The only way forward is to split it.

[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.

[1715513637]

1715513637

[1715513637]

1715513637

[1715513637]

1715513637

[1715513637]

1715513637

[1715513637]

1715513637

[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.