Jimmy Song proposes for "Bits" denomination to be adopted

[mk4]

== Abstract ==
Bits is presented here as the standard term for 100 (one hundred) satoshis
or 1/1,000,000 (one one-millionth) of a bitcoin.

== Motivation ==
The bitcoin price has grown over the years and once the price is past
$10,000 USD or so, bitcoin amounts under $10 USD start having enough
decimal places that it's difficult to tell whether the user is off by a
factor of 10 or not. Switching the denomination to "bits" makes
comprehension easier. For example, when BTC is $15,000 USD, $10.50 is a
somewhat confusing 0.00067 BTC, versus 670 bits, which is a lot clearer.

Additonally, reverse comparisons are easier as 67 bits being $1 is easier
to comprehend for most people than 0.000067 BTC being $1. Similar
comparisons can be made to other currencies: 1 yen being 0.8 bits, 1 won
being 0.07 bits and so on.

Potential benefits of utilizing "bits" include:

# Reduce user error on small bitcoin amounts.
# Reduce unit bias for users that want a "whole" bitcoin.
# Allow easier comparisons of prices for most users.
# Allow easier bi-directional comparisons to fiat currencies.
# Allows all UTXO amounts to need at most 2 decimal places, which can be
easier to handle.

== Specification ==
Definition: 1 bit = 1/1,000,000 bitcoin.
Plural of "bit" is "bits". The terms "bit" and "bits" are not proper nouns
and thus should not be capitalized unless used at the start of a sentence,
etc.

All Bitcoin-denominated items are encouraged to also show the denomination
in bits, either as the default or as an option.

You can read the whole post at: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-December/015399.html


I support this BIP. In my opinion it's easier to say "3630 bits" than something like "0.00363 bitcoin". Thoughs?

[xhomerx10]

~snip

You can read the whole post at: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-December/015399.html


I support this BIP. In my opinion it's easier to say "522 bits" than something like "0.00363 bitcoin". Thoughs?

 Wait... so 522 bits equates to 0.00363 Bitcoin?!  WTF?  Where does the factor of 6.9540229885057471264367816091954 come from?
 That doesn't clarify things at all.
  BIP denied!

 

[mk4]

~snip

You can read the whole post at: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-December/015399.html


I support this BIP. In my opinion it's easier to say "522 bits" than something like "0.00363 bitcoin". Thoughs?

 Wait... so 522 bits equates to 0.00363 Bitcoin?!  WTF?  Where does the factor of 6.9540229885057471264367816091954 come from?
 That doesn't clarify things at all.
  BIP denied!

 

Not sure if you're kidding or not soooo

I'm not implying that 522 bits equates to 0.00363 Bitcoin. My point is simply just that using a lower denomination is sort of more "natural" to say in person than to use decimals of bitcoin. I'll just edit the post to prevent confusion. 

[o_e_l_e_o]

Wait... so 522 bits equates to 0.00363 Bitcoin?!  WTF?  Where does the factor of 6.9540229885057471264367816091954 come from?
 That doesn't clarify things at all.

1 bit equals 1/1,000,000 bitcoin, or 100 Satoshis. It is a much more manageable denomination. The numbers OP gave were just an example. 522 bits is equal to 0.000522 bitcoin.

Given that a common misconception amongst people who are unfamiliar with crypto is that you have to buy a whole bitcoin, changing the way we talk from "$8,000 for a bitcoin" to "80 cents for 100 bits" could also help adoption.

[xhomerx10]

~snip

You can read the whole post at: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-December/015399.html


I support this BIP. In my opinion it's easier to say "522 bits" than something like "0.00363 bitcoin". Thoughs?

 Wait... so 522 bits equates to 0.00363 Bitcoin?!  WTF?  Where does the factor of 6.9540229885057471264367816091954 come from?
 That doesn't clarify things at all.
  BIP denied!

 

Not sure if you're kidding or not soooo

I'm not implying that 522 bits equates to 0.00363 Bitcoin. My point is simply just that using a lower denomination is sort of more "natural" to say in person than to use decimals of bitcoin. I'll just edit the post to prevent confusion. 

 Yeah I was taking the piss.

[mk4]

~snip

You can read the whole post at: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-December/015399.html


I support this BIP. In my opinion it's easier to say "522 bits" than something like "0.00363 bitcoin". Thoughs?

 Wait... so 522 bits equates to 0.00363 Bitcoin?!  WTF?  Where does the factor of 6.9540229885057471264367816091954 come from?
 That doesn't clarify things at all.
  BIP denied!

 

Not sure if you're kidding or not soooo

I'm not implying that 522 bits equates to 0.00363 Bitcoin. My point is simply just that using a lower denomination is sort of more "natural" to say in person than to use decimals of bitcoin. I'll just edit the post to prevent confusion.  

 Yeah I was taking the piss.

Great. My sarcasm detector was on and functioning well but I wasn't 100% sure. Edited the main post eitherway to prevent future confusion. LOL

[DannyHamilton]

I prefer "Mikes" instead of "Bits" for the same denomination, and that's what I've been using in conversation for 8 years now.

0.001 BTC = 1 Millie (Get it? Millie as in "Milli"bitcoins. Easy to remember, easy to use)

0.000001 BTC = 1 Mike (Get it?  Mike as in "Mic"robitcoins.  Easy to remember, easy to use)

So, 1 satoshi is:
0.01 Mike
0.00001 Millie
0.00000001 Bitcoin

Furthermore, 1 Bitcoin is:
1,000 Millies
1,000,000 Mikes
100,000,000 satoshis

[mk4]

I prefer "Mikes" instead of "Bits" for the same denomination, and that's what I've been using in conversation for 8 years now.

0.001 BTC = 1 Millie (Get it? Millie as in "Milli"bitcoins. Easy to remember, easy to use)

0.000001 BTC = 1 Mike (Get it?  Mike as in "Mic"robitcoins.  Easy to remember, easy to use)

So, 1 satoshi is:
0.01 Mike
0.00001 Millie
0.00000001 Bitcoin

Furthermore, 1 Bitcoin is:
1,000 Millies
1,000,000 Mikes
100,000,000 satoshis

Sure both "millie" and "mikes" are quite easy to remember, but it just simply doesn't sound "right" in my opinion. Using a common person's name as a currency denomination seems weird, but that's just me though. Personally, I don't even like using the "satoshi" denomination either, but shortening it down to "sats" seems to sound more natural as a currency terminology.

[Pearls Before Swine]

1 bit equals 1/1,000,000 bitcoin, or 100 Satoshis. It is a much more manageable denomination. The numbers OP gave were just an example. 522 bits is equal to 0.000522 bitcoin.

Given that a common misconception amongst people who are unfamiliar with crypto is that you have to buy a whole bitcoin, changing the way we talk from "$8,000 for a bitcoin" to "80 cents for 100 bits" could also help adoption.

I can't see why this needs to be complicated.  I prefer to just write out the bitcoin amount, right down to the last satoshi.  That way there's no mental conversion that needs to be done, and it's not a very long number to be written out.  Thus I don't, and never did, support "bits" or any other name.  Referring to a small amount of bitcoin as the number of satoshis it is is also acceptable to me, but nothing else.

[mk4]

1 bit equals 1/1,000,000 bitcoin, or 100 Satoshis. It is a much more manageable denomination. The numbers OP gave were just an example. 522 bits is equal to 0.000522 bitcoin.

Given that a common misconception amongst people who are unfamiliar with crypto is that you have to buy a whole bitcoin, changing the way we talk from "$8,000 for a bitcoin" to "80 cents for 100 bits" could also help adoption.

I can't see why this needs to be complicated.  I prefer to just write out the bitcoin amount, right down to the last satoshi.  That way there's no mental conversion that needs to be done, and it's not a very long number to be written out.  Thus I don't, and never did, support "bits" or any other name.  Referring to a small amount of bitcoin as the number of satoshis it is is also acceptable to me, but nothing else.

The thing is, we're not just talking about writing or typing things down here. We're also talking about using it in person; since bitcoin shouldn't be limited to online transactions anyway, what about using BTC on physical stores? Saying "0.000534 Bitcoin" for a $4 Starbucks coffee(as with today's prices) doesn't sound too natural to me. Instead, saying "534 bits" sounds more natural and easier to say personally; like I said on my previous replies here in this topic.

[o_e_l_e_o]

The thing is, we're not just talking about writing or typing things down here. We're also talking about using it in person; since bitcoin shouldn't be limited to online transactions anyway, what about using BTC on physical stores? Saying "0.000534 Bitcoin" for a $4 Starbucks coffee(as with today's prices) doesn't sound too natural to me. Instead, saying "534 bits" sounds more natural and easier to say personally; like I said on my previous replies here in this topic.

Absolutely this. People just won't say "Zero point zero zero zero zero... bitcoins" every time you are buying or selling small items. "Satoshis" works, but "bits" is better.

I do also like DannyHamilton's system - working in healthcare we often use these abbreviations when talking about millilitres and milligrams/micrograms.

[DannyHamilton]

Using a common person's name as a currency denomination seems weird,

You mean like:

Bettys
Bordens
Joeys
Winstons
Bobs
Pavarottis
Zacks
Bradmans
Jacksons
Benjamins
Hamiltons
Lincolns
and Satoshis



And that's just in the english speaking areas (Canada, England, Australia, and the United States)

but that's just me though. Personally, I don't even like using the "satoshi" denomination either, but shortening it down to "sats" seems to sound more natural as a currency terminology.

Understood.  Use whatever you like.  As long as it is clear what you mean to the person you are talking to, it doesn't really matter. Words/names only exist so that we can communicate ideas and concepts.

[DannyHamilton]

working in healthcare we often use these abbreviations when talking about millilitres and milligrams/micrograms.

Most of the world is comfortable with the metric system.

The yanks in my country will struggle a bit, but what better way to introduce them to the concept of a decimalized system of measurement than with their Bitcoins!

[mk4]

Using a common person's name as a currency denomination seems weird,

You mean like:

Bettys
Bordens

....



And that's just in the english speaking areas (Canada, England, Australia, and the United States)

Yep. Pretty much very single one of them.  I don't know though, we're probably just too used to terms like "pesos", "dollars", "rupees", and such that using person names for a currency sounds funny in my opinion. I mean, it just simply doesn't sound right to my ear. Using names sounds like memes to me. LOL

[aiviaa485]

it may be more appropriate that you will replace Satoshi with Bit.

I think that's a bit of a problem because the founder of Bitcoin is Satoshi Nakamoto, so Satoshi 0.00076 to appreciate his own creator. and the name Satoshi will be remembered in the eyes of the Bitcoin owners.

[keycellko]

I have to admit that i find it hard to understand how much bitcoins i have (because i still don't own 1btc but a fraction of). When i started bitcoin, i was doing faucets. With faucets you get satoshis. So the satoshis i get i convert it to bits. But people are using the decimals for bitcoin, so i decided to quit faucets because it would take me a little too long to get 1btc or even just closer if i count from satoshis to bits . If we count bits itd be easier to communicate to how much we owe someone or how much we earned from a job rather than counting how many zeroes there are after the point or period. So id have to agree at using bits. This has to be universal but i think that would be hard to apply globally.