Bitcoin needs something equivalent to a stock split

[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