Using a lower bitcoin denomination(bits/sats/millibits): Which side are you on?

[mk4]

It's been quite a hot topic on crypto Twitter lately. With as far as I understand, for bitcoin to be seen as less "expensive" as it is, and to prevent people from being tricked and deceived into these so called "cheaper" coins like Ripplecoin, Litecoin, etc.

Also,

unit bias is just one thing. Another advantage would be that it's more natural to vocally say "1000 bits" or "100k sats" than saying "zero point zero zero one(0.001) bitcoin".

Regardless what your opinion is on this matter, I think it's a great topic for the forum. Feel free to express your opinions. Which side are you on, and why?





Adam Back's reasoning(Tweet source: https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/1335354258858905604):

#bitcoin bits > sats.

Time for a bits reboot, IMO.
Sats are confusing, afaict sats were designed by Satoshi to be bitcents under bits.

1million is much easier than 100mil base.

Even bitcoin-qt (core) had bits for years.

You still have sats, just bits and bitcents (aka sats), like dollars and cents.
Sets a nice parity target at $1mil per BTC where $1=1bit and 1bitcent=1sat=1cent.

Reinforces point that we're early at $0.02/bit 50x to go for $ parity

Being early makes fluctuation feel minor, reduce media panic with 0.0195 to 0.0185 moves in days. "Price steady at $0.02/bit"

Apparently early bitcoin had only BTC and old bitcents. 2.1billion old bitcents was 21mil btc. Story I heard from early developers, was @halfin persuaded Satoshi it wasn't enough for world population, and so Satoshi added 1million divisions, moving the new bitcent to 1/100th bit,

A bit being 1millionth part of a bitcoin. Where 1bit=100bitcents, like 3.45 bits = 3bits and 45 bitcents. Later community honorifically dubbed the bitcent the satoshi or sat for short. But afaict it was intended to be 2digit decimal bitcent after the smallest base unit bit.

There is something poetic about a bitcoin being made of bits. And the atom, and unit of account of digital commodity money being a "bit" but having decimals under it for bitcents (or sats) helps give accurate / unfounded pricing.

Also a bitcoin is too expensive, but sats are too many, sound cheap and confusing hard to figure out what you bought. Bits fixed that while still not being expensive even at $1mil btc 1bit=$1, and today 1bit=$0.02, also makes it easy to track $/bit parity, 50x to go vs with sats.

"You can buy a fraction of a bitcoin" hasn't worked, universal newcomer confusion, can't afford to buy one, hard to imagine using units that expensive, even to developers (unfamiliar with bitcoin). Too expensive, as a bitcoin may become more than lifetime earnings for most people

Some conversations on Twitter you might be interested in:

• https://twitter.com/bradmillscan/status/1334970503568781314
• https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/1335354258858905604
• https://twitter.com/thebitcoinrabbi/status/1335433428620206080
• https://twitter.com/notgrubles/status/1335442247614160896

Note: will be self-moderating this topic to somewhat prevent unhelpful replies.

[1715505986]

1715505986

[1715505986]

1715505986

[1715505986]

1715505986

[1715505986]

1715505986

[1715505986]

1715505986

[Charles-Tim]

I only know three ways bitcoin is usually represented which are 'bitcoin, millibitcoin and satoshi' but the most often representation is bitcoin. I think we do not need to bother about this, all we need to understand is to know how these three representations are related.

About the issue of seeing bitcoin expensive. Normally, I can buy as low as $10 worth of bitcoin, I can still calculated it in any of the three representations but I prefer using bitcoin because I am more used to it.

Traders and experts do not follow how big the price of bitcoin is, but follow to buy at low price and sell at higher price. If bitcoin gets to $30000 today, people will refer to when bitcoin is at $20000 to be when its price was low, that is just it.

Any representation is good, but to profit from bitcoin holding and trading is the most important.

[mk4]

About the issue of seeing bitcoin expensive. Normally, I can buy as low as $10 worth of bitcoin, I can still calculated it in any of the three representations but I prefer using bitcoin because I am more used to it.

Of course. But the problem is for the newbies who get affected by the so called "unit bias", whereas they're mostly going to be more lured into altcoins because they're "cheaper". I know they should be doing their due diligence, but still.

[Tytanowy Janusz]

Of course. But the problem is for the newbies who get affected by the so called "unit bias", whereas they're mostly going to be more lured into altcoins because they're "cheaper". I know they should be doing their due diligence, but still.

There will always be a cheaper shitcoin, even if we will go down to sats. We should not lower standards for someone who will sooner or later get rid of the money on the unsuccessful investments. Big price of bitcoin fits perfectly into present narrative that is being build around bitcoin and finally will create a paradigm that next bitcoin bubble will be created on - Bitcoin as 5% of well-balanced portfolio - Bitcoin as a safe haven for big institutions money, bitcoin as investment.

[Charles-Tim]

Of course. But the problem is for the newbies who get affected by the so called "unit bias", whereas they're mostly going to be more lured into altcoins because they're "cheaper". I know they should be doing their due diligence, but still.

It is right that bitcoin price can be high for newbies. But, if bitcoin is represented in satoshi, that will take away the name of bitcoin, also having a prefix of m (mbtc) does not still make any good sense because some newbies can still even think it is part of the ethereum wrapped tokens like wbtc, rbtc and the likes. Representing it with bitcoin is the best. When it is bitcoin, its price had risen all the way from $0.03 to $19000, so I do not think this should be a problem. Bitcoin also gotten to all time high this year, altcoins like ether, ripple, litecoin and so on have far behind getting to their all time high which indicates bitcoin to be the point of attraction.

And come to think of it, newbies do not bother about price, they only prefer what is superior, the best and the one in vogue. Bitcoin is depicted as bitcoin while over 7500 other cryptocurrencies are known as altcoins, just because bitcoin has the marketcap that surpass all the whole altcoins. This indicate how bitcoin is so strong, and this is a reflection of the reasons why newbies still prefer to go for bitcoin.

In my opinion, I do not see this as an issue.

[hatshepsut93]

I like milibitcoins, because I'm very used to the SI, and having 1 mBTC ~ $19 makes it easier to calculate the amounts I typically think about in my head. If Bitcoin will be worth millions, than microbitcoins aka "bits" will be more convenient, though milibitcoins would still be useful when you'll deal with thousands of dollars of value in BTC.

I think now is still too early for sats and bits, they would result in too much zeroes in numbers for typical payment, and this can cause errors, especially if a website has poor user interface and doesn't properly separate digits to make them more clear.

[msarro]

I don't actually like the sats since I usually see it in fees and I don't think it is good with higher amounts I think I should go with either Bitcoin like 0.001 Bitcoins or maybe in mBTC (millibitcoin) since I'm familiar with it due to the implementation of that unit in sports betting casinos.

[mk4]

There will always be a cheaper shitcoin, even if we will go down to sats. We should not lower standards for someone who will sooner or later get rid of the money on the unsuccessful investments.

Sure. But is choosing a lower denomination really "lowering the standards"? I'm pretty sure pricing gold in grams instead of whole bars isn't really a bad thing.

Also, unit bias is just one thing. Another advantage would be that it's more natural to vocally say "1000 bits" or "100k sats" than saying "zero point zero zero one(0.001) bitcoin".

[Bronsted]

I believe that either Bitcoins or milliBitcoins [1 X 10⁻³] should be the fundamental denomination of Bitcoin, it represents Bitcoin with the appropriate prefix in an unambiguous manner. I do not understand why bits are introduced in the first place and I had difficulties trying to visualise it when the website I'm using calls for it.

In my opinion, trying to divide Bitcoins down to too many decimals is counterproductive because it results in much more confusion as someone who is new to Bitcoin. Realistically, I do not think it would ever reach a point whereby 1 satoshi or 1 bits is equal to $1 so using that as a unit is fairly confusing as well.

[pooya87]

All and none.

No single unit should be enforced, both wallets and merchants must always have the option to easily convert between different units. For example when you want to purchase something worth $10 the merchant UI must show you the amount in bitcoin using the unit if your choice. For example you select bitcoin then it shows 0.00052500, you select satoshi it shows 52500 and so on. Same with your wallet.

[mk4]

All and none.

No single unit should be enforced, both wallets and merchants must always have the option to easily convert between different units. For example when you want to purchase something worth $10 the merchant UI must show you the amount in bitcoin using the unit if your choice. For example you select bitcoin then it shows 0.00052500, you select satoshi it shows 52500 and so on. Same with your wallet.

100% agree. But the conversation is mostly with deciding what the default denomination would be(e.g. on Coinbase, on CoinMarketCap, etc) instead of the default BTC that we’re currently using; not necessarily the one and only denomination that should be used.

[Charles-Tim]

100% agree. But the conversation is mostly with deciding what the default denomination would be(e.g. on Coinbase, on CoinMarketCap, etc) instead of the default BTC that we’re currently using; not necessarily the one and only denomination that should be used.

All the three dominations are used. I remember when I was still novice and using faucet and pay to click sites to collect bitcoin, the amount collected was represented in satoshi, mbtc and btc, also I have seen crypto betting site recently having campaign on Bitcointalk forum that represent bitcoin in mbtc. While also you can choose the denomination you prefer on some wallets. We can use what we wish among the three. On exchanges and on sites like coinmarketcap, the domination of bitcoin should be btc, nothing should alters that for people (newbies) not to confuse.

[bryant.coleman]

I have always stated that Satoshi is not suitable as a sub-unit of Bitcoin. In the distant future, if Bitcoin hits $1 million per coin, then Satoshi will be worth $0.01 and can be used as a subdivision of BTC. But right now, its value is just $0.0002, and using this small unit causes a lot of inconvenience. I would rather go for mBTC, although it's value is a bit higher for my liking.

[o_e_l_e_o]

Adam Back's reasoning(Tweet source: https://twitter.com/adam3us/status/1335354258858905604)

I've never used bits. I used to interchange between BTC, mBTC and sats depending on the value of what I was dealing with, but now I predominantly only use BTC or sats. My personal "changeover" point is generally somewhere around 4 figures - so sats for values up to around 9,999 sats, and BTC for values of 0.0001 BTC and higher. That way I'm never dealing with too many leading zeroes.

Having said all that, in the tweet you linked to Adam Back makes some very solid points. I do like the bits/sats mirroring the dollar/cent system that everyone is familiar with. However, we are years (at least, if not decades) from this being useful. 1 bit is 2 cents. 1 satoshi is 0.02 cents. If and when bitcoin hits $1 million, then bits/sats becomes useful, but until such a time, it is still too small a denomination to be widely useful.

It's also going to be near impossible to reach consensus on this. Exchanges use BTC. Many gambling sites use mBTC and bits. Lightning uses sats. Merchants use whatever they like. All the different twitter opinions shows that whichever one you pick, there will be a sizeable proportion of people who argue you are wrong.

[Ryker1]

Well, every newbie or person who has just heard bitcoins price would definitely find it too expensive and OP is right people perhaps planning to look for an alternative which perhaps suits their financial capabilities. If I will be introduced to bitcoin today through a word of a friend I will really lose all my guts in investing in it for I need to shell out $20000 initially just to have 1 BTC not knowing that I can have it infractions. I think it is better to have it in a lower denomination and introduce it using such terms for a smaller amount in currency conversion. If I will be asked what term would be the best, -- I will suggest ^[mBTC] or ^{[millibitcoin]} in fact, it can still be shortened to ^[millibits] which I find easier to understand and be remembered.

[pixie85]

I have always stated that Satoshi is not suitable as a sub-unit of Bitcoin. In the distant future, if Bitcoin hits $1 million per coin, then Satoshi will be worth $0.01 and can be used as a subdivision of BTC. But right now, its value is just $0.0002, and using this small unit causes a lot of inconvenience. I would rather go for mBTC, although it's value is a bit higher for my liking.

For now satoshis would be hard to use for me.

I used to use whole bitcoins and mBTC when we were at 3000 USD per coin and I don't feel like at 20 those units became unusable or irrelevant in any way.

I'd ask those who say that we suddenly need to use smaller denominations why do they feel like they have to do it now? We used to be at 20 thousand before and people used BTC and mBTC. What's changed?

Maybe if we approach 100 thousand one day this conversation will have a point but I feel like it's still too early and if units of account were not a problem 2 months ago they shouldn't be a problem now.

[nutildah]

I also like the idea of using both bits and millibits as that pretty much has covered. mBTC are of course the standard used by many casinos, and bits (b?) is what is used by bustadice. 1 bit is worth almost 2 cents, and a thousand of those equals one millibit, which is (close to) $20.

[Searing]

'Stick with Bitcoin' will definitely win this poll. Let's leave the argument. One man's food is another's poison. You prefer to call it bits? It's fine. But I would rather call it Bitcoin, and doesn't mean any of us is wrong. We just say it how we want to. The only concern should be if the person you're speaking to understands your preferred denomination.

I'm afraid as the price continues to go up, it is likely to be called Mbits, simply for ease of use. In other words, I spent 1 Mbit vs the usual 0.0001 sats

or whatever I say now. (sigh...math is hard on the fly in my head)

I am 'unclear' on how to get the math to work on the fly in one's head. It has to happen

in some manner and people will have to get used to such on the fly, using Mbits or whatever.

How to ease this process or make it less convoluted than the already fast math done in my head on bitcoin worth vs USD worth at the time..is maybe un-doable.

I mean in the USA we can't grasp Metric..this is along similar lines of thought on the fly in your head on converting from full Bitcoin price to whatever you spent

and playing 'mental gymnastics' to figure out price vs full bitcoin price vs USD, etc. Yech, it may just stay in the current format, this doesn't seem all that better.

Brad

[suchmoon]

^[mBTC] or ^{[millibitcoin]} in fact, it can still be shortened to ^[millibits] which I find easier to understand and be remembered.

Not a good idea. "Millibit" would mean 1/1000th of a bit (see millimeter, milliliter, etc) when it's actually 1000 bits.


BTC and sat cover everything I ever need to do with bitcoins so all these made up units just waste my time.

[OcTradism]

All and none.

No single unit should be enforced, both wallets and merchants must always have the option to easily convert between different units. For example when you want to purchase something worth $10 the merchant UI must show you the amount in bitcoin using the unit if your choice. For example you select bitcoin then it shows 0.00052500, you select satoshi it shows 52500 and so on. Same with your wallet.

BTC and mBTC are 2 units I use and I feel they are enough for me.

Too many zero figures can distort the process I imagine the difference of value of the transaction I make and the fee I use for it. If my budget is small, I choose mBTC. If my budget is not too small (0.01 BTC⁺) I choose BTC.

satoshi explained about it that how he decided to give bitcoin a smallest denomination (in satoshi as 1 millionth bitcoin).

I remember this discussion, actually.  

Finney, Satoshi, and I discussed how divisible a Bitcoin ought to be.  Satoshi had already more or less decided on a 50-coin per block payout with halving every so often to add up to a 21M coin supply.  Finney made the point that people should never need any currency division smaller than a US penny, and then somebody (I forget who) consulted some oracle somewhere like maybe Wikipedia and figured out what the entire world's M1 money supply at that time was.  

We debated for a while about which measure of money Bitcoin most closely approximated; but M2, M3, and so on are all for debt-based currencies, so I agreed with Finney that M1 was probably the best measure.  

21Million, times 10^8 subdivisions, meant that even if the whole word's money supply were replaced by the 21 million bitcoins the smallest unit (we weren't calling them Satoshis yet)  would still be worth a bit less than a penny, so no matter what happened -- even if the entire economy of planet earth were measured in Bitcoin -- it would never inconvenience people by being too large a unit for convenience.

The 21 Million Bitcoin Question