Bitcoin needs something equivalent to a stock split

[DrBitcoin]

Would it be possible for the Bitcoin developers to agree upon and implement something like a stock split for Bitcoin.  Stock splits exist because as the price of a stock goes up, the average laymen investor sees the stock value and thinks "that's too expensive."  Stock splits are good for investor psyche as it lowers the barrier of entry for the average investor.

When average people see that 1BTC trades for $650, they feel like they've either missed the boat, or that it is just too much money to invest.  And while you can simply buy .50 BTC or .25BTC, from a psychological standpoint, it just doesn't feel as satisfying as owning 1 whole unit.

I see that there is a big unification towards the "millibit" terminology, but I think that is too confusing for the average person.  In the united states, we have resisted switching to the Metric system because "it's just too damn confusing." (which is insane, because inches and feet are arbitrary.  We should have switched to the metric system ages ago.)

Anyways...would there be some sort of way for the developers to state that on some date in the future, the value of .50 BTC is actually 1BTC, but the 21million number stays fixed? Is there a way to move the decimal places? Is there something that can be done to mimic a stock split? Long term, I think this would be good to entice new investors to Bitcoin.

[bricky]

I wonder would this have the same effect:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/3862

It's a move to change the default representation of the currency to microBTC

[amspir]

Would it be possible for the Bitcoin developers to agree upon and implement something like a stock split for Bitcoin.  Stock splits exist because as the price of a stock goes up, the average laymen investor sees the stock value and thinks "that's too expensive."  Stock splits are good for investor psyche as it lowers the barrier of entry for the average investor.

This is an issue of human semantics, or the way we use words to describe value.   You don't need to change the protocol to change the semantics.

There are other issues that may need fixing far in the future, such as when the deflationary nature of bitcoin causes the satoshi (the smallest possible unit) to become too unwieldy to use in everyday transactions.

[RodeoX]

Such a thing could be implemented, but I can't see it being accepted by a majority of peer nodes. My opinion is that we should not monkey with the code to accommodate human nature. If someone can't get their head around the fact that price is irrelevant then they should trade beenie babies instead.

[Pentax]

I understand semantics and human nature, although people should know what they're doing when investing.

That means at least understanding that this representation of $/Bitcoin is meaningless. 

They'll figure it out and shouldn't be swimming in the deep end until they do anyhow....

[DrBitcoin]

Such a thing could be implemented, but I can't see it being accepted by a majority of peer nodes. My opinion is that we should not monkey with the code to accommodate human nature. If someone can't get their head around the fact that price is irrelevant then they should trade beenie babies instead.

But isn't worldwide acceptance the ultimate goal? Don't we want total saturation? If this is to be accomplished, then the protocol has to be presented in a way that is easier to digest for the average non-tech person.

Trying to explain to my wife that there are 100million satoshis in a Bitcoin. And that you can buy and send .001 bitcoin, which we are now calling a millibit is a disaster.

[Gabi]

It is funny how people create inexistent problems and then propose even more absurd solutions to them.

Just use millibitcoin instead of bitcoin. 0.65 instead of 650. problem solved.

[gollum]

If Bitcoin was integer we would have 2 100 000 000 000 000 bitcoins in circulation

[tysat]

Such a thing could be implemented, but I can't see it being accepted by a majority of peer nodes. My opinion is that we should not monkey with the code to accommodate human nature. If someone can't get their head around the fact that price is irrelevant then they should trade beenie babies instead.

The attitude of "if you're not smart enough, then f@#k you" is not the way to go.  If you want Bitcoin to be successful then it's going to need to be made easier for people.

I think we need to unify around using mBTC instead of BTC, that's the simpler solution compared to a "stock split" type option.  We may need to split eventually, but it most likely won't be necessary for a long time.

[amspir]

I understand semantics and human nature, although people should know what they're doing when investing.

That means at least understanding that this representation of $/Bitcoin is meaningless. 

IMHO,  I think there will be a point at which btc to the USD will be less volatile.   If it is around $1000/btc, then eventually people that use both currencies will think in terms of some unit, such that the milliBTC (with perhaps a more friendly name) is worth around $1.

[the joint]

Such a thing could be implemented, but I can't see it being accepted by a majority of peer nodes. My opinion is that we should not monkey with the code to accommodate human nature. If someone can't get their head around the fact that price is irrelevant then they should trade beenie babies instead.

The attitude of "if you're not smart enough, then f@#k you" is not the way to go.  If you want Bitcoin to be successful then it's going to need to be made easier for people.

I think we need to unify around using mBTC instead of BTC, that's the simpler solution compared to a "stock split" type option.  We may need to split eventually, but it most likely won't be necessary for a long time.

I can see it now:
1) Consensus leads to mBTC preference over BTC
2) Alt-coin pump-and-dump fanatics realize that the minimum lowest purchase price on any exchange is now 0.00000001 mBTC instead of 0.00000001 BTC
3) Every new alt-coin has >quintillion coin total supply

[_tenletters]

Everyone is talking about this, but not coming upon or considering the necessary solution, which is this:

We need a semantic change, nothing programmatic needs to happen to the core protocol.

We need to change what we call a 'Bitcoin'. It should be much smaller, possibly what we now call a Satoshi, or 10 or 100 of what we now call a Satoshi. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT. To stay consistent with the concept of coin, 'Bitcoins' need to be something that people can acquire many of. The rest of the denominations should be ONE OR AT MOST TWO SYLLABLES. They should not be wholly invented, they should be adapted from popular language. A "grand" for 1000, or other simple common names for powers of ten from the top common globally used languages.

What we currently call a Bitcoin should be called something else. "A full ____ of Bitcoins". I like 'Satoshi', although something else would be less confusing. Think of it and explain it like a bar of gold.

A Proposal for the Mitigation of Bitcoin's Linguistic Transaction Costs

[DeathAndTaxes]

We need to change what we call a 'Bitcoin'.

What you fail to realize is there is no "we".  You will never convince every single user to start calling a satoshi a "Bitcoin".  Names only have meaning if they are consistent.  Imagine if at the same time there was more than one definition for a meter, it would be kinda useless to provide units in meters (which definition of meters).  In centralized institutions the central body can proclaim a new change in value (like redefining a meter, or kilogram) but that doesn't work in a decentralized network.

Can you imagine would utterly confusing it would be if everyone you talked to had a different definition of what 1 BTC was?

A BTC is NEVER EVER going to change.  To do so would require a consensus, it would require rewriting everything that has been written.  It would still lead to confusion and chaos when people looked at outdated articles talking about (there will never be more than 21M BTC and the person own more than that himself).  It simply is not going to happen.

Most of the time you can't get 100 bitcoiners to agree on just about anything but somehow you are going to get millions of users to simultaneously change their definition of what a Bitcoin is?  Really?  That seems a viable solution to you?

[mjc]

Then buy 25 mBTC or 250 mBTC.  :-) 

Your asking for the equivalent of a stock split on 1 oz of gold.

[RodeoX]

Such a thing could be implemented, but I can't see it being accepted by a majority of peer nodes. My opinion is that we should not monkey with the code to accommodate human nature. If someone can't get their head around the fact that price is irrelevant then they should trade beenie babies instead.

The attitude of "if you're not smart enough, then f@#k you" is not the way to go.  If you want Bitcoin to be successful then it's going to need to be made easier for people.

I think we need to unify around using mBTC instead of BTC, that's the simpler solution compared to a "stock split" type option.  We may need to split eventually, but it most likely won't be necessary for a long time.

But isn't worldwide acceptance the ultimate goal? Don't we want total saturation? If this is to be accomplished, then the protocol has to be presented in a way that is easier to digest for the average non-tech person.

Trying to explain to my wife that there are 100million satoshis in a Bitcoin. And that you can buy and send .001 bitcoin, which we are now calling a millibit is a disaster.

I wasn't clear there. I'm not writing those people off. I think the technology will spawn user friendly applications that anyone can use. But I don't think it's effective to teach some people how the protocol works. Kinda like the internet before the Netscape browser. You could connect via command line, but it was not something that many people could do.  It took new tools rather learning for most users.

[kireinaha]

Oh good, this topic again.

Here's the deal: stocks are split because investors can't buy in partial amounts. With bitcoin, you can buy as little or as much as you want, so making a bitcoin "split" doesn't.make.sense.

It wouldn't have much effect on price either, because the market cap would still be the exact same, we'd just start defining a "bitcoin" differently, confusing the fuck out of everyone in the process (as if bitcoin isn't confusing enough for newcomers as it is).

[Biodom]

I wonder would this have the same effect:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/3862

It's a move to change the default representation of the currency to microBTC

I think that proposal on github is a great idea.
It plays on psychology very well. You bought 1 BTC, but now you are a millionaire (in "new" XBT)
It will allow people to make small purchases of bitcoin without thinking that they are getting something fractional, which could be thought of as not valuable.
Of course, things will appear expensive at first: a cup of coffee for 5000 XBT, but it will change going forward, hopefully.
Then, institutions will trade "whole" BTC just like they do BRKA-A (at $183,914 a share)

[_tenletters]

We need to change what we call a 'Bitcoin'.

What you fail to realize is there is no "we".  You will never convince every single user to start calling a satoshi a "Bitcoin".  Names only have meaning if they are consistent.  Imagine if at the same time there was more than one definition for a meter, it would be kinda useless to provide units in meters (which definition of meters).  In centralized institutions the central body can proclaim a new change in value (like redefining a meter, or kilogram) but that doesn't work in a decentralized network.

I understand it. What you do not understand is how fatal the idea of a "coin" that costs hundreds or thousands of dollars is to the continued adoption of Bitcoin, a brand which leveraged the human tendency to ascribe value to collectibles beyond their mere utilitarian value, in order to to gain traction. That same leverage is needed to continue adoption, and fractional ownership does not push the same buttons in our ape brains.

Can you imagine would utterly confusing it would be if everyone you talked to had a different definition of what 1 BTC was?

Yes, but it is a much smaller problem than trying to convince people to collect .001 or .0001 Bitcoins by naming them something else. This is essentially a re-branding. It would just as hard as inventing a whole new coin, as far as public perception goes. And at least then you could make up less cumbersome names for units. I mean, 'Mil-E-Bit-Coin'? Come on...

A BTC is NEVER EVER going to change.

You sound like Bernanke talking about the Fed  

To do so would require a consensus, it would require rewriting everything that has been written.  It would still lead to confusion and chaos when people looked at outdated articles talking about (there will never be more than 21M BTC and the person own more than that himself).  It simply is not going to happen.

If even a minority of existing users switch to the new labels, then the holdouts will be quickly overwhelmed by new users choosing the more intuitive language, assuming the adoption rate holds steady. The scale is so immensely different that context will easily show which system a communication is using. Do you really think someone is accidentally going to sell their private jet for a 10,000 Satoshis, because of a misunderstanding of folk names?

Most of the time you can't get 100 bitcoiners to agree on just about anything but somehow you are going to get millions of users to simultaneously change their definition of what a Bitcoin is?  Really?  That seems a viable solution to you?

It is a solution that tackles the core of the problem, unlike all of the others, which is that for an item to be consistent with the concept of a 'coin', ownership of multiples of the unit needs to be realistically attainable.

[Joshuar]

Would it be possible for the Bitcoin developers to agree upon and implement something like a stock split for Bitcoin.  Stock splits exist because as the price of a stock goes up, the average laymen investor sees the stock value and thinks "that's too expensive."  Stock splits are good for investor psyche as it lowers the barrier of entry for the average investor.

When average people see that 1BTC trades for $650, they feel like they've either missed the boat, or that it is just too much money to invest.  And while you can simply buy .50 BTC or .25BTC, from a psychological standpoint, it just doesn't feel as satisfying as owning 1 whole unit.

I see that there is a big unification towards the "millibit" terminology, but I think that is too confusing for the average person.  In the united states, we have resisted switching to the Metric system because "it's just too damn confusing." (which is insane, because inches and feet are arbitrary.  We should have switched to the metric system ages ago.)

Anyways...would there be some sort of way for the developers to state that on some date in the future, the value of .50 BTC is actually 1BTC, but the 21million number stays fixed? Is there a way to move the decimal places? Is there something that can be done to mimic a stock split? Long term, I think this would be good to entice new investors to Bitcoin.

I actually like this idea..

[keelba]

It seems like most people are hung up on the idea of getting more people to buy bitcoin, hence driving up the price. Bitcoin was not meant to be an investment. We need to focus on ideas to get people to USE Bitcoin. As a natural result, the more people use it, the more valuable it becomes and, thus, those smart enough to buy and hodl early will be rewarded. But please do not think of Bitcoin as an investment vehicle and then try to get others to buy into it. That just reeks of a pyramid scheme.

[JonBosco]

It's relatively easy to get everyone in the Bitcoin community to switch to mBTC.


...compared getting the MEDIA to switch.


so I like your idea. The BTC "stock split" would be a news story for 2 weeks tops. Then again, we'll have to get used to correcting the "LOL Bitcoin dropped by 50%, Im not buying into that scam LOL" crowd.

[franky1]

in the wall street markets
they do not call a gram of gold dust a 'gold brick' its just called dust
they do not call an ingot of gold a 'gold brick' its just called an ingot.

we do not need to call a smaller amount of bitcoin, a bitcoin..
people are already calling smaller amounts bitmils/mBTC or ksat/uBTC

the same as gold, first its called by mathmatical names.. then people call it by common names. where each country has their own slang term

take FIAT for instance. dollar notes are called benjamins, lincolns, etc. in the UK. a monkey, a pony, etc.

the bitcoin protocol/qt client does not need to do anything. if you look at the client, you can already use the dropdown menu to change between BTC, mBTC. uBTC.

nothing in the bitcoin client needs to change. just peoples social interactions and uses of the names needs to change.which can be done with our mouths. with no requirement of the bitcoin-dev's time

[jonald_fyookball]

Good thoughts here.

I agree, no change to protocol or code needed.
Issue is semantics and marketing.

IMO, here's what needs to happen:

Major exchange need to start publishing prices in millibits on their homepages.
Then average investor goes there and says hmmm... $6.34 ?  cool... let me get some.

[klabaki]

the bitcoin protocol/qt client does not need to do anything. if you look at the client, you can already use the dropdown menu to change between BTC, mBTC. uBTC.

nothing in the bitcoin client needs to change.

I want to have more options in that drop-down box:

1 satoshi	=	1 XST	=	1 sat
10 satoshi	=		=
100 satoshi	=	1 µBC	=	1 microbit
1 000 satoshi	=	1 kST	=	1 kilosat
10 000 satoshi	=		=
100 000 satoshi	=	1 mBC	=	1 millibit
1 000 000 satoshi	=	1 MST	=	1 megasat
10 000 000 satoshi	=		=
100 000 000 satoshi	=	1 XBC	=	1 bitcoin
1 000 000 000 satoshi	=	1 GST	=	1 gigasat
-----------------------------

It's quite an easy thing to patch the client to get these options. I'm going to do that if there's more interest in it.

What other options can you imagine? How can we fill those gaps?

[Bit_Happy]

Some of the "higher quality" alt coins have the advantage of "sane" pricing.

[DieJohnny]

I think this subject has been addressed a thousand times before on this forum.

yes it is a psychological win if you can buy 100 pieces of bicoin for a dollar, but apparently everyone is too stupid to make it happen.

Yawn....

[Bit_Happy]

I think this subject has been addressed a thousand times before on this forum.

yes it is a psychological win if you can buy 100 pieces of bicoin for a dollar, but apparently everyone is too stupid to make it happen.

Yawn....

Not stupid just slow to change.

[mjc]

We could do like the US Government does and print more, so that each one has less value.


OP you are missing the point of having a fixed and divisible currency.   The cost of changing will far out weight the benefit.  All you need to do is change the division.  use 1000 mBTC = 1 BTC, and 1,000,000 uBTC = 1 BTC.  Then people can buy 1 uBTC and be happy.  If yo are able to acquire and hold 1 BTC until then well, you're a millionaire. 


I would love to hold a 10,000 casino chip, but I cannot afford to.  so I play with $1 & $5 chips. 

[cbeast]

The Press would love that. "Bitcoin drops by half overnight."

[slowlyslowly]

It seems like most people are hung up on the idea of getting more people to buy bitcoin, hence driving up the price. Bitcoin was not meant to be an investment. We need to focus on ideas to get people to USE Bitcoin. As a natural result, the more people use it, the more valuable it becomes and, thus, those smart enough to buy and hodl early will be rewarded. But please do not think of Bitcoin as an investment vehicle and then try to get others to buy into it. That just reeks of a pyramid scheme.

agree - the issue is to use bitcoins for its purpose ie low cost transactions. the yen is about 1% of the US dollar but people get their head around it. its the opposite to something being about 650 times one dollar but it is the same fundamental issue.

someone else has also posted how we price gold in terms of weight and we all understand that.
 

[klabaki]

agree - the issue is to use bitcoins for its purpose ie low cost transactions. the yen is about 1% of the US dollar but people get their head around it. its the opposite to something being about 650 times one dollar but it is the same fundamental issue.

It's not the same issue, just a similar one. Here's the difference:


Imagine a can of coke is valued 0.99 $, and also imagine people would prefer to use the unit "kilodollar" (k$) for some insane reason.
Now, how would that can of coke be priced?

It's 0.00099 k$.

...or was it 0.00990 k$?
...or maybe .000099 k$?

On the other hand, let's imagine people would prefer to use "millidollar" (m$) for some other insane reason.
Taking the same can of coke, how would the price look like?

It's 990 m$.

This cannot be mistaken as 9900 m$.
And it cannot be mistaken as 99 m$.


Have a look at the numbers above. As you can see, it is much much more difficult to count the post-decimal zeros than to just measure the length of the number. That's a big difference.
So, if we're in doubt, we should prefer to use a too small-sized unit rather than a too big-sized unit.


Currently, people use a too big-sized unit (BTC), which makes it necessary to count post-decimal zeros. This is inconvenient and error-prone.

[Biodom]

So, what are core bitcoin dev planning? See github https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/3862.
Are we switching to 1 microBTC as a base unit (=100 satoshis) or what?
I think it would be cool.
Each 1BTC will become 1mil microBTC.
I say, skip mBTC (millie) and move to micro. This way, you only switch once.

[klabaki]

Each 1BTC will become 1mil microBTC.

The meaning of the word "bitcoin" can't be changed because it's already in use.
It's just impossible to change the meaning of in-use words. Instead, new words are introduced.

So, what are core bitcoin dev are planning?

This is not the task of the core developers. It's a task of the community.
Core developers have lots of other, more important things to do.

The actual changes to the source code are minor, and I've already offered my support to do this, if there's enough interest (see my post above).
Again: If anyone wants to have more options in that currency selection drop-down box, just tell me, I'll release a modified client then.

[Biodom]

The meaning of the word "bitcoin" can't be changed because it's already in use.
It's just impossible to change the meaning of in-use words. Instead, new words are introduced.

I think everyone understand not to change a meaning of bitcoin, but the default wallet representation.
Instead of 3,012321 BTC it will be 3012321 microBTC. It would make sense to assign a three letter symbol to microBTC (XBU has been proposed).
in this case, wallet will read 3012321 XBU(microBTC). In a few years, once people get used to XBU (or some other three letter symbol), brackets and microBTC description will go away.
What is wrong with this?
I don't show this as my idea (it is not, of course); I simply bring some of the github discussion here.

[klabaki]

I think everyone understand not to change a meaning of bitcoin, but the default wallet representation.
Instead of 3,012321 BTC it will be 3012321 microBTC. It would make sense to assign a three letter symbol to microBTC (XBU has been proposed).
in this case, wallet will read 3012321 XBU(microBTC). In a few years, once people get used to XBU (or some other three letter symbol), brackets and microBTC description will go away.
What is wrong with this?
I don't show this as my idea (it is not, of course); I simply bring some of the github discussion here.

I have read the GitHub discussion and I think this whole debate is completely blown out of proportion.

Firstly, this is a purely linguistic problem, not a technical one. The core developers are techies, not linguists, so they shouldn't be annoyed with this.

Secondly, if people want to use other units of currency, then they'll just start doing so by themselves.
For example, if you want to use microBTC as a unit, then just do so. You can change the appropriate setting in the client.

There is a "default" value for this setting which is applied to newly installed wallets. But as everyone can change the unit directly after installation, there's no reason to pay much attention to the default value.
Also, already installed wallets aren't affected at all. This is really only about the preset value for new installs.

[Biodom]

Firstly, this is a purely linguistic problem, not a technical one. The core developers are techies, not linguists, so they shouldn't be annoyed with this.

It is both social and technical.
1. Technical-because bank software, apparently, is not set up to use any more decimals than two, hence a proposal to move to XBU (microBTC).
2. Second (social)-regular folks (not programmers or mathematicians) cannot easily distinguish between 0.0002 and 0.00002 when they have to pay. It is known that many numbers after the period are inadvisable.

The question is how to get from here (full BTC with 8 decimals to XBU-as an example- and two decimals for satoshis).

[klabaki]

It is both social and technical.
1. Technical-because bank software, apparently, is not set up to use any more decimals than two, hence a proposal to move to XBU (microBTC).

No. It's not a technical issue.
Any banking software that wants to interface with Bitcoin efficiently will have to adapt the client in various ways.
Changing the output of the RPC interface is a trivial task and changes to the graphical user interface are completely meaningless to this adaption.

You seem to completely overestimate the technical overhead of this change compared to any other challenges that the adaption of Bitcoin might cause.

Jeff Garzik brought up this argument, but he erred about that. You can see the discussion on the GitHub page, for example:

NACK

Lets stick to programming core functionality rather than UI's. Silly bickering like this over something that the general community is perfectly capable of coming to consensus to on its own just makes me think more about how Bitcoin Core would be better off without wallet functionality.

It's not a technical issue and it's not a developer's task to solve that.

2. Second (social)-regular folks (not programmers or mathematicians) cannot easily distinguish between 0.0002 and 0.00002 when they have to pay. It is known that many numbers after the period are inadvisable.

This is not about being a programmer or mathematician. Read my earlier posts in this thread. I have pointed out that it is generally more difficult to grasp the magnitude of a decimal number compared to an integer.
I am a programmer myself and I also prefer a smaller unit (kilosat, in my case) for the very same reason: It's more readable.

In case you didn't know it: The Bitcoin-Qt client allows you to change the displayed currency unit to your preference. Check the preferences' window.
If there's a particular exchange / online wallet / other service that doesn't allow you to do that, then you should complain to the operator of that service.
But please don't moan about the developers. It's not a technical issue.

The question is how to get from here (full BTC with 8 decimals to XBU-as an example- and two decimals for satoshis).

I get the impression that you're waiting for the Central Bitcoin Authority to approve the switch, isn't it?

I have to disappoint you. You'll never get this approval. You are the "peer" in peer-to-peer. If you want to switch to microbitcoin, then just do it!

If you want to have a specific change in the way Bitcoin-Qt displays currency, I have already offered my help (twice).
(Please note that displaying currency in µBTC is already implemented. Just check the preferences' window.)

[gojomo]

The need is clear, and the microbitcoin is a nice sized unit, but a mess of a word/abbreviation.

What's needed is a new word, related to Bitcoin and just as breezy, but with one unambiguous meaning (µBTC) that still leaves plenty of room for appreciation.

My proposal is here:

Ƶibcoin: Your New Favorite Altcoin

Lots of reasoning there, much of which has already been mentioned here, but the TLDR:

  1          bitcoin = 1,000,000    zibcoin = 100,000,000 satoshi
  0.000001   bitcoin =         1    zibcoin =         100 satoshi           
  0.00000001 bitcoin =         0.01 zibcoin =           1 satoshi

...and...

          Ƶ1 = 1 µBTC = BTC0.000001
      Ƶ1,000 = 1 mBTC = BTC0.001
  Ƶ1,000,000          = BTC1

'Zib' can be used as either a noun or verb in casual conversation:

“I’ll bring you a pizza for 10,000 zib”

“when are you going to zib me 10,000 for that pizza Friday night?”

Unless the satoshi is ever made divisible, other new terms won't be necessary. Zibcoin units can be adopted incrementally over time – there's no need for a big synchronized switchover, where old terms change their meaning.

I know it sounds a bit silly, but I think it'll grow on you if you give it a chance.

[virtuexru_shibe]

Such a thing could be implemented, but I can't see it being accepted by a majority of peer nodes. My opinion is that we should not monkey with the code to accommodate human nature. If someone can't get their head around the fact that price is irrelevant then they should trade beenie babies instead.

The attitude of "if you're not smart enough, then f@#k you" is not the way to go.  If you want Bitcoin to be successful then it's going to need to be made easier for people.

I think we need to unify around using mBTC instead of BTC, that's the simpler solution compared to a "stock split" type option.  We may need to split eventually, but it most likely won't be necessary for a long time.

I can see it now:
1) Consensus leads to mBTC preference over BTC
2) Alt-coin pump-and-dump fanatics realize that the minimum lowest purchase price on any exchange is now 0.00000001 mBTC instead of 0.00000001 BTC
3) Every new alt-coin has >quintillion coin total supply

Hah it's funny because I can totally see this happening.

[virtuexru_shibe]

The need is clear, and the microbitcoin is a nice sized unit, but a mess of a word/abbreviation.

What's needed is a new word, related to Bitcoin and just as breezy, but with one unambiguous meaning (µBTC) that still leaves plenty of room for appreciation.

My proposal is here:

Ƶibcoin: Your New Favorite Altcoin

Lots of reasoning there, much of which has already been mentioned here, but the TLDR:

  1          bitcoin = 1,000,000    zibcoin = 100,000,000 satoshi
  0.000001   bitcoin =         1    zibcoin =         100 satoshi           
  0.00000001 bitcoin =         0.01 zibcoin =           1 satoshi

...and...

          Ƶ1 = 1 µBTC = BTC0.000001
      Ƶ1,000 = 1 mBTC = BTC0.001
  Ƶ1,000,000          = BTC1

'Zib' can be used as either a noun or verb in casual conversation:

“I’ll bring you a pizza for 10,000 zib”

“when are you going to zib me 10,000 for that pizza Friday night?”

Unless the satoshi is ever made divisible, other new terms won't be necessary. Zibcoin units can be adopted incrementally over time – there's no need for a big synchronized switchover, where old terms change their meaning.

I know it sounds a bit silly, but I think it'll grow on you if you give it a chance.

https://i.imgur.com/2976bsf.gif

[klabaki]

The need is clear, and the microbitcoin is a nice sized unit, but a mess of a word/abbreviation.

What's needed is a new word, related to Bitcoin and just as breezy, but with one unambiguous meaning (µBTC) that still leaves plenty of room for appreciation.

My proposal is here:

Ƶibcoin: Your New Favorite Altcoin

Lots of reasoning there, much of which has already been mentioned here, but the TLDR:

  1          bitcoin = 1,000,000    zibcoin = 100,000,000 satoshi
  0.000001   bitcoin =         1    zibcoin =         100 satoshi           
  0.00000001 bitcoin =         0.01 zibcoin =           1 satoshi

...and...

          Ƶ1 = 1 µBTC = BTC0.000001
      Ƶ1,000 = 1 mBTC = BTC0.001
  Ƶ1,000,000          = BTC1

'Zib' can be used as either a noun or verb in casual conversation:

“I’ll bring you a pizza for 10,000 zib”

“when are you going to zib me 10,000 for that pizza Friday night?”

Unless the satoshi is ever made divisible, other new terms won't be necessary. Zibcoin units can be adopted incrementally over time – there's no need for a big synchronized switchover, where old terms change their meaning.

I know it sounds a bit silly, but I think it'll grow on you if you give it a chance.

Sweet.

[tkbx]

Too much confusion and effort for too little a benefit. Using mBTC would work out better in my opinion.

[W2014]

I have the solution. Create consensus to rename units as follows:

1 BTC --> becomes 1 Satoshi (the largest unit named in honor of the inventor)
1 mBTC --> becomes 1 BTC

[gojomo]

I have the solution. Create consensus to rename units as follows:

1 BTC --> becomes 1 Satoshi (the largest unit named in honor of the inventor)
1 mBTC --> becomes 1 BTC

So that the thousands of projects, and millions of users, can switch at the same time, when's the switchover day where 'Bitcoin' is redefined?

Will the markets be closed, like when a country changes the side of the road it drives on?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagen_H

[klabaki]

My proposal is here:

Ƶibcoin: Your New Favorite Altcoin

I would like to know the etymology of "zib".

[gojomo]

My proposal is here:

Ƶibcoin: Your New Favorite Altcoin

I would like to know the etymology of "zib".

Wanted something similar enough to 'bitcoin' to suggest a relation – same general size/sounds/syllables – but different enough to avoid constant confusion.

Spent some time looking at 'tibcoin' – just reversing the 'bit' part – but was concerned with 'T' having too many colliding meanings (tera-, TiB tebibytes, time, etc), and the abbreviation (TBC) being too much like BTC, and 'tibcoin' being too easily confusable with 'bitcoin' by single-letter transposition typos or flubbed speech.

Still, having the internal 'b' seemed helpful for slight bitcoin-suggestiveness, so went through the alphabet for '*ibcoin' options... Most had problems of colliding meanings or unclear/unhelpful pronunciations. 'Z', though, offered:

• 'Z' as a fairly distinctive one-letter abbreviation; 'ZBC' just different enough from 'BTC' to avoid too many mistypes/misviews
• Ƶ (Z-with-slash) available currency-ish unicode character
• 'zib' pronounceable with no obvious word collisions in English
• 'zib' very action verb-able, by my native English speaker ears, compared to 'bit' or 'mic' ("I'll bit 10,000 to you" or "I'll mic 10,000 to you" both sound wrongish compared to "I'll zib 10,000 to you")
• a useful connotation of 'finality' or 'the last' – once this unit is adopted, even satoshi-sized values need no more than 2 decimal places, and the search for new units or places to move the decimal point can end

Stewed on 'zibcoin' for a little while, then decided to write up the case in a few stable public places. I believe it solves the core issue, with the minimum required novelty. But, I know it'll take time to evaluate – to become familiar with the sound/spelling/abbreviations, and observe the compactness/unambiguity benefits compared to other options.

Getting the case out in a few forums lets it enter the thinkable-solution-set for people struggling with BTC-deep-decimal/mBTC/µBTC display issues, which come up repeatedly (including recently among core & wallet developers).

If Zibcoin doesn't sound quite right on first consideration... maybe it will over time, as more people repeatedly face BTC appreciation/denomination/communication issues.

(I thought a microbitcoin-based denomination would be overkill/superficial/silly the first few times I heard the idea... but now see it as so obviously beneficial that I just want to help remove the major remaining obstacle, the awkward language of 'microbitcoin' and 'µBTC'.)

[zachcope]

OP's idea is the most idiotic idea I have heard for a long time.

1 BTC = 1 BTC
A=A

0.001 of a bitcoin is a millibit if you wish.

If bitcoin's spread is contingent on a change in a decimal place then the human race deserves to fail.

Do you really think the unbanked, the oppressed, those under hyperinflation give a f**k about where the BTC decimal place is?

Should we edit the historical internet so all mentions of BTC amounts are multiplied by 1000?

Perhaps we should airbrush all images of Mark Karpeles from history?

Grow up and get an abacus or something.

Dogecoin has enough numbers above 1 for you - although that crowd are too smart for you.

[Eastwind]

It is funny how people create inexistent problems and then propose even more absurd solutions to them.

Just use millibitcoin instead of bitcoin. 0.65 instead of 650. problem solved.

Just use millibitcoin now and in 10 years, use microbitcoin, then in 50 years, use statoshi.

[gojomo]

My proposal is here:

Ƶibcoin: Your New Favorite Altcoin

I would like to know the etymology of "zib".

While my previous long answer is the true origin - that I searched for made-up words that might fit the need until finding a good one – I've since learned that ZIB was also the name given to a stray dog that was drafted into the Soviet Space Program in September 1951, and flew a successful suborbital test flight:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_space_dogs#Bolik_and_ZIB

http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2011/04/05/bark-at-the-moon-a-history-of-soviet-space-dogs/

Thus I'm retconning the Zibcoin name as an homage to ZIB, the unlikeliest space mutt.

Without any formal preparation, I'm guessing ZIB got closer to the moon than any Shiba Inu. Attaboy, ZIB!

ZIB, we remember you.

[klabaki]

While my previous long answer is the true origin - that I searched for made-up words that might fit the need until finding a good one – I've since learned that ZIB was also the name given to a stray dog that was drafted into the Soviet Space Program in September 1951, and flew a successful suborbital test flight:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_space_dogs#Bolik_and_ZIB

http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2011/04/05/bark-at-the-moon-a-history-of-soviet-space-dogs/

Thus I'm retconning the Zibcoin name as an homage to ZIB, the unlikeliest space mutt.

Without any formal preparation, I'm guessing ZIB got closer to the moon than any Shiba Inu. Attaboy, ZIB!

ZIB, we remember you.

When you look into an etymological dictionary, you'll see that many words have two (or more) etymologies... so I'll give another one:

Zibcoin is the short form of zipped microbitcoin, which is a technical term for "compressed microbitcoin", i.e. a shorter version of the word "microbitcoin".




But the etymology shouldn't bother us to much; what I really care about is whether we will get these images...

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/qt/res/icons/bitcoin.png
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/qt/res/icons/bitcoin_testnet.png
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/qt/res/images/splash.png
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/qt/res/images/splash_testnet.png

...with a Ƶ instead of a BTC?

Then we would have the most important ingredients for a successful altcoin(-age).

[ryanmnercer]

take FIAT for instance. dollar notes are called benjamins, lincolns, etc. in the UK. a monkey, a pony, etc.

In 29 years I've NEVER heard anyone refer to a 5$ bill as a 'lincoln'. Ever.

[ryanmnercer]

agree - the issue is to use bitcoins for its purpose ie low cost transactions. the yen is about 1% of the US dollar but people get their head around it. its the opposite to something being about 650 times one dollar but it is the same fundamental issue.

It's not the same issue, just a similar one. Here's the difference:


Imagine a can of coke is valued 0.99 $, and also imagine people would prefer to use the unit "kilodollar" (k$) for some insane reason.
Now, how would that can of coke be priced?

It's 0.00099 k$.

...or was it 0.00990 k$?
...or maybe .000099 k$?

On the other hand, let's imagine people would prefer to use "millidollar" (m$) for some other insane reason.
Taking the same can of coke, how would the price look like?

It's 990 m$.

This cannot be mistaken as 9900 m$.
And it cannot be mistaken as 99 m$.


Have a look at the numbers above. As you can see, it is much much more difficult to count the post-decimal zeros than to just measure the length of the number. That's a big difference.
So, if we're in doubt, we should prefer to use a too small-sized unit rather than a too big-sized unit.


Currently, people use a too big-sized unit (BTC), which makes it necessary to count post-decimal zeros. This is inconvenient and error-prone.

Exactly, when I try to explain the decimals to people their eyes glaze over and they mentally check out. I mean, a bitcoin is currently worth a take-home paycheck for a lot of people, when you tell them that they lose interest immediately and that's in the U.S., if you want half the world to adopt it (that make far far far far far less money) 1 bitcoin is currently worth more than most of them will make in a YEAR, worldwide, the median household income is only about $10,000 (16.12BTC) and it's fairly lower in a lot of places... If you want people to adopt it as a currency, it needs to be easy to understand and not make people feel like they'll be bitcoin poor.

[Kazimir]

Having "new" bitcoins vs "old" bitcoins (where 2 or 10 or 50 news ones equal one old) is WAY more confusing than using "milliBits".

Currently, one milliBit is about $ 0.61. That's REALLY cheap! Sounds like pennystocks to me, let's pick up a few of those

[ryanmnercer]

Having "new" bitcoins vs "old" bitcoins (where 2 or 10 or 50 news ones equal one old) is WAY more confusing than using "milliBits".

Currently, one milliBit is about $ 0.61. That's REALLY cheap! Sounds like pennystocks to me, let's pick up a few of those

We don't need 'new bitcoins' we just need to shift the decimal right some. Sooner we do it, easier it will be.

[Kazimir]

We don't need 'new bitcoins' we just need to shift the decimal right some. Sooner we do it, easier it will be.

Same problem. Or even worse probably. Having "shifted" vs "unshifted" bitcoins is gonna confuse the hell out of people.

You seriously don't see how this is gonna cause TONS of people wine "I PAID 0.17 BTC FOR MY PIZZA, I GOT RIPPED OFF" etc?

[ryanmnercer]

We don't need 'new bitcoins' we just need to shift the decimal right some. Sooner we do it, easier it will be.

Same problem. Or even worse probably. Having "shifted" vs "unshifted" bitcoins is gonna confuse the hell out of people.

You seriously don't see how this is gonna cause TONS of people wine "I PAID 0.17 BTC FOR MY PIZZA, I GOT RIPPED OFF" etc?

Then they are morons. All that needs to be done is the community needs to approve a shift, official bitcoin client gets release with said shift and all wallets are forced to be updated. Period. People wake up and notice they have a hell of a lot more whole numbers than they went to sleep with.

[Kazimir]

Then they are morons.

Hello..! 95% of all people ARE morons.

[ryanmnercer]

Then they are morons.

Hello..! 95% of all people ARE morons.

I resemble that remark!!!

I mean, heh yup.

[devt]

I see that there is a big unification towards the "millibit" terminology, but I think that is too confusing for the average person.  In the united states, we have resisted switching to the Metric system because "it's just too damn confusing." (which is insane, because inches and feet are arbitrary.  We should have switched to the metric system ages ago.)

Maybe the average person in US. But fortunately, everybody else uses the confusing metric system and since bitcoin is a global currency that just seems fair. Besides, you don't have prefixes in imperial system (at least afaik) and no one wants to own 50 foot bitcoins.

[HorseCoin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLGgzN8Kd7Q&feature=kp

[LMGTFY]

I see that there is a big unification towards the "millibit" terminology, but I think that is too confusing for the average person.  In the united states, we have resisted switching to the Metric system because "it's just too damn confusing." (which is insane, because inches and feet are arbitrary.  We should have switched to the metric system ages ago.)

Maybe the average person in US. But fortunately, everybody else uses the confusing metric system and since bitcoin is a global currency that just seems fair. Besides, you don't have prefixes in imperial system (at least afaik) and no one wants to own 50 foot bitcoins.

I wonder how true that is for the US? Presumably folk in the US have gone through a couple of decades of bytes, kilobytes, megabytes, gigabytes and terabytes? For that matter, surely people in the US are familiar with expressing numbers like this -> 1,000,000,000.000,000,001 <- ?

I guess I just don't buy this "it's too confusing for some people" argument. The first time I bought real estate it involved a learning curve; but I needed to do it (buy a house) so I made the effort to learn the jargon, the regulations and the units used in the locale. If people need to do something, they learn how to do it. And the learning required for Bitcoin, compared with purchasing property, is pretty minimal (fairly minimal jargon, no regulations, the units are familiar to anyone who's bought a hard drive). Maybe I just have more faith in other people's friends and elderly relatives.

[solomon]

There is a psychological barrier because milli and micro sound 'small'. People don't want to hand over a whole wad of greenbacks and receive micro-bitcoins. I'm a fan of using uBTC but just referring to them as 'bits'.

[LMGTFY]

There is a psychological barrier because milli and micro sound 'small'. People don't want to hand over a whole wad of greenbacks and receive micro-bitcoins. I'm a fan of using uBTC but just referring to them as 'bits'.

Are there people who think "I've got 50 bucks! You know what, I've a notion to buy some bitcoins. How much would I get? Oh no! Only 83 millibitcoins I guess I just won't bother."? I guess there might be, but it's presumably a fairly small demographic. Surely most people buying BTC have some reason for buying it - they'll want to buy something that's priced in BTC, or they'll be looking into BTC as an investment and they'll have some idea how much they plan to invest, and how much it costs in fiat, etc. I'd hope these latter two groups would base decisions on more practical matters than perceptions of size.

To be honest, though, I think this is all moot - we will adopt conventions like you suggest, and others. Different groups of people using Bitcoin will use different conventions. Already there's a whole community of people thinking in terms of "Satoshis". I tend to think in terms of BTC (force of habit), but people are clearly starting to think of mBTC. And that's fine! It's all nice and decentralised. The OP suggested a technical solution; I believe that if there is a problem it's a social problem, and one for which we don't need a centralised, imposed solution.

[superdork]

I wonder would this have the same effect:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/3862

It's a move to change the default representation of the currency to microBTC

If that happened I'd be rich!!







(....crosses fingers and really really hopes everyone gets it)

[superdork]

There is a psychological barrier because milli and micro sound 'small'. People don't want to hand over a whole wad of greenbacks and receive micro-bitcoins. I'm a fan of using uBTC but just referring to them as 'bits'.

Are there people who think "I've got 50 bucks! You know what, I've a notion to buy some bitcoins. How much would I get? Oh no! Only 83 millibitcoins I guess I just won't bother."? I guess there might be, but it's presumably a fairly small demographic.

I sell to a guy thru localbitcoins.com who fits that description. He is by no means a high roller and he buys around $100 worth each time, he is a pizza delivery guy but he moves some loot into BTC when he can afford it.

They are out there, not everybody is completely clueless about math.

and on the metric system topic... my god what a sad state of affairs that "Americans think metric is too hard" it is a base ten COUNTING system. It is literally the easiest system for humans to count and if they really are too fucking stupid to move a goddamn decimal point their fuckin smartphone will do it for them.

I'll be back, I need to go smash my head into a wall for a bit (or maybe a megabit) while I contemplate whether there actually is any particular reason for the existence of humans.

[_tenletters]

I wonder would this have the same effect:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/3862

It's a move to change the default representation of the currency to microBTC

Do this and then call them Bitcoins NOT 'microbitcoins'.

Call 10^8 Satoshis something else, a "full ______ of Bitcoins."

They are a million times apart in scale, this makes it easy to tell from context which system is being used, during the transition. And the transition wont take long once it gets started, since it is such a better scheme, for many reasons.

Come one people, quit pussy footing around. This is the true semantic stock split that Bitcoin needs.

Reeducating a million users is far easier and more productive than introducing a billion potential users to an ugly, cumbersome, and transactionally costly-to-communicate legacy naming convention.  

[ryanmnercer]

Do this and then call them Bitcoins NOT 'microbitcoins'.

Call 10^8 Satoshis something else, a "full ______ of Bitcoins."

They are a million times apart in scale, this makes it easy to tell which system is being used during the transition. And the transition wont take long once it gets started, since it is such a better scheme, for many reasons.

Come one people, quit pussy footing around. This is the true semantic stock split that Bitcoin needs.

Reeducating a million users is far easier and more productive than introducing a billion potential users to an ugly, cumbersome, and transactionally costly-to-communicate legacy naming convention. 

Amen!

[amspir]

Reeducating a million users is far easier and more productive than introducing a billion potential users to an ugly, cumbersome, and transactionally costly-to-communicate legacy naming convention.  

Like Pol Pot?  I think you will find stiff resistance amongst the libertarian-oriented community of early bitcoin adopters.

I'm planning to sell a bitcoin shirt soon.  I'll probably price them at the low, low price of 39 milliBTC each.

[klabaki]

I'm not sure why this was deleted...

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.

Continue discussion here:

→ https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=522958.0

...but it definitely belongs here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=522958.0

Ƶibcoin is the solution to Bitcoin's semantic problems!

My proposal is here:

Ƶibcoin: Your New Favorite Altcoin

[_tenletters]

Reeducating a million users is far easier and more productive than introducing a billion potential users to an ugly, cumbersome, and transactionally costly-to-communicate legacy naming convention.  

Like Pol Pot?  I think you will find stiff resistance amongst the libertarian-oriented community of early bitcoin adopters.

Like Pol Pot? Um, no...

And if there is anything that early Bitcoin adopters will tend to have in common, it is the ability to quickly recognize a superior format. And if ten times as many new users adopt a new scheme everyone will follow. That's how language works.

Mil-e-bit-coin is just a really stupid thing to call a unit of currency. The fact that it is four syllables is but one of the many reasons why.

[amspir]

Like Pol Pot? Um, no...

Just saying... The term reeducation implies authoritarianism like Pol Pot's Cambodia or Mao Zedong's China.

Mil-e-bit-coin is just a really stupid thing to call a unit of currency. The fact that it is four syllables is but one of the many reasons why.

I believe the language will develop naturally.  For one, if it becomes the dominant currency of the Internet, most people will be fine with using an abbreviation that is never spoken aloud.

[DoomDumas]

bitcoins "stock like split" it's mBTC

Simple, already implemented.. Just need mBTC to become the standard.  It will be done gradually, by exchanges and services, and users..

Already being adopted by some.. my client shows mBTC for few months now, im getting used to think in mBTC

[_tenletters]

bitcoins "stock like split" it's mBTC

Simple, already implemented.. Just need mBTC to become the standard.  It will be done gradually, by exchanges and services, and users..

Already being adopted by some.. my client shows mBTC for few months now, im getting used to think in mBTC

No. This solves the problem by creating a much worse one.

You are expecting people to learn a whole new obscure aspect of a system which already functions cryptically by definition.

This essentially requires an entire re-branding.

People have been hearing "bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin" in the media. "Bitcoin" is what they are familiar with, if they decide to participate, it is "bitcoins" they they will want, not some impotent sounding mouthfull of garbage called a Mil-E-Bit-Coin.

They very concept of a coin is not consistent with something that costs hundreds or thousands of dollars. People already work their way around this. They talk about protecting or spending their "bitcoins" even when talking about less than 1BTC.

Making this change just requires a modest conscious effort to go in the direction with the least linguistic resistance. A true semantic stock split will catch on and take over on it's own. Just like tipping a boulder off the edge of a steep slope.

[amspir]

They very concept of a coin is not consistent with something that costs hundreds or thousands of dollars. People already work their way around this. They talk about protecting or spending their "bitcoins" even when talking about less than 1BTC.

Using the term bitcoin in the plural form should become rare.   Just like you don't go to the ATM to withdraw some monies, or get a drink of waters from a water fountain.

Making this change just requires a modest conscious effort to go in the direction with the least linguistic resistance. A true semantic stock split will catch on and take over on it's own. Just like tipping a boulder off the edge of a steep slope.

A milliBTC is going to become a common unit, since it is going to be more or less scaled to similar amounts of USD or EUR.   If you want to want to use a word for a milliBTC that does not have a current definition, more power to you.

[_tenletters]

A milliBTC is going to become a common unit, since it is going to be more or less scaled to similar amounts of USD or EUR.   If you want to want to use a word for a milliBTC that does not have a current definition, more power to you.

Yes, I want to call what we now call A) 1 satoshi or B) 100 satoshis a BITCOIN and what we now call a 'Bitcoin' should be called a "full _____ of Bitcoins". We could even call it a "Full bar of bitcoins".

[amspir]

A milliBTC is going to become a common unit, since it is going to be more or less scaled to similar amounts of USD or EUR.   If you want to want to use a word for a milliBTC that does not have a current definition, more power to you.

Yes, I want to call what we now call A) 1 satoshi or B) 100 satoshis a BITCOIN and what we now call a 'Bitcoin' should be called a "full _____ of Bitcoins". We could even call it a "Full bar of bitcoins".

That makes as much sense as saying "kilometer" is too unwieldy of a term in describing terrestrial distances, therefore we should start calling kilometers "meters".

Small b bitcoin describes the protocol and a word attached to the value, big B Bitcoin will be a rare unit of measurement, such as the volume of trading at Bitstamp today was 16,000 Bitcoins, or that the Winklevoss Twins collectively own over 40,000 Bitcoins.  Regular people will spend 150 mBTC paying a monthly cell phone bill, or buy a new laptop for 1500 mBTC.

[5thStreetResearch]

would be a good thing if possible

[LMGTFY]

No. This solves the problem by creating a much worse one.

What is the problem, and who does it affect?

You are expecting people to learn a whole new obscure aspect of a system which already functions cryptically by definition.

Milli and micro are hardly obscure; they're built into the core Bitcoin client, billions of people across the globe use them already.

But, the most important thing is - no one's "expected" to learn milli and micro. They can - and do - use whatever they're comfortable with. Plenty of people use "Satoshi" already. Plenty of people use mBTC. Personally, I use BTC because it's usually most convenient. Informal, ad hoc conventions will spring up - but they'll do that organically, with communities deciding informally what works for them. They don't - we don't - need a formal convention being imposed.

This essentially requires an entire re-branding.

And who will perform this (presumably non-trivial) task?

People have been hearing "bitcoin bitcoin bitcoin" in the media. "Bitcoin" is what they are familiar with, if they decide to participate, it is "bitcoins" they they will want, not some impotent sounding mouthfull of garbage called a Mil-E-Bit-Coin.

I keep hearing about these people who "want" BTC without any reason. I remain unconvinced that they represent anything other than a very small part of the Bitcoin economy, or that they will ever represent a significant part of the economy. I mean, I understand that tourists might buy foreign currency on a whim, but for most people when they buy BTC (or JPY, or LTC, or RMB) they have a reason for it. They either need exactly 7.3 mBTC to buy something worth 7.3 mBTC, or they're investing and have some idea what they're investing in.

They very concept of a coin is not consistent with something that costs hundreds or thousands of dollars. People already work their way around this. They talk about protecting or spending their "bitcoins" even when talking about less than 1BTC.

Yup, it's a common idiom. I think about "the pounds in my pocket" even when I'm down to only a few pence (I do the same with "euros", even though "euro" is officially the plural). Incidentally, people do spend hundreds, even thousands, of dollars on coins - they're investing in precious metals and are (hopefully!) aware of the value of the stuff they're investing in.

Making this change just requires a modest conscious effort to go in the direction with the least linguistic resistance. A true semantic stock split will catch on and take over on it's own. Just like tipping a boulder off the edge of a steep slope.

That modest conscious effort? Absolutely - and people are already doing it. It's just that they're coming up with their own solutions, solutions that work for them (even though they might seem bizarre to you and me). I'd like to step back and let them get on with it. A decentralised payment system and digital currency is a great idea - why would I want to centralise any aspect of it?

[DrBitcoin]

OP's idea is the most idiotic idea I have heard for a long time.

1 BTC = 1 BTC
A=A

0.001 of a bitcoin is a millibit if you wish.

If bitcoin's spread is contingent on a change in a decimal place then the human race deserves to fail.

Do you really think the unbanked, the oppressed, those under hyperinflation give a f**k about where the BTC decimal place is?

Should we edit the historical internet so all mentions of BTC amounts are multiplied by 1000?

Perhaps we should airbrush all images of Mark Karpeles from history?

Grow up and get an abacus or something.

Dogecoin has enough numbers above 1 for you - although that crowd are too smart for you.

You embody the very essence of cliche internet angst! Take a bow my friend! You win.

[Biodom]

i think that it is worth thinking about this from the accounting perspective.
as jeff garzik pointed on github, banks have software (that they are not going to change, possibly EVER) that allows ONLY for two decimals. The number of integers is not limited, apparently. In this scenario, banks will have no problem processing 2097654.33 in bitcoin units, but will have problems with 2.09765433 in bitcoins.

Therefore, several points:

1. What would be wrong in making a switch just one time to microBTC (μBTC), with satoshis acting as cents/pennies?

2. purchasing as many as 1724 microBTC for a buck should not be a problem at all, quite the opposite, and could stimulate spending.

3. whether to give microBTC a new name is debatable (probably easier to still call it bitcoin and do a split in software, but it is unclear).

4. millieBTC is too short sighted (will work for a year or two?) and does not solve the banking problem, so it is not a long term solution.

[jonald_fyookball]

4. millieBTC is too short sighted (will work for a year or two?) and does not solve the banking problem, so it is not a long term solution.

We should be so lucky

[amspir]

i think that it is worth thinking about this from the accounting perspective.
as jeff garzik pointed on github, banks have software (that they are not going to change, possibly EVER) that allows ONLY for two decimals.

I'm just not seeing that a bank-like institution continuing to use ancient Cobol software that was last updated in 1999 to prepare for Y2K for bitcoins.

[Dr.Zaius]

Such a thing could be implemented, but I can't see it being accepted by a majority of peer nodes. My opinion is that we should not monkey with the code to accommodate human nature. If someone can't get their head around the fact that price is irrelevant then they should trade beenie babies instead.

But isn't worldwide acceptance the ultimate goal? Don't we want total saturation? If this is to be accomplished, then the protocol has to be presented in a way that is easier to digest for the average non-tech person.

Trying to explain to my wife that there are 100million satoshis in a Bitcoin. And that you can buy and send .001 bitcoin, which we are now calling a millibit is a disaster.

No. Why would worldwide acceptance be the ultimate goal? Adoption does not drive the price, contrary to the belief of tards on this forum. People who need the utility that bitcoin offers will use it. It is an example of Hayek's spontaneous emergence. Bitcoin does not need you hawking it to your wife. She has no use for it regardless.

The average person has no need for bitcoin , nor do they care about it, nor should they be told about it. Average people ruin things. When average people joined the internet what happened? It turned into a huge cesspool. When average people obtained automobiles traffic jams occured. When average people were given the right to vote, nation's collapsed. You get the picture.

[amspir]

The average person has no need for bitcoin , nor do they care about it, nor should they be told about it. Average people ruin things. When average people joined the internet what happened? It turned into a huge cesspool. When average people obtained automobiles traffic jams occured. When average people were given the right to vote, nation's collapsed. You get the picture.

That's a rather dim view of your fellow humans.   For bitcoin to have value and to work like a currency rather than a volatile commodity, it needs to have a larger user base to provide inertia.   

When I can walk to my corner store and buy a pack of smokes and a can of Monster with bitcoin, I'm going to be really happy.

If you want a secret cryptocoin, use one of the other bitcoin imitators with a silly name that no average person has heard about or will ever hear about.  You and your friends can trade them for Magic the Gathering cards, or whatever you're into.

[jabo38]

Everyone could just agree that after a certain block in the future, like 6 months away, some decimal points were changed and some zeros added to the back end. Codes could be written into clients and the penalty for people not updating is only that they have higher transactions fees by the same order of magnitude of the switch in decimal points. It's important to add some zeros on the back end though.

[gojomo]

A benefit of contriving a new term (like zibcoin/zib/ZBC/Ƶ) is that it can be used in parallel with other terms, giving time for the new term to gradually be understood and prove its worth, and always leaving the old terms understandable (in current work and archived content).

Big agreement up front isn't required, and there's no risky 'big bang' switchover date splitting software or historical records into two disjoint eras.

Instead, people just choose to use new terms incrementally more-and-more as they see the need – perhaps in reaction to either Bitcoin value-appreciation, or problems when spelling/saying other terms. Others gradually become familiar over repeated viewings, learning from context (or looking it up when first confronted).

[Crindon]

I don't see how this is entirely feasible unless we are talking like changing the units to mBTC.

Now, we have just <21,000,000,000 mBTC that will potentially be available.

[gojomo]

I don't see how this is entirely feasible unless we are talking like changing the units to mBTC.

Now, we have just <21,000,000,000 mBTC that will potentially be available.

Not sure which prior post you're referring to, but all of these proposed changes are technically feasible (if critical mass of term-usage is achieved). No matter what units are chosen for human use, interfaces, and integration with other systems – the core protocol/system always works on integral satoshis. All of the following tallies are identical, and represented the same in the binary protocol and canonical data structures:

  21 million BTC
= 21 billion mBTC/"millibitcoin"
= 21 trillion µBTC/"microbitcoin"
= 210 trillion satoshis

Working up from a zib=µBTC unit instead, again all these can be used interchangably without really changing the atomic units of the system:

  210 trillion satoshis/cZBC/"centizib"/"cents"
= 21 trillion ZBC/"zib" (aka µBTC)
= 21 billion kZBC/kƵ/"kilozib" (aka mBTC)
= 21 million MZBC/MƵ/"megazib" (aka BTC)

For completeness, you can also think about units that exist but are so large they'd rarely be useful...

  210 trillion satoshis
= 21 thousand GZBC/GƵ/"gigazib" (aka kBTC/"kilobitcoin")
= 21 TZBC/TƵ/"terazib" (aka MBTC/"megabitcoin")

...as in, "Some estimate that Satoshi himself may own around 1 megabitcoin (1 MBTC)", or "Mt. Gox misplaced 850 kilobitcoin (850 kBTC)".

Since people easily understand large numbers, especially when rarely used, it's far more likely to emphasize the unique size of these numbers by using the smaller units:

"Some estimate that Satoshi himself may own around 1 million bitcoin" or "...1 trillion zib".

"MtGox misplaced 850 thousand bitcoin" or "... 850 billion zib".