mBTC@20 Thoughts on mBTC for ATMs and mass Bitcoin adoption by the public

[CryptoClub]

Long time reader, but just recently signed up for Bitcointalk.org. Fairly early Last year I got started in cryptos when I became interested in finding some alternative means to take payment for items to ship overseas, without constantly being scammed by Paypal and Credit card chargebacks. That led me to discover Bitcoin, and instantly I realized that this would replace money orders and even credit cards, and many financial institutions over time. So, I have been obsessed with Bitcoin and Cryptos ever since.

To get to the point, I think the biggest "problem" Bitcoin has is that most people are not mathematicians and experts at understanding divisibility and satoshis. They are only capable of looking at Bitcoin as a single expensive unit. I am certain of this, you can just talk to people that are not experts, and even those that are look at "A Bitcoin" as being somewhere between 400-1400 usd value, depending on the markets and price manipulations under way at the time.

I have quizzed many people and ask them the same basic question, "What sounds more safe to invest in, mBTC at 20 USD, or BTC at 1400 USD?" - Every single time they will say that obviously mBTC is a much safer, or a more wise investment. Even after I explain it to them, they still agree that mBTC sounds MUCH safer! (mBTC is just a 1/1000th of a BTC, so that would be around .46 cents USD right now)

Before the massive amount of ATMs get placed around the world, I really think it is an extremely good idea to switch to mBTC, for everything other than perhaps trading. (or have options in all wallets and try to present it as mBTC rather than BTC to the general public) In this manner, a Bitcoin can be sort of like a $1000 bill, once it returns to the correct value at least. A consumer can buy 20 mBTCs and feel like they have a SIGNIFICANT investment in Bitcoin, which they would with a bunch of Satoshis, but they would not "feel" like they have it.

This simple change would revolutionize Bitcoin expansion, in my view. This stuff is all psychological at the end of the day. Brains take shortcuts, bigger numbers are scary, smaller numbers feel safe. Just how it is.

Here is a link for a community I started some time about mBTC@20, if you think it is a good idea let me know, if you think it is a bad idea, then I can tell you I most likely know the exact range for the price of Bitcoin for the next few years. 400-1400, that is it.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/431477843650380/

[theecoinomist]

Would you rather buy 1g of gold for $43 or 1oz for 1250?

[durrrr]

i think that eventually people will switch to mbtc but i dont see that happening atm because 1btc is just such a big deal to everyone and its still only 500 witch is undervalues imo

[hilgi]

I love the idea, it is just like a stock split, which works very often.

[CryptoClub]

Would you rather buy 1g of gold for $43 or 1oz for 1250?

I think the notion of "Bitcoin=Internet gold" is entirely erroneous and limits BTC greatly. That is why people think it is too expensive, and dangerous, and all the other nonsense we keep hearing. They associate it with gold rather than a slice of something that may end up being as transformative the internet itself. As for the question, I would rather buy one gram at $43 and have it worth about $25k over a few years, instead of a limit of $1250 or so.

[CryptoClub]

I love the idea, it is just like a stock split, which works very often.

Agreed, and the key point I want to stress, this needs to be considered quickly as Bitcoin is likely going mainstream to some point this year. If everyone gets the notion of "Bitcoin = the value of Gold" stuck in their heads, I can promise you where the top price will be. It will just be a game up pumping it and dumping it, which is fine for some, but it means in the long run Alt competition will win out. I have no problem with Bitcoin being the Gold standard, I have a problem with it being the price of gold per Bitcoin... forever.

[Bitram]

Bitcoin always were best for payments. I wonder how war is it going to spread in future.

[LMGTFY]

This simple change would revolutionize Bitcoin expansion, in my view. This stuff is all psychological at the end of the day. Brains take shortcuts, bigger numbers are scary, smaller numbers feel safe. Just how it is.

Look, if you and your friends are more comfortable thinking in terms of mBTC - do it. Do it now. You don't need permission from a central authority to do it.

If this is a problem then it's a social problem.

But Bitcoin is vast. At one end there are 2100000000000000 "Satoshis". At the other end there are 21 MBTC. Neither end is more valid than the other; the rich guy buying an island for 1MBTC is no less important or relevant than the new convert who's trawling faucets, 20 Satoshis at a time. What your proposal - and similar proposals - implicitly suggest is: "there is a 'typical' Bitcoin user operating in the 0.1 BTC to 0.01 µBTC range, and these users are so important that we should impose a change that we hope will benefit them - but to the potential detriment of all other users".

Let us decide what nicknames we're going to use. Let us use real-world words like "micro" and "milli" if that's what we want. Let us call 0.01 µBTC a "Satoshi" if we want. Let us reappropriate existing local words (1.05 BTC is "a guinea". Just because.) But don't assume that your system is ideal for everyone, and please don't try and seek to impose it on the rest of us.

[CryptoClub]

This simple change would revolutionize Bitcoin expansion, in my view. This stuff is all psychological at the end of the day. Brains take shortcuts, bigger numbers are scary, smaller numbers feel safe. Just how it is.

Look, if you and your friends are more comfortable thinking in terms of mBTC - do it. Do it now. You don't need permission from a central authority to do it.

If this is a problem then it's a social problem.

But Bitcoin is vast. At one end there are 2100000000000000 "Satoshis". At the other end there are 21 MBTC. Neither end is more valid than the other; the rich guy buying an island for 1MBTC is no less important or relevant than the new convert who's trawling faucets, 20 Satoshis at a time. What your proposal - and similar proposals - implicitly suggest is: "there is a 'typical' Bitcoin user operating in the 0.1 BTC to 0.01 µBTC range, and these users are so important that we should impose a change that we hope will benefit them - but to the potential detriment of all other users".

Let us decide what nicknames we're going to use. Let us use real-world words like "micro" and "milli" if that's what we want. Let us call 0.01 µBTC a "Satoshi" if we want. Let us reappropriate existing local words (1.05 BTC is "a guinea". Just because.) But don't assume that your system is ideal for everyone, and please don't try and seek to impose it on the rest of us.

Late reply, sorry, I missed your post in the past. I am not starting another topic or trying to spam this concept, but since this is the *only* thread I have ever made on Bitcointalk.org, I will reply anyway, as it is the most important element to me not really being discussed in the realm of Bitcoin, besides Sybil attacks.

I am not seeking to impose anything at all, just discussing a viewpoint. Neither is more valid than the other, you are correct, as someone very used to Satoshis it would be easier for me to keep it exactly like it is. I am speaking of "Mainstream" however, people that are not Bitcoin users at all. That will never buy "A Bitcoin" - because in their minds they need to own an entire unit and it is too expensive for them. Not sure how many people you have surveyed about it, but I have actually talked to a lot of people, so I am pretty confident one of the barriers to adoption is the price... and the difficulty for many to grasp that you can simply buy a fraction. Easy for you and I, not everyone else is quite as logical.

[LMGTFY]

Late reply, sorry, I missed your post in the past. I am not starting another topic or trying to spam this concept, but since this is the *only* thread I have ever made on Bitcointalk.org, I will reply anyway, as it is the most important element to me not really being discussed in the realm of Bitcoin, besides Sybil attacks.

I am not seeking to impose anything at all, just discussing a viewpoint. Neither is more valid than the other, you are correct, as someone very used to Satoshis it would be easier for me to keep it exactly like it is. I am speaking of "Mainstream" however, people that are not Bitcoin users at all. That will never buy "A Bitcoin" - because in their minds they need to own an entire unit and it is too expensive for them. Not sure how many people you have surveyed about it, but I have actually talked to a lot of people, so I am pretty confident one of the barriers to adoption is the price... and the difficulty for many to grasp that you can simply buy a fraction. Easy for you and I, not everyone else is quite as logical.

OK, these people you've spoken to - why do they need BTC?

If they need to purchase something that's priced in BTC - surely they understand that they need to buy the BTC to cover the purchase price? And if the purchase price is less than 1 BTC, surely they understand that, and realise that to make the purchase they need to overcome their fear of <1 and obtain less than 1 BTC?

Alternative possibility: they don't need to buy anything. You're trying to persuade them to "invest" in Bitcoin - is that correct? And they're wary of "investing" in <1 BTC. If this is the case - why are you trying to get them to "invest"? They don't understand investing (if they did they'd understand that many investments can involve <1 - land (0.5 acres), gold (I know very few people who own a whole gold bar, a whole kilo...), etc, they don't understand Bitcoin, and "investing" in something they don't understand is never a good idea.

So... why do these people need BTC? Every time someone raises the "people won't buy it unless they can buy a whole BTC" I'm left with questions but never practical answers.

And yes, I've talked to a wide range of people about it. The people who think that they need a whole BTC in oder to be "investors" are not people I consider useful for increasing adoption at this point. (People buying BTC to transact, well, that's more useful). Real estate seems to manage quite well, despite <1 acre / hectare /whatever being common for anyone who's not a farmer etc; when people need to purchase land they - hopefully - make the effort to understand the market. It's the same with Bitcoin - adoption will be driven by real need, not by persuading unsavvy investors to "invest" in something they don't understand yet.

[CryptoClub]

The main options as I see it, are we get it everywhere and do what is needed for that to happen, or we keep it niche and hope more people join the niche. Those are the key choices.