The only way forward is to split it.

[rpietila]

It is important that bitcoins can be bought in a secure and functional way.

It is important that their storage can be so easy that people with lower and lower IQ can without stress handle it.

But it is more important than most of us early-adopter-high-IQ-intellectual-fat-fucks(sorry Mark!) can comprehend, that the price of 1 unit of currency seems cheap, if we want increasing numbers of people to buy into it.

At present the active Bitcoin usage is trailing far behind the ownership. We have 1 million+ owners, but, in my estimation, perhaps only 50,000 people make transactions regularly. To get new active users, we must get new owners.

But many of the prospective owners feel that the price is high at $440. If they only want to dip in with small money, they might (unconsciously) feel that buying a fraction of 1 bitcoin is either not allowed, or not even possible, or that the "train has left the station". There would not be any problem in buying 200+ coins at $0.44 a piece though, for a person who is considering a purchase worth $100.

It is not a question of "if" but "when". There is less than 2mBTC per person in the world, which means that a worldwide realistic distribution leads to situation where the majority has less than 200µBTC (median is way smaller than average). People are unwilling to start using a currency that would make their entire net worth start with a 0.00xxx. Fixing it does not cost anything.

Bitcoin is broadcast to the masses via popular media. If there is to be any realistic chance to make the media use the split unit instead of the basic unit, we should make this decision as a community and make every Bitcoin business adhere to the decision. Only then will the outsiders make the switch.

Do you consider that the matter is of high enough importance that any community decision is warranted, or should we continue on a voluntary basis, likely resulting in media reporting bitcoin price in $100s per BTC instead of $1s or $10s per mBTC?

I am all for making crisp names for the units. This poll is not about how we should name them, it is about the correct location of the decimal point.

[1715412865]

1715412865

[1715412865]

1715412865

[1715412865]

1715412865

[1715412865]

1715412865

[1715412865]

1715412865

[gagalady]

Most likely mbtc, mbtc sounds like a dollar for me. But how does It make any difference if we call the sum in mbtc, ubtc or other? The value is still the same?

[1Referee]

Some of the people that I know say "I'm not buying Bitcoin at this price"
And I kinda can understand that, paying 450$ per 1BTC is very difficult for some people when they know the price at a certain time was like 5$ per 1BTC.

[durrrr]

yeah mbtc should be the unit of btc from now on. its like a dollar and its more easy to say 100mbtc  ten .1 btc and easier to now make mistakes

[yenom]

At present the active Bitcoin usage is trailing far behind the ownership. We have 1 million+ owners, but, in my estimation, perhaps only 50,000 people make transactions regularly. To get new active users, we must get new owners.

I disagree, that is not an incentive. To get new active users, they must benefit significantly more than they do currently. I am a bitcoin owner and I shop at an online store that accepts bitcoin. I will not be spending my bitcoin there, because I have to pay a 9% premium to do so. Yes, you read that correctly.

See excited, then depressed, post here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=584134.0;all

[leopard2]

At present the active Bitcoin usage is trailing far behind the ownership. We have 1 million+ owners, but, in my estimation, perhaps only 50,000 people make transactions regularly. To get new active users, we must get new owners.

I disagree, that is not an incentive. To get new active users, they must benefit significantly more than they do currently. I am a bitcoin owner and I shop at an online store that accepts bitcoin. I will not be spending my bitcoin there, because I have to pay a 9% premium to do so. Yes, you read that correctly.

See excited, then depressed, post here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=584134.0;all

I would use it - if those places that accept Painpal would simply accept BTC.

EVEN COINWARZ DOES NOT ACCEPT BTC, DUH!!!

[RUEHL]

leave it be.

round numbers are only helpful for humans & will mean nothing to the automated bots that will control us.

[cbeast]

I disagree with the OP. Bitcoins will not be widely adopted as currency, ever. So there is no need to worry about it. The only quantity of bitcoins we need to be concerned about naming are the minimum dust size amounts, which is currently BTC0.00054. We should have a name for that. That quantity will be the transaction unit for Mastercoin, Colored Coin, and other derivative coins that meet the formal definitions of currency. Then these Bitcoin derivatives will be adopted and drag the value of Bitcoin up. The minimum dust size will float, so it can't be locked to a specific amount. Future derivative coins will be based on smaller dust transactions. This trend will continue all the way down to the Satoshi level, but the derivative coins will be worth much more.

[sclaggett]

I have discussed this at recent conferences about the challenge of the price per coin and maybe why dogecoin has had some recent success.

Corporations splits of stocks for the reason all the time.  McDonalds used to always split the stock to keep the price between $25 and $50 so their "Customers" could feel they could afford to buy the stock.

Here we have the price challenge for some for broader general adoption.  Do you really want to say to your friend he I just bought .01 Bitcon!  It is why during the growth cycle in startups we usually do splits of 10-1.  So you can tell your team they own 10,000 shares  not 2 shares even though they have the same value.  We also don't own .01 dollars.

This is classic market research.

[SlipperySlope]

mBTC pronounced embee.

Easy to say in any tongue.

[pandacoin]

I definitely agree to rpietila. We should implement that mBTC everywhere. More people buy, value raise to higher levels. We need to do something, so let's start from here.

[hello_good_sir]

1. We have been having these threads for years now.  Everyone who is clued in is in complete agreement that the price per bitcoin is holding back adoption.  The problem is that we're nobodies.  This kind of change has to come from the top.

2. Metric is never going to catch on.  Never.  Just give it up.  If people wanted a metric currency then the Euro would be metric.  No one talks about centieuros or kiloeuros and no one is ever going to talk about millibitcoins.

3.  Real-world splits do not change the name of the currency unit, at least not permanently.  In 1993 Mexico shifted the decimal place on their currency three places.  One new peso was equal to 1000 old pesos.  For three years the new unit was referred to as the "new peso", not millipeso.  After three years they want back to calling it a "peso".  What if we did the same thing with bitcoin?  What if one bitcoin became equal to 100000 "new bitcoins".  Then after three years we went back to simply calling them "bitcoins"?  With stock splits there is no transition period.  Master Card split its shares 1 to 10.  Their stock symbol did not change from MA to dMA because the name of the stock did not change from MasterCard to deciMasterCard.

So there are the facts.  I don't really have any recommendations, because there is no point.

[RUEHL]

2. Metric is never going to catch on.  Never.  Just give it up.  


So there are the facts.

These are not facts.  Yankees think they're the center of the universe.  The U.S. is one of the last outposts for imperial units of measure.

[saddambitcoin]

I voted for µB so we just move it once and hope we don't have to do it again for awhile.

[ChuckBuck]

I voted for mBTC.  EMBEE or Millibits just sound easiest to incorporate and use on a daily basis.

[Bitcoin Magazine]

i automatically integrate it in my conversation.  if i'm talking about kitteh coins i say 0.0000010 BTC.  for LTC i say 3 uBTC

[subcoin]

2. Metric is never going to catch on.  Never.

Double face-palm.

[ArticMine]

I voted for satoshi. mBTC is an ok interim measure, but realistically will also have the same problem. Micro BTC (µB) is not a bad choice; however given that we already have satoshi a factor of 100 away with a memorable name, it is not worth the trouble to focus on µB.

[hello_good_sir]

The U.S. is one of the last outposts for imperial units of measure.

No currency in the entire world is metric.  The Euro was recently created and could have been created as a metric currency.  It wasn't.  How do you explain that?

[DeathAndTaxes]

1. We have been having these threads for years now.  Everyone who is clued in is in complete agreement that the price per bitcoin is holding back adoption.  The problem is that we're nobodies.  This kind of change has to come from the top.

Well then you have a problem.  There is no "top".  Bitcoin is a consensus system.  Blocks from a forked protocol which has more coins than current nodes expect will simply be seen as invalid.  Miners mining those blocks will be wasting hashpower. 

It is very likely Bitcoin will never have a "split.

[hello_good_sir]

Well then you have a problem.  There is no "top".  Bitcoin is a consensus system.  Blocks from a forked protocol which has more coins than current nodes expect will simply be seen as invalid.  Miners mining those blocks will be wasting hashpower. 

It is very likely Bitcoin will never have a "split.

Of course there is a "top".  The big exchanges and brokers, along with the core developers.

Two years ago MtGox could have single-handedly switched the denomination and everyone would have updated their services.  Right now there are more big players, but it would only take half a dozen influential people to make the switch happen in a week.

[bitcoinvideos]

A split? I'm sorry but I don't think a split simply because some people can't invest in it is a good idea. When a normal stock splits it is not because they want to be able to get peasants to buy the stocks because they feel bad. The usage of mbtc is probably the better route and more mainstream adoption.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Well then you have a problem.  There is no "top".  Bitcoin is a consensus system.  Blocks from a forked protocol which has more coins than current nodes expect will simply be seen as invalid.  Miners mining those blocks will be wasting hashpower. 

It is very likely Bitcoin will never have a "split.

Of course there is a "top".  The big exchanges and brokers, along with the core developers.

Two years ago MtGox could have single-handedly switched the denomination and everyone would have updated their services.  Right now there are more big players, but it would only take half a dozen influential people to make the switch happen in a week.

No it wouldn't. My client rejects blocks which don't match the correct Bitcoin protocol.  There are 21M BTC, the current subsidy is 25 BTC and coins are divisible to eight places.   So you are saying if you get all the major cexchanges, service providers, plus wallet developers for all the wallet to all simultaneously change you could force a change.  Even that is incorrect but sorry to break it to you but all those people in that group don't agree on just about anything.   Hell they often don't agree on very non-contraversial changes.   However you believe by magic they will all agree simultaneously on probably the most controversial change to Bitcoin ever?  Really?

When you have to get dozens of people from diverse views with diverse viewpoints and often conflicting agendas to reach a consensus and then gets hundreds of thousands of users to upgrade their software to make that change effective that is by definition "no top".

[hello_good_sir]

No it wouldn't. My client rejects blocks which don't match the correct Bitcoin protocol.

We aren't talking about a change to the bitcoin protocol.  We are talking about user interface changes.  So no, your client would not reject future blocks.

[acoindr]

No it wouldn't. My client rejects blocks which don't match the correct Bitcoin protocol.

I might be missing something, but I think the title of this thread is misleading. The OP isn't proposing any kind of fork, only a naming convention.

I originally voted for satoshi, but then removed and changed to mBTC. I think satoshis is the correct ultimate destination, but if you're talking marketing mBTC would be better. It might even rekindle some of the sub $1 excitement

At the same time I caution about the "so it seems cheap" motive. To me a system with 21 million whole units is pretty sparse when compared to a potential global user base over several billion. That means $400 seems cheap already, and many people are aware of that (note the price stability). There are still about 3,500 NEW bitcoins being created every single day, so adoption IS happening even if not fast enough for some people...

[cbeast]

The only denomination of bitcoins that is backed by anything relevant is the minimum dust transaction backed by the cost of electricity used to produce it.

[DeathAndTaxes]

No it wouldn't. My client rejects blocks which don't match the correct Bitcoin protocol.

We aren't talking about a change to the bitcoin protocol.  We are talking about user interface changes.  So no, your client would not reject future blocks.

The interface is already changeable.  No company is going to force a change on their consumers/users so they leave for a company which doesn't.  The next version of our site will include the option to display values in mBTC but there is no benefit for anyone to force their consumer to use a new standard so .... they won't.   The only way a change could be forced from "top" would be a hard fork of the protocol.   Bitcoin is decentralized, people in free and open systems often never agree on a single standard.



My issue wasn't with the idea that users will adopt a new unit but the idea that it would be forced from "the top".

[yenom]

This thread makes me wonder why Satoshi Nakamoto chose the parameters he did when he created bitcoin. Why didn't he set the limit to be 21 billion or 21 trillion? I'm sure he thought of that, and I'm sure he thought about how mass adoption might look like. I'm trying to "get inside his head" and find a good reason to choose 21 million as the hard upper limit, but I'm struggling.

[Dannie]

This thread makes me wonder why Satoshi Nakamoto chose the parameters he did when he created bitcoin. Why didn't he set the limit to be 21 billion or 21 trillion? I'm sure he thought of that, and I'm sure he thought about how mass adoption might look like. I'm trying to "get inside his head" and find a good reason to choose 21 million as the hard upper limit, but I'm struggling.

If he really set the limit to 21 billion, people will ask "why not 21 million or 21 thousand"...
Similarly, you could ask why the block reward is 50 btc at first instead of 64 or 1...
IMHO, there is no particular reason when Satoshi decided those magic numbers.

[e4xit]

Well then you have a problem.  There is no "top".  Bitcoin is a consensus system.  Blocks from a forked protocol which has more coins than current nodes expect will simply be seen as invalid.  Miners mining those blocks will be wasting hashpower. 

It is very likely Bitcoin will never have a "split.

Of course there is a "top".  The big exchanges and brokers, along with the core developers.

Two years ago MtGox could have single-handedly switched the denomination and everyone would have updated their services.  Right now there are more big players, but it would only take half a dozen influential people to make the switch happen in a week.

No it wouldn't. My client rejects blocks which don't match the correct Bitcoin protocol.  There are 21M BTC, the current subsidy is 25 BTC and coins are divisible to eight places.   So you are saying if you get all the major cexchanges, service providers, plus wallet developers for all the wallet to all simultaneously change you could force a change.  Even that is incorrect but sorry to break it to you but all those people in that group don't agree on just about anything.   Hell they often don't agree on very non-contraversial changes.   However you believe by magic they will all agree simultaneously on probably the most controversial change to Bitcoin ever?  Really?

When you have to get dozens of people from diverse views with diverse viewpoints and often conflicting agendas to reach a consensus and then gets hundreds of thousands of users to upgrade their software to make that change effective that is by definition "no top".

I thought everything at the protocol level was processed at the satoshi level (eg zero decimal places) although perhaps this varies between software...? I'm sure you are more of an expert here than me.

But anyway, all the "split" would do in this instance is to 'rename' "one bitcoin" to equal 100 satoshis instead of 100 million (or 100,000 instead of 100 million).

I have to admit, I am all for this. The decimal place is horrible for 99.999% of people; try asking anyone what even a simple sum such as 0.001 + 0.0001 is verbally and I guarantee that they will struggle (i have tried this on many [non-technical] friends myself). Also then ask them to convert this into their native currency by multiplying by, even a round number such as 500. Not happening... Multiply those numbers by a million and people have no problem though.

It is my opinion that mBTC will not solve this problem adequately either; merely further delaying the issue until a point in time when we have more (less-technical) users and more nodes which will have to consent.

My vote would strongly urge to adopt 1x10^-6 (current) BTC in some form, either uBTC (less desirable) or the "stock split" - changing BTC to equal 100 satoshis (most desirable).

I am sure if this was agreed to by a majority in the communtity that a date or block could be set as changeover day to attempt to minimise confusion, which would inevitably follow, breifly. Although with adopting 1x10^-6 BTC the difference should be so incredibly obvious (who will pay 1,000,000x too much for their service!?) that there should not be much issue...

[rpietila]

My issue wasn't with the idea that users will adopt a new unit but the idea that it would be forced from "the top".

The reason why I propose it is that in technical matters, the core devs are constantly evaluating proposals to make minor changes in the software, and "forcing them from the top" once they a) believe that the change is important enough b) there is sufficient concensus.

The software won't crash even if we don't do anything to this problem (so it is not of critical urgency). But that is not a reason to refuse to do anything about it (it is of critical importance sooner or later).

My aim is to make the change so prevalent that all popular media will use the "new" unit. At that point it does not matter if the rednecks use "grand" as their basic unit. The focus is in prospective users, not current ones.

[yenom]

If he really set the limit to 21 billion, people will ask "why not 21 million or 21 thousand"...
Similarly, you could ask why the block reward is 50 btc at first instead of 64 or 1...
IMHO, there is no particular reason when Satoshi decided those magic numbers.

Everything about bitcoin was chosen very carefully by satoshi. I'm convinced of that. The more I look into it, the more I realize his/her/their genius and foresight, I am struggling with the number of coins though. Anyone care to postulate a good reason for 21 mil?

[franky1]

No it wouldn't. My client rejects blocks which don't match the correct Bitcoin protocol.  There are 21M BTC, the current subsidy is 25 BTC and coins are divisible to eight places.   So you are saying if you get all the major cexchanges, service providers, plus wallet developers for all the wallet to all simultaneously change you could force a change.  Even that is incorrect but sorry to break it to you but all those people in that group don't agree on just about anything.   Hell they often don't agree on very non-contraversial changes.   However you believe by magic they will all agree simultaneously on probably the most controversial change to Bitcoin ever?  Really?

When you have to get dozens of people from diverse views with diverse viewpoints and often conflicting agendas to reach a consensus and then gets hundreds of thousands of users to upgrade their software to make that change effective that is by definition "no top".

the bitcoin PROTOCOL is actually measured in satoshi's.. it is then clients, services, front-ends that use math to change it down to become measurements of bitcoins.

so changing the front end to use less decimals will not harm the protocol..

before
$value= 12345678 / 100000000
$value= 0.12345678 BTC

after
$value= 12345678 / 100000
$value= 123.45678 mBTC (bitmill)

simples

[Dannie]

If he really set the limit to 21 billion, people will ask "why not 21 million or 21 thousand"...
Similarly, you could ask why the block reward is 50 btc at first instead of 64 or 1...
IMHO, there is no particular reason when Satoshi decided those magic numbers.

Everything about bitcoin was chosen very carefully by satoshi. I'm convinced of that. The more I look into it, the more I realize his/her/their genius and foresight, I am struggling with the number of coins though. Anyone care to postulate a good reason for 21 mil?

I just found this old thread accidentally. It may provide some insights for you.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=263750.0

[somac.]

If he really set the limit to 21 billion, people will ask "why not 21 million or 21 thousand"...
Similarly, you could ask why the block reward is 50 btc at first instead of 64 or 1...
IMHO, there is no particular reason when Satoshi decided those magic numbers.

Everything about bitcoin was chosen very carefully by satoshi. I'm convinced of that. The more I look into it, the more I realize his/her/their genius and foresight, I am struggling with the number of coins though. Anyone care to postulate a good reason for 21 mil?

I just found this old thread accidentally. It may provide some insights for you.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=263750.0

I suspect that he choose 21 million, rather than billion or trillion, for scarcity reasons. Millions is not that much these days but trillions is still a shitload, as far as early adoption goes, saying there is only 21 million, as opposed to 21 trillion, sounds a hell of a lot more enticing.

IMO I also don't think the unit of btc matters so much. I think everyone here focuses on the btc unit too much (e.g I have 10 btc, this thing costs 2 btc). Btc is a hedge against inflation and protection from government/banks. In my eyes, its much better to quote how much fiat value one has in bitcoin, not just the number of bitcoin. If we only ever talked about the fiat value, it would never be that confusing, and it would sound awesome too. For example, "I bought $1000 worth of bitcoin in 2011 and now it's worth $2.3 million" as opposed to "I bought 1000 bitcoin in 2011, I'm rich man." "yeah, cool man, how much are a thousand bitcoin?". No point using numbers of bitcoin when everyone is going to convert it to fiat for perspective anyway.

Same goes for gold. In my country there is a lottery where you can win gold. They don't say you'll win 10 ounces (boring) they say you'll win $10,000. Just makes more sense and sounds impressive.

I say never use btc amounts (or price things in btc) when talking to people, use the fiat amounts, that way decimal places don't matter.

Or maybe I'm just an idiot, I don't know.

[5flags]

A 1kg bar of gold costs what, $41,000? Is that a barrier to the adoption of gold as a store of value? No, because you can buy smaller bars.

[franky1]

A 1kg bar of gold costs what, $41,000? Is that a barrier to the adoption of gold as a store of value? No, because you can buy smaller bars.

+1

i love it when people say 21million coins is a barrier to entry..

back in egyptian times there were gold statues that weighed a tonne.. and measured as such. yet not many people know that there are only 170 THOUSAND tonnes, far less "units" then bitcoin

yet if gold can be divided down to ounces and grams over the centuries. then bitcoin can be devided down to bitmils (mbtc) and satoshi's in a few years, as things naturally progress

[blatchcorn]

If he really set the limit to 21 billion, people will ask "why not 21 million or 21 thousand"...
Similarly, you could ask why the block reward is 50 btc at first instead of 64 or 1...
IMHO, there is no particular reason when Satoshi decided those magic numbers.

Everything about bitcoin was chosen very carefully by satoshi. I'm convinced of that. The more I look into it, the more I realize his/her/their genius and foresight, I am struggling with the number of coins though. Anyone care to postulate a good reason for 21 mil?

I just found this old thread accidentally. It may provide some insights for you.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=263750.0

I suspect that he choose 21 million, rather than billion or trillion, for scarcity reasons. Millions is not that much these days but trillions is still a shitload, as far as early adoption goes, saying there is only 21 million, as opposed to 21 trillion, sounds a hell of a lot more enticing.

IMO I also don't think the unit of btc matters so much. I think everyone here focuses on the btc unit too much (e.g I have 10 btc, this thing costs 2 btc). Btc is a hedge against inflation and protection from government/banks. In my eyes, its much better to quote how much fiat value one has in bitcoin, not just the number of bitcoin. If we only ever talked about the fiat value, it would never be that confusing, and it would sound awesome too. For example, "I bought $1000 worth of bitcoin in 2011 and now it's worth $2.3 million" as opposed to "I bought 1000 bitcoin in 2011, I'm rich man." "yeah, cool man, how much are a thousand bitcoin?". No point using numbers of bitcoin when everyone is going to convert it to fiat for perspective anyway.

Same goes for gold. In my country there is a lottery where you can win gold. They don't say you'll win 10 ounces (boring) they say you'll win $10,000. Just makes more sense and sounds impressive.

I say never use btc amounts (or price things in btc) when talking to people, use the fiat amounts, that way decimal places don't matter.

Or maybe I'm just an idiot, I don't know.

I agree.

I see the future of Bitcoin commerce using designs where it looks like you are buying something in $, but behind the scenes it is all Bitcoin. 

[5flags]

i love it when people say 21million coins is a barrier to entry..

When Googling to find the price of gold, I noticed that there are about 2.1 x 10^5 cubic feet of gold in existence above ground. Which, if you squint, is delightfully similar to the 2.1 x 10^7 total supply of Bitcoins.

Pointless fact of the day.

[DannyHamilton]

Those "orders of magnitude" numbers can look "similar", but they generally aren't.

I'm an astrophysicist. I get orders of magnitude. Which is why I added the word "squint" to my post.

Ok, I get it.

I just deal with so many people here at bitcointalk who have significant difficulty with large numbers, that it seemed possible that there was a misunderstanding about the difference between 10⁵ and 10⁷ (It's only 2!)

Deleted my post, since it's clear that I missed the humor in your post.

[jubalix]

satoshis

people are already using satoshis, lets go straight to that, its pretty common now, Doge User base complete familiar with satoshis .

Satoshis now,
it differentiates,
cements the BTC history in,
set BTC as the bar,
works nicely to 1satoshi = 1 cent
feels good to own 10K satoshi

saves this argument at mbit , ubit etc

[Peter R]

satoshis

+1

Migrating to "satoshis" solves two perceived problems simultaneously, while mBTC, uBTC, etc solve only one:

   1.  The price today could be quoted on the news as "$4.46 per million satoshis" making bitcoin sound affordable;

   2.  It makes the public automatically aware of the resolution of bitcoin's unit of account:
              Q: "what's smaller than a satoshi?"
              A: "nothing."

Many people who are familiar with bitcoin still don't know that 1 BTC is composed of 100,000,000 credits that we call "satoshis."  Discussing satoshis more commonly would simultaneously make bitcoin appear more affordable and educate the public about its pricing resolution. 

[Malin Keshar]

I agree. The psychologic effect of having full or more is better than having fractions, whole numbers + small fractions are easier to read than tiny fractions like 0,004546, and if btc skyrockets to 10000+, the trasaction costs will start to become significative

[Bitcoinpro]

At present the active Bitcoin usage is trailing far behind the ownership. We have 1 million+ owners, but, in my estimation, perhaps only 50,000 people make transactions regularly. To get new active users, we must get new owners.

I disagree, that is not an incentive. To get new active users, they must benefit significantly more than they do currently. I am a bitcoin owner and I shop at an online store that accepts bitcoin. I will not be spending my bitcoin there, because I have to pay a 9% premium to do so. Yes, you read that correctly.

See excited, then depressed, post here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=584134.0;all

I would use it - if those places that accept Painpal would simply accept BTC.

EVEN COINWARZ DOES NOT ACCEPT BTC, DUH!!!

what do you buy from them the only thing I do there is look up market cap  http://www.coinwarz.com/cryptocurrency

[paulsonnumismatics]

satoshis

people are already using satoshis, lets go straight to that, its pretty common now, Doge User base complete familiar with satoshis .

Satoshis now,
it differentiates,
cements the BTC history in,
set BTC as the bar,
works nicely to 1satoshi = 1 cent
feels good to own 10K satoshi

saves this argument at mbit , ubit etc

+1 for me.

Ive always sensed that the moment for Bitcoin "Winning" will be with 1 satoshi= 1 USD cent. In that moment, the BTC will be completely spreaded throughout the world. And anyone will be able to use it in everyday lives. The goal value of 1 satoshi= 1 us cent also puts the value of a whole Bitcoin where it deserves if it gets adopted worldwide and as an everyday money vehicle.
Also, ive been using satoshis for a while too, the push of the DOGE community is really big atm.

[jubalix]

I agree. The psychologic effect of having full or more is better than having fractions, whole numbers + small fractions are easier to read than tiny fractions like 0,004546, and if btc skyrockets to 10000+, the trasaction costs will start to become significative

which will force transaction costs down, and make btc even more compedative

[Technomage]

I'm fully in support of changing to mBTC or µBTC. Either is significantly better than what we have now, we just need consensus and action.

[blatchcorn]

mBTC and uBTC are complicated.  "Oh so x amount of a fraction of a bitcoin" is what mainstream adopters will think.

Much better for them to say I have 100 satoshis, simple.

[werrindor]

I voted for keeping BTC. I don't trust other cryptocurrencies

[DeathAndTaxes]

mBTC and uBTC are complicated.  "Oh so x amount of a fraction of a bitcoin" is what mainstream adopters will think.

Much better for them to say I have 100 satoshis, simple.

Well the problem is you won't be saying you have 100 Satoshis.

Lets price some common items in satoshis.

A $8.99 domain name from namecheap
$8.99 USD
0.01997778 BTC
19.97778 mBTC
1,997,778 sat

Ouch well they are all ugly.  if we round to 0.00001 BTC (1/2 cent in value)
0.01998000 BTC
19.98 mBTC
1,998,000 sat

$399.95 GPU from tiger direct.
0.88877778 BTC
888.77778  mBTC
88,877,778 sat

Or rounded
0.88978000 BTC
888.78 mBTC
88,878,000 sat

$5,000 mining rig
11.11111000 BTC
11,111.11 mBTC
1,111,111,000  sat

A satoshi has so little value that you end up with equally "long" values.

Right now mBTC is ~ $0.45 in value.  Rounding to two decimal places (pretty common in currencies) gives you 0.00001 BTC precision (~ 1/2 US cent).  Even at $5,000 USD:BTC exchange rate that gives you 5 cent precision.