Proposal for mass adoption: the introduction of a new unit of account

[Christophe_dcy]

Hi everyone,

Here's a proposal in the form of an article: https://media.licdn.com/dms/document/media/D4E1FAQHNFspwYr2bHQ/feedshare-document-pdf-analyzed/0/1692210247829?e=1692835200&v=beta&t=jmq9iAAs6j94GCW0fgq5kcn3Wug2VANV1X17hv9uDMg


What do you think about it?

Thanks
Chris

[mk4]

Not necessarily against a new unit of account, but this is unnecessary. The Bitcoin community can't even decide upon what unit of account should be used (it's sats vs bits), and we're going to introduce a new one?

[DooMAD]

Not necessarily against a new unit of account, but this is unnecessary. The Bitcoin community can't even decide upon what unit of account should be used (it's sats vs bits), and we're going to introduce a new one?

It's not really a new one, though.  They just found a rather long-winded way to propose renaming "bits" to "nakamotos".  Sounds worse to me.  Imagine some crappy infomercial and they say:

"Only 39 naks and 99 sats, plus shipping and handling".

"Naks" just sound weird.  "Bits" is more recognisable and memorable.

[CryptSafe]

I noticed it is a newbie account making this proposals and I think the face behind this proposals is not a newbie as we think it to be because a newbie can barely come up with such proposals at such early stage for a change or inclusions but I am still curious about it.

OP your proposal is quite alright but I think it would require much deliberation from the community and to be frank reaching a resolve would definitely take time as I see this as it looks unrealistic and unnecessary.

[Christophe_dcy]

I noticed it is a newbie account making this proposals and I think the face behind this proposals is not a newbie as we think it to be because a newbie can barely come up with such proposals at such early stage for a change or inclusions but I am still curious about it.

OP your proposal is quite alright but I think it would require much deliberation from the community and to be frank reaching a resolve would definitely take time as I see this as it looks unrealistic and unnecessary.

yes, I'm not exactly a newbie :-)

If there's already a debate between sat and bit, it's obvious, according to this paper, that we should go for bit. Talking in sat is strictly pointless in view of the arguments deployed in the article.

Maybe Nakamoto isn't a good idea, and we need to find another one. But the term "bit" doesn't stand out enough from "bitcoin". We need to find something different, and above all, use it.

[mk4]

It's not really a new one, though.  They just found a rather long-winded way to propose renaming "bits" to "nakamotos".  Sounds worse to me.  Imagine some crappy infomercial and they say:

"Only 39 naks and 99 sats, plus shipping and handling".

"Naks" just sound weird.  "Bits" is more recognisable and memorable.

Well yea, didn't notice that lol.

Nakamoto sounds decent because we have Satoshis, but the shortcut "naks" sounds awful. But I don't like "bits" either as "bits" is already a common word that could mean either something like "smaller bits" or  "bits" as in with relation to memory.

Eitherway, I'm not a fan of using either. Sats all the way.

[Christophe_dcy]

Nakamoto sounds decent because we have Satoshis, but the shortcut "naks" sounds awful. But I don't like "bits" either as "bits" is already a common word that could mean either something like "smaller bits" or  "bits" as in with relation to memory.

you're right, the word bit is already used in electronics or for memory.

I'd just like to make one important point. In French, bit means cock. Which means that the French-speaking world will never be able to use this word to talk about a currency.

With the development of Africa, some studies show that by 2050, French will be more widely spoken than English in the world.

Bitcoin is a universal system, we need to find another word for 100 sat 

[Smartvirus]

yes, I'm not exactly a newbie :-)

If there's already a debate between sat and bit, it's obvious, according to this paper, that we should go for bit. Talking in sat is strictly pointless in view of the arguments deployed in the article.

Maybe Nakamoto isn't a good idea, and we need to find another one. But the term "bit" doesn't stand out enough from "bitcoin". We need to find something different, and above all, use it.

Some of the ideas that backs bitcoin is the consensus about the ideology it portrays and I feel the day we start seeing changes such as the proposed, that’ll be the day you introduce doubt into the system on decentralization as people largely aren’t going to be okay with this and the system is just good as it is. There isn’t any need for a book of account on it.

Bitcoin seeks to be considered on its own and not having its value to be defined by fiat.

The current and future exchange rates with the main FIAT currencies would then be of the same order of magnitude: with $1 = 34 Nk at present, and why not, with time, a move towards an exchange rate close to parity: $1 ≈ 1 Nk.

While this proposal might seem rational at the time of typing, you could as well recall that bitcoin is highly volatile and the values at which the conversion rate would be equated will continue to have some real sudden changes. That’s not the sort of thing we hope to see. The bitcoin and Satoshi or mBtc as we’ve got is okay for any conversion rate.

[decodx]

Bitcoin is a universal system, we need to find another word for 100 sat  

What's wrong with µBTC or microBTC? It's a part of the universal SI system.
Also, it's not accurate to say that in the SI system everything is just a multiple of 1,000, since we also have deka and hecto, as well as deci and centi. So, we can refer to 100 satoshis as 1 hectosat.

[odolvlobo]

As units of 100 satoshis are not used anywhere, I don't think it will catch on. But if it does, feel free to take credit.

[DooMAD]

I'd just like to make one important point. In French, bit means cock. Which means that the French-speaking world will never be able to use this word to talk about a currency.

Isn't it technically "Bite" rather than "Bit"?

But either way, they already are if they're talking about Bitcoin.  Does translating roughly to "Cock Corner" or "Cock Place" deter people from using it?

I recall others in past topics have suggested that microbit could be shortened to "mics", but I don't think that sounds particularly catchy either.  It's really difficult to find something everyone is going to like.

[o_e_l_e_o]

We already have BTC and sats which most people use. The term you are proposing already exists as bits or μBTC. We also have mBTC and msats. And a bunch of other units like the finney which already no one uses: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Units#Table_of_all_units

A new unit is unnecessary. A new name for a unit which already has two names is even more unnecessary. It's a NACK from me I'm afraid.

[Plaguedeath]

I think mass adoption isn't about new small unit of Bitcoin, but it's about whether the Average Joe is interested in Bitcoin or not because most of people don't care about decentralization. Even there's a small unit, it doesn't make the Bitcoin's fee will decreased, so after all you're need to pay same fee that's expensive if you send small amount of Bitcoin.

[Christophe_dcy]

Isn't it technically "Bite" rather than "Bit"?

you're right, it's the word "bite", not "bit", but the 2 are pronounced the same 

We already have BTC and sats which most people use.

don't forget that I'm talking about the masses, not insiders. 


In fact, it doesn't matter how we call the unit that defines 100 satoshis. My point is that it's this basic unit that should be used.

Talking in bitcoin is the equivalent of talking in millions of dollars: it's of little interest, unless you're talking about very big amounts.
Talking in satoshis is the equivalent of talking in cents: big numbers for nothing.

An intermediate unit is more interesting to use in everyday life.
If you're going to use an intermediate unit, you might as well use the one for which 1 Unit = 100 sat, and 1 million Unit = 1 btc.

[o_e_l_e_o]

In fact, it doesn't matter how we call the unit that defines 100 satoshis. My point is that it's this basic unit that should be used.

Then go out and use it! If enough people agree to use bits, then that's what will be used. As it stands, almost no one uses bits. I much prefer using either BTC or sats, and not complicating things with additional in between units. It's fine to use sats up to 100,000 sats, and then use BTC from 0.001 BTC.

Talking in satoshis is the equivalent of talking in cents: big numbers for nothing.

So is bits. 1 bit is 3 cents. If you want an "everyday" unit, then the logical choice is mBTC, which is ~$30.

[d5000]

Here's a proposal in the form of an article: https://media.licdn.com/dms/document/media/D561FAQECSKgQgIj1ow/feedshare-document-pdf-analyzed/0/1692118978584?e=1692835200&v=beta&t=fMu-VpR4uUJTQYlNlBVqEupmPPZbqXDO92P3D-3B7O8

I can't access the document, is it still online?

Personally, I think the unit "Bitcent" is underrated. It's true that it is equivalent to a quite high value of currently around $300 USD. But it is still a number not too far from many everyday purchases (rent, clothing, weekly buys in the grocery, up to small cars all are things between 0.1 and 100 Bitcents). And the term "cent" is established in many currencies, people will immediately know what's meant (1/100 of the main unit). It could be used this way up to the 100-200K, maybe also 300-500K (then the smaller items would be priced 0.01 to 0.1, but this is still a manageable number) price range for BTC/USD. And for everything below we can use satoshis.

Edit: @Christophe_dcy: Got it, thanks for the link correction!

[Christophe_dcy]

I can't access the document, is it still online?

Sorry, there was an error on the server. Here is the new address (2 sentences have changed since the previous version): https://media.licdn.com/dms/document/media/D4E1FAQHNFspwYr2bHQ/feedshare-document-pdf-analyzed/0/1692210247829?e=1692835200&v=beta&t=jmq9iAAs6j94GCW0fgq5kcn3Wug2VANV1X17hv9uDMg

[BIT-BENDER]

How can renaming Bitcoin to something else to serve as a unit solve the problem of adoption, it's like starting over again, because many people who hasn't yet adopted Bitcoin won't deny that they have heard about the name Bitcoin or read about it and now you would need to explain further about the unit addition and then you have loose their trust before it even begun.

If this was the solution then countries would have changed their currency name to something else to tackle their economical issues, but no it's very fruitless.

[CryptSafe]

How can renaming Bitcoin to something else to serve as a unit solve the problem of adoption, it's like starting over again, because many people who hasn't yet adopted Bitcoin won't deny that they have heard about the name Bitcoin or read about it and now you would need to explain further about the unit addition and then you have loose their trust before it even begun.

If this was the solution then countries would have changed their currency name to something else to tackle their economical issues, but no it's very fruitless.

I was wondering if OP really had a deep thought of this proposals he or she is putting forward because I see it as unnecessary and a waste of time to be precise. This is just like telling the United States to change their currency from dollar to a fresh new thing entirely which i believe would not go down well with them. Just a laughable idea. little wonder OP refused to use his or her main account for this because of the fear of being greeted with unexpected reactions from members.

[Christophe_dcy]

How can renaming Bitcoin to something else...

This is just like telling the United States to change their currency from dollar to a fresh new thing entirely...

Did you actually read the article? I guess not...
If the paper isn't pedagogical enough, I'm sorry. But what you're saying has nothing to do with the underlying thought...