1,000,000 bits = 1 bitcoin. Future-proofing Bitcoin for common usage? VOTE

[calme]

Smaller denominations will drive the value up IMO. And I don't like "satoshi" b/c it doesn't sound global.

[Technomage]

Bit is the new unit, period. It is simple and mainstream proof. It works. The confusion argument has been debunked thoroughly in my opinion. Many words have different meanings to them without it being a problem, that is not a reason to fight this change.

This solves many issues at the same time. For one, bitcoins will no longer be thought of as too expensive. We won't need to use decimals with the exception of the 2 that are still available after the change. As was explained before, it's actually good to have some decimals.

We will also be able to fully separate the technology / network from the currency units. The units themselves can be called coins (BTC) and bits (µBTC) while the network is called Bitcoin.

Now we need not discussion but action. Wallets and services need to start working on enabling bits, otherwise this is all talk.

[zimmah]

Out of all possible names you just had to use the worst possible name.

RIP bitcoin

[zimmah]

I guess the problem with an open source item is that everyone has to have their opinion and their opinion has to be better than anyone else's.

bits works. Implement it!

I have explained so many times that bit is a terrible name and yet a vocal majority still managed to push it through somehow.

Since the coin itself is already called bitcoin, having any part of a bitcoin called a bit will only cause confusion.

Also the terms millibit and microbit are often heard, but if you rename 100 satoshi to a bit now a kilobit would be the same as a microbit which would be extremely confusing and inconvienient.

Just come up with a better name that does not include the word bit. They don't call fractions of a dollar a doll nor do they call fractions of euro a eur. Why should we call fractions of bitcoin a bit.

[zimmah]

Bit is the new unit, period. It is simple and mainstream proof. It works. The confusion argument has been debunked thoroughly in my opinion. Many words have different meanings to them without it being a problem, that is not a reason to fight this change.

This solves many issues at the same time. For one, bitcoins will no longer be thought of as too expensive. We won't need to use decimals with the exception of the 2 that are still available after the change. As was explained before, it's actually good to have some decimals.

We will also be able to fully separate the technology / network from the currency units. The units themselves can be called coins (BTC) and bits (µBTC) while the network is called Bitcoin.

Now we need not discussion but action. Wallets and services need to start working on enabling bits, otherwise this is all talk.

Yes of course no one will confuse tho word with a different meaning if the words are not related. But if a dollar and a cent were both called a dollar, than by 1 dollar one could mean either 1 dollar or 0,01 dollar. Now by a bit someone could mean either 1 bitcoin or 1/1.000.000th of it. And that is just wrong

[CoinRocka]

Bit is the new unit, period. It is simple and mainstream proof. It works. The confusion argument has been debunked thoroughly in my opinion. Many words have different meanings to them without it being a problem, that is not a reason to fight this change.

This solves many issues at the same time. For one, bitcoins will no longer be thought of as too expensive. We won't need to use decimals with the exception of the 2 that are still available after the change. As was explained before, it's actually good to have some decimals.

We will also be able to fully separate the technology / network from the currency units. The units themselves can be called coins (BTC) and bits (µBTC) while the network is called Bitcoin.

Now we need not discussion but action. Wallets and services need to start working on enabling bits, otherwise this is all talk.

Yes of course no one will confuse tho word with a different meaning if the words are not related. But if a dollar and a cent were both called a dollar, than by 1 dollar one could mean either 1 dollar or 0,01 dollar. Now by a bit someone could mean either 1 bitcoin or 1/1.000.000th of it. And that is just wrong

No one will confuse a tiny bit with a whole bitcoin.   

[Coin_Master]

Smaller denominations will drive the value up IMO. And I don't like "satoshi" b/c it doesn't sound global.

This solves many issues at the same time. For one, bitcoins will no longer be thought of as too expensive.

Here we have an example of University Graduates with Economics Degrees.  The price of Bitcoin will not be affected in the slightest by changes made to the client.  The price is determined by "Supply and Demand" not how the client displays the balance.  Total Noobs!!!
Supply is "fixed" by the parameters of the block reward.
Demand needs to increase (customers buying from retailers) for the price to go up.
Economics 101

The assertion that Bitcoin is too expensive is ludicrous, we want to see a $10,000 US Dollar Bitcoin by the end of next year.
Get with the program people!!!

[jubalix]

I like satoshis

but bits is a pretty good idea

it flows with Bitcoin, you buy Bits.....

so wont jar main stream.

either that or use some outrageous name like...."jams" or "jjs"

[fryarminer]

I guess the problem with an open source item is that everyone has to have their opinion and their opinion has to be better than anyone else's.

bits works. Implement it!

I have explained so many times that bit is a terrible name and yet a vocal majority still managed to push it through somehow.

Since the coin itself is already called bitcoin, having any part of a bitcoin called a bit will only cause confusion.

Also the terms millibit and microbit are often heard, but if you rename 100 satoshi to a bit now a kilobit would be the same as a microbit which would be extremely confusing and inconvienient.

Just come up with a better name that does not include the word bit. They don't call fractions of a dollar a doll nor do they call fractions of euro a eur. Why should we call fractions of bitcoin a bit.

Ok, Yeah I've been vocal and yeah, I'm listening. I guess why I'm listening is because "a bit of a bitcoin" works in English but not-so-much in other languages.
How do you explain to someone in Spanish: "Yeah, "bit" means "poquito" so it's a "poquito" of a "bitcoin" but "bitcoin" doesn't mean "poquitocoin" but the whole coin".
That wouldn't work.
So I see your point about not calling part of a dollar a doll, etc.

When it comes down to it, we DO need to start using the measurement though, with a catchy name, because a smaller measurement will push the value of bitcoin higher, while looking at bitcoins as the full entity will drive the price of a bitcoin lower.

[fryarminer]

That being said and growing up with Metric, Millibit might work, but not the other names. They are NOT catchy and who are we kidding?

[teukon]

Bit is the new unit, period.

You asserting a thing does not make it so.

It is simple and mainstream proof. It works. The confusion argument has been debunked thoroughly in my opinion. Many words have different meanings to them without it being a problem, that is not a reason to fight this change.

Roughly yes.  However, I'm not arguing against "bit" for this reason, I'm arguing against it because it's worse than what we currently have.

This solves many issues at the same time. For one, bitcoins will no longer be thought of as too expensive. We won't need to use decimals with the exception of the 2 that are still available after the change. As was explained before, it's actually good to have some decimals.

This is not an argument for adopting the term "bits", this is an argument for shifting from quoting prices in bitcoins, to quoting them in millibitcoins, microbitcoins, and/or satoshis.

We will also be able to fully separate the technology / network from the currency units. The units themselves can be called coins (BTC) and bits (µBTC) while the network is called Bitcoin.

It's true that reducing the load on the word "bitcoin" is a plus.  However, where this is an argument for calling microbitcoins "bits", it is an even greater argument for calling microbitcoins "mics"/"mikes" (which is what we already have).

Now we need not discussion but action. Wallets and services need to start working on enabling bits, otherwise this is all talk.

Action?  Natural language evolution does not require pressure groups; it happens automatically with time.

[Beliathon]

I support bits as a reasonable alternative to 0.0000_ BTC

[A305732903]

21 million bitcoins FOREVER!

Satoshi recognized that 21 million currency units are not enough for a global currency. His solution was to support eight decimal places on amounts, which also allows the reward halving process to continue for about 140 years. Internally the Bitcoin software recognizes 2,100 million million currency units (now known as satoshis) but they are divided by 100 million before presentation to users. So the block reward is currently 2,500 million satoshis or 25 bitcoins. Bitcoin units were fine for the first few years, but during the last 12 months the question keeps arising "Is another unit best for common usage?"

Inertia of existing systems

All modern fiat currencies have a major currency unit which has 100 minor units: e.g. $1 = 100 cents.
Everyone is used to this system from childhood. Many people are not comfortable with scientific notation or with small decimals such as 0.001234 which will be seen more and more often as the unit value of 1 bitcoin rises. Most people are happier dealing with 100,000 than 0.00001

Further, 99.99% of the world's financial and accounting systems do not support more than 2 decimal places on currencies, let alone as many as eight. It is arguable that Bitcoin has a very real handicap upon its growth by disregarding modern conventions in currencies.

Enter the "bit"

1 bitcoin = 1,000,000 bits
1 bit = 100 satoshis

User 101111 on reddit recommended this mock-up wallet. The current Bitcoin Core wallet does allow the selection of millibitcoins and microbitcoins but not with such a user friendly presentation, and not by default.

Is it time to consider using "bits" as standard? All balances become 1 million times larger, the block reward as 25 million bits, the exchange rate as 0.04 cents to a bit, a cup of coffee as 7000 bits instead of 0.007 BTC
Is this an improvement?  If the bitcoin value increases into the thousands of dollars which unit is easiest to use for pricing goods and services?

https://i.imgur.com/JrDIgmv.jpg

[boumalo]

426/539 79% of the voters agree that bits is better than milibitcoins or bitcoins as the main unit; I like the idea but I am a bit divided wether it should be impose or not; we don't even know what will Bitcoin be mainly used for

[Technomage]

Nobody should or can impose people to use a certain unit. You can use whatever you wish. However I'm in the camp of promoting the use of bits and want it available in most major wallets and services. As I myself am part of running the largest Bitcoin website in Finland I can contribute on my end. However it needs to be a community effort.

The real potential for confusion comes from using different units. Right now there is already use of BTC and mBTC and now we're bringing in the rebranded µBTC. From my point of view this will simply replace the use of mBTC and perhaps become the default unit instead of just an alternative.

[101111]

Although it is the smallest unit (so far!) Satoshi is great in a respectful and formal sense, but how about 'tidbit' as a colloquial alternative.

1 bit = 100 tidbits

[BurtW]

If we combine zib and bit we get "zits"

[101111]

If we combine zib and bit we get "zits"

zits was my first choice, but got squeezed out

[boumalo]

Nobody should or can impose people to use a certain unit. You can use whatever you wish. However I'm in the camp of promoting the use of bits and want it available in most major wallets and services. As I myself am part of running the largest Bitcoin website in Finland I can contribute on my end. However it needs to be a community effort.

The real potential for confusion comes from using different units. Right now there is already use of BTC and mBTC and now we're bringing in the rebranded µBTC. From my point of view this will simply replace the use of mBTC and perhaps become the default unit instead of just an alternative.

µBTC=uBTC and it is not entirely clear for everyone at first

1bitcoin=1,000,000bits, it is convenient and bit&bitcoin have the same root

[2_Thumbs_Up]

Nobody should or can impose people to use a certain unit. You can use whatever you wish. However I'm in the camp of promoting the use of bits and want it available in most major wallets and services. As I myself am part of running the largest Bitcoin website in Finland I can contribute on my end. However it needs to be a community effort.

The real potential for confusion comes from using different units. Right now there is already use of BTC and mBTC and now we're bringing in the rebranded µBTC. From my point of view this will simply replace the use of mBTC and perhaps become the default unit instead of just an alternative.

IMO it doesn't have to be a coordinated community effort. That will just end with everybody waiting for everybody else to do something (kind of like how everyone has just waited for others to start using mBTC). If you like 'bits' you should just start using it, and soon others follow your example.

Quote your prices in both bits and BTC to avoid initial confusion such as:
2 345 bits (0,002 345 BTC)

That way you show off the advantage of using bits, while still making it easy for anyone with wallet that uses BTC. Just take the lead and show everyone else how simple it really is.