A proposal: Forget about mBTC and switch directly to Satoshis

[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 

[1714842818]

1714842818

[1714842818]

1714842818

[1714842818]

1714842818

[1714842818]

1714842818

[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.