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

[101111]

I don't like this kind of system I think its not needed its pretty simple to understand what 0.00001 means now. No need to bring in a new system which would just confuse existing users.

lol, oh that's really funny, thanks, I love that dry sense of humour, 

[Stery]

How many coins are already occupied or mined

[DooMAD]

I don't like this kind of system I think its not needed its pretty simple to understand what 0.00001 means now. No need to bring in a new system which would just confuse existing users.

I think most users will be pretty happy, actually.  If you have at least a whole bitcoin, you're officially a bitmillionaire now because you have 1 million bits. 

Dunno for certain if that will ever make us real-world millionaires or not, but it still sounds nice, heh.

[Bizmark13]

I like this system. If Bitcoin manages to replace fiat, then 1 bit = $1 USD (circa 2014), a satoshi would be worth about a cent, and those who have one or more whole bitcoins will be millionaires or multimillionaires. Nice and simple.

[knightcoin]

I like this system. If Bitcoin manages to replace fiat, then 1 bit = $1 USD (circa 2014), a satoshi would be worth about a cent, and those who have one or more whole bitcoins will be millionaires or multimillionaires. Nice and simple.

/*just thinking to myself
I was reading bytecoin sourcecode thinking about #pragma once */

[RepublicSpace]

And what happens if someone wants to make a physical 'coin' from one of these 'bits'? What do we call that?

[phillipsjk]

And what happens if someone wants to make a physical 'coin' from one of these 'bits'? What do we call that?

A microbitcoin or µBTC or mike or XBT.

The "bit" abbreviation in the poll was just thrown in there to confuse people.

[101111]

And what happens if someone wants to make a physical 'coin' from one of these 'bits'? What do we call that?

Bits.

Context is king and language evolves.

[bg002h]

  ... 

This is brilliant. Mike Caldwell, are you seeing this? Can you make some square 100 bits Casascius coins?

[rext]

wafer mode?

[BurtW]

Ok 1 bitcoin @ current USD $585.00, you are losing $58.50 USD using this (.000001 or bit) idea, If you don't understand this, then may the force be with you.

This is flat out wrong and a lie.

Please enlighten me with an intellegent rebuttal. I'm sorry buddy, I know the truth hurts. We are not going away anytime soon!!

I will try one more time to explain this to you using your own example.  I have lined up the decimal points so maybe you can see what everyone is talking about.  Forget the idea of naming the microbitcoin "one bit".  Let's see if you can understand this much because this post contains nothing new or controversial.  In your example 1 bitcoin = $585.00.  Therefore:

Code:

1 bitcoin      = 1.00000000 BTC = $585.00
1 millibitcoin = 0.00100000 BTC =   $0.585
1 microbitcoin = 0.00000100 BTC =   $0.000585
1 satoshi      = 0.00000001 BTC =   $0.00000585

Does that make sense to you now?  I am still at a loss as to why very simple math upsets you so much.  Now given this post above and just forget that a few people want to possibly create a shorthand name for the microbitcoin, please explain how anyone would lose anything whether they do transactions in bitcoins, millibitcoins, microbitcoins or satoshis.

[BitAddict]

+1 for bits.
Using bitcoin is weird for small transactions like 0.00327

[zimmah]

+1 for bits.
Using bitcoin is weird for small transactions like 0.00327

i hate how people fail to see the difference between two statements

Statement 1) We need a name for 0.000001 Bitcoin
Statement 2) The name should be 'bit'

I (and many others) agree with statement 1

I (and many others) do NOT agree with statement 2.

[wonkytonky]

+1 bits

[LucasCambon]

Good

[TimS]

I voted for the millibit/mBTC option. Why? Because at the current value, and since I'm used to dealing with figures in USD, it makes the most sense. (by thinking in millibits, I can easily see figures like 0.019 BTC ~= $10, 0.5 BTC ~= $300, 0.0000132 BTC is insignificant, etc) If bitcoins become more valuable, we might move to microBTC/uBTC/bits (which is just a lousy word for microBTC - the metric system was invented for a reason!), satoshi, or nanoBTC/nBTC (if the protocol changes to allow values so small). Someone in Japan might prefer to see uBTC today, because they're used to dealing with the larger numbers in Yen.
We don't need just one standard abbreviation, but options are good. Flexibility is good, as long as we always have a straightforward way to convert back to a basic unit, i.e. bitcoins. Fixing into one unit besides bitcoins, or trying to imagine that bits is always going to be the "right" unit is silly.

[Cicero2.0]

This is an excellent idea. It is a lot easier to wrap your brain around buying 1000 bits instead of a row of zeros following a decimal point.

[666uazan]

I think bits make perfect sense. If everyone that agrees starts using that by default when posting we should slowly start to move everyone over. For example, did you know you can buy over 2,000 bits for just a dollar?

[Ceuri]

Why bits? Because people are conditioned since birth to think of prices as whole numbers. There's a reason retailers price their goods and services at $19.99, $24.95, $99, etc.

[Ceuri]

Because the psychology of numbers influences the perceived value of said good. It's perfectly fine to criticize the word "bits", but I fear those critics are missing the point of this debate: we need to price goods as whole numbers, regardless of the naming convention.