silly.  I mean, there's really no conflict.  Why on earth should there be some proclaimation that on a given date "we starting using the word Satoshis".  All correct terms can be in use at the same time.  People will naturally use the most relevant demarcation.  Jeesus, if I have 25 cents, I can refer to that as 0.25 dollars, and likewise if I have 1Kdollars, I can refer to that as 100Kcents.  I don't understand the hype here.  Please.
[/rant]

because with a dollar you could only have 100 cents, it's either 10 dollars  or 10  *100 cents.
with one bitcoin , you can have 1000mB, 1000000uB , two possibilities.

[MoonShadow]

There was a proposal on the dev mailing list (from Mark Friedenbach) that I quite like which doesn't seem to have been mentioned here.

Set XBT = 100 Satoshis

This is likely what's going to happen anyway.  The XBT standard must be fixed, and it would be wise for us to assume that we're going to end up with Satoshis with a near penny value anyway.  It shouldn't be an issue in the meantime, after all the Japanese are used to a very fine base currency unit.

[Vigil]

Are we really going to refer to BTC .001 as millibitcoins or millibits or millis? There needs to be a different name.

[justusranvier]

Are we really going to refer to BTC .001 as millibitcoins or millibits or millis? There needs to be a different name.

"Mill"

[Vigil]

Are we really going to refer to BTC .001 as millibitcoins or millibits or millis? There needs to be a different name.

"Mill"

BTC.01 can be called a centibit or 1 cent. That seems easy enough.

Shave and a haircut, two bits.

[Mondy]

Satoshi isnt powerful enough yet as a decimal...