Bitcoin needs something equivalent to a stock split

[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.