Satoshi for me, though that's less than ideal too.
I wrote about this before, but I think this is actually a fairly important issue. Calling it Bitcoin just doesn't work. I'm constantly running into issues trying to explain it to people. It's because people have pre-conceived notions of what things mean, and Bitcoin doesn't jive with that.
Right off the bat I get asked "So what's
a Bitcoin?". Not "what's Bitcoin?", but what's "a" Bitcoin. The word coin refers to an actual object. So people naturally assume that it's a digital version of that object. Really it should be called Bitledger for clarity's sake because that's what it is.
Then after I explain that there's no such thing as a Bitcoin, the wallet, the ledger, etc, the divisibility issue comes up. And again I have to say something like "well, actually, a Bitcoin is arbitrary. The basic unit is actually the Satoshi, and one Bitcoin is 100million Satoshis." Which of course I have to explain refers to some magical person nobody has ever met, and nobody knows who he is.
After all of this, then some people will say something like "ohh, so it's like Credits from [insert sci-fi movie here]", and honestly that's not bad.
So my vote goes for Satoshi as the basic unit. But just for the lack of better choice. Really I'd like to see it called something more generic like Credits (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_%28science_fiction%29). It's not off-base, you have X-BTC worth of credits in the ledger, so you have X-credits with the system. It's a term people already understand. By the virtue of the number (100million for just 1BTC) it lets people know that they can buy as many or as few as they want. It's an easy sell if half a dollar buys you like 100,000 credits, as opposed to imagining dropping $500 on just 1 unit.
Poll
