Switching to mBTC and its psychological impact

[bangjoe]

You can start it from yourself, from the wallets, exchanges or casinos that you have an account you can switch it for it. But I'm afraid that not everyone will do the same as we're all used to the btc instead of mBtc. To each their own but that's a good idea if someone looks at it just like that because not everyone is really understands the psychological effect of it. There's even the satoshi branding for the smaller units.

mBTC for me is just for ordinary purposes such as in gambling or events or whatever it is that is simplified, but if I say my investment will remain in Bitcoin, I do not need to be confused about other things and focus on collecting Bitcoin even though I have to see the number zero More 0.0xxxx before the number of every purchase I make, is someone disappointed with the number 0 in front of him too much for buying under $1000? I think it's a matter of time and how much we collect sats.

So in conclusion is this all going back on each other's perspective? my psychological has been formed if talking about investment, savings, savings funds then BTC is my form of thinking.

[BlackHatCoiner]

I never liked mBTC.

Too many subunits. mBTC, μBTC, satoshi. You've already lost it.

The money we all use has one subunit, the "cent". So just stick with one subunit; BTC, or satoshis. No need to complicate things, no need to ruin the Bitcoin UI.

[sergiorus]

I never liked mBTC.

Too many subunits. mBTC, μBTC, satoshi. You've already lost it.

The money we all use has one subunit, the "cent". So just stick with one subunit; BTC, or satoshis. No need to complicate things, no need to ruin the Bitcoin UI.

I suppose as a store of value it could have 2 "golden standard units".

No pun intended, let's take Gold for example. The "golden standard" of this store of value is a 1 kilogram bar, that fat bar we always see in movies. However, even now that the Gold's price has been in a deep correction for a while, such a bar is worth more than $130,000 (coincidentally, BTC's all time high was close to that number).

However, the unit of measurement in trading is an ounce, which is only 30 or a bit more grams.

Bitcoin could have a similar approach: BTC is a store of value unit, mBTC is a trading/short-to-midterm investment unit. Possibly a p2p payment unit too.

[BlackBoss_]

I suppose as a store of value it could have 2 "golden standard units".

No pun intended, let's take Gold for example. The "golden standard" of this store of value is a 1 kilogram bar, that fat bar we always see in movies. However, even now that the Gold's price has been in a deep correction for a while, such a bar is worth more than $130,000 (coincidentally, BTC's all time high was close to that number).

You actually gave a very interesting example about "golden standard unit" for Bitcoin with equivalent price of 1 bitcoin to a gold bar. It can be two bars, and more when price of 1 bitcoin becomes bigger in the future but I see connection bitcoin to gold bar and create a new unit for it is not too necessary.

Does gold have any "silver standard unit"?
I don't know anything like that, and I believe that Bitcoin does not need to have any "golden standard unit".

Bitcoin is Bitcoin, and its units must be unique with available Bitcoin units which are already too abundant for practice. Bitcoin will have its race against gold, and gold is a highest target for Bitcoin to surpass in coming decades.
https://companiesmarketcap.com/assets-by-market-cap/

[Italian Panic]

There is a risk that a shitcoin called mBTC will be introduced, and who knows how many people will be scammed.
At some point, the best thing to do will be to start using the satoshi unit of measurement (sat or sats) and refer to an abbreviation that is already universally recognised.
For most people, it wouldn’t even be difficult to use the mBTC unit, but for newcomers to the sector it could cause confusion, just think how many wouldn’t know whether to divide or multiply by a thousand.

[MarryWithBTC]

There are wallets with the mBTC and smaller units of Bitcoin as optional displays. However, I don't normalising it at this time is necessary. Maybe when Bitcoin price has significantly climbed high in the future we can consider that.

There is nothing like smaller units of Bitcoin. Bitcoin only has one unit, which is "sats" and by the value of bitcoin, sats is the least.

I think everything is in order, if the bitcoin price eventually gets to 1million, the whole community will decide to start measuring BTC by its original unit - sats.

[Cookdata]

You can start it from yourself, from the wallets, exchanges or casinos that you have an account you can switch it for it. But I'm afraid that not everyone will do the same as we're all used to the btc instead of mBtc. To each their own but that's a good idea if someone looks at it just like that because not everyone is really understands the psychological effect of it. There's even the satoshi branding for the smaller units.

Things don't become standard when given an option, it's the developers that can decide on that. Hope know that there is nothing like 1 Bitcoin, everything is hard coded to Bitcoin in satoshi. It's the developers that decide to use Btc on the wallets calculations and when you make transaction, it's converted back to sats. So if developers make decided to use mbtc as measured on wallet, they all must agreed to it. This way, nobody will be left pit but to agree.

What I think some developers may be hesitant on mbtc is there is no reason for now. Bitcoin price is still reasonable, we are only 5 figures for now. I think this will become a standard for most hot wallets once we cross 6 figures. 0.01 BTC will be like $10k or more. This might also go both ways for having an option to have either mbtc, sats, or Bitcoin. There are some few wallets like electrum that gives this option between sats, mbtc and btc for now.

[TedMosby]

I'm one of those people who often get confused by mBTC as a unit. Sticking to BTC as a unit is still what I regularly do when making calculations. However, I feel using BTC as the unit also gives my brain extra work.

I have to know the current BTC price, multiply it by the amount of BTC I'm calculating, move the decimal point around, check, recheck, and wait until my brain is finally convinced I've got the right answer lol.

BTC calculations were easier before for me when 1 satoshi = 1 IDR, and later 1 satoshi = 10 IDR. Those were the times when figuring out BTC values was so much easier for me.

BTW, why don't we just use satoshis? Honestly, I only see mBTC as a unit on casino or sports betting websites. Other than that, I see people sticking to BTC. Maybe I need to explore more to find services that use mBTC as a unit.

But if we use Satoshi or Sats, it would sound a bit less familiar than mBTC. It doesn't even have "Bitcoin" in the name.

[Donneski]

There is nothing like smaller units of Bitcoin.

I don't find the above statement to be completely true but I'm still very much open to a more clarifying response that can change my stance, that's if they're convincing enough.
Yes, I know that in Bitcoin Core source code, the base integer unit tracked by the ledger is actually the satoshi but software interfaces, wallets and exchanges do recognize the other units to make it more readable and easier to understand. mBTC, bits/μBTC and sats are all officially recognized as subdivisions of Bitcoin so I don't think it's wrong to say "mBTC and other smaller units of Bitcoin?"

Bitcoin only has one unit, which is "sats" and by the value of bitcoin, sats is the least.

In Satoshi's whitepaper, BTC was the original and primary unit that was specified. From what I gathered, sats(satoshis) was later organically adopted as a term for the smallest unit of Bitcoin in this same forum.

So saying that sats are the "only unit" and that mBTC/bits can't be regarded as smaller units of Bitcoin, ignores both protocol history and everyday UX utility.

[macson]

I think it doesn't have a significant impact, and even more people still prefer to just call it in BTC, for example 0.0001 BTC, etc. It's already a habit and not too hard to remember. 

Maybe in the future, if Bitcoin's price rises and makes the zeros too many, people might start getting used to using a unit that's easier, like 'satoshi'. But for now, there's no need to change that habit, so we can continue using the current convention until it's necessary.

[virasisog]

If you have been around for a couple of years it wouldn't really matter switching it up doesn't really change thing the amount you hold would still be the same.
I think only newbie's want to make things complicated, we are already used to saying 0.001 BTC instead of 1mBTC I think it would just confuse others.
And I don't think that exchange would change it no matter what th price is, if people want to buy smaller portions of Bitcoin they are free to do it, no one is forcing us to buy a whole coin.
And even if they change it to mBTC the price and amount would still be the same.

[Ab de villiers]

I think it doesn't have a significant impact, and even more people still prefer to just call it in BTC, for example 0.0001 BTC, etc. It's already a habit and not too hard to remember. 

Maybe in the future, if Bitcoin's price rises and makes the zeros too many, people might start getting used to using a unit that's easier, like 'satoshi'. But for now, there's no need to change that habit, so we can continue using the current convention until it's necessary.

Currently many people are having use of this by their own flexibility because on few wallets every option available has never had any impact on bitcoin, but here I agreed when the price is agreed, it's going to have more use as its unit because it's never been easy to use as bitcoin, with its price being on a level where everyone can't afford one bitcoin. In fiat units are working without any problem, so having units like this could be ok in Bitcoin also for me once its price is going to be in six figures, many people will be going to use this mBTC as well without any serious trouble. During development changes are always going to happen easily without any specification by anyone.