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

[Zalfrin]

Where is the "none of the above" option? uBTC is not hard. Just use a u instead of a micro symbol if you're lazy...

[1714975218]

1714975218

[1714975218]

1714975218

[Bill Bisco]

I like this idea.

[BurtW]

So

100 satoshis = 1 bit

and

1 million bits = 1 coin?


am i right?

That appears to be the idea in this thread.

[LMGTFY]

I very much like this idea, but unless a coin is worth 1 million then that is still way too many numbers for:
Idiots- (yes mean but we all know them), average joes, older persons(not all), and electronically handicapped(mother) will still have difficulties and they account for a big number of the population currently.

I think the idea is that people could choose to work with Satoshis and bits (a coffee might cost 1 bit, 50 Satoshis) or with "coins" (an island might cost 50 coins/BTC). Much like we can choose now.

[_mr_e]

I would prefer if we moved the decimal places but still called them bitcoins.

[MoonWhale]

It's time to take the bit between the teeth.

[marcus_of_augustus]

So

100 satoshis = 1 bit

and

1 million bits = 1 bitcoin?


am i right?

I should have made it clearer like this ... implication is to abbreviate bitcoins to coins. So there is no such thing as a 'bitcoin' currency unit, only the satoshis, bits and coins ... (side benefit disambiguation "Bitcoin" then solely refers to the transaction network).

[BurtW]

I would prefer if we moved the decimal places but still called them bitcoins.

Not going to happen, sorry.

[BurtW]

So

100 satoshis = 1 bit

and

1 million bits = 1 bitcoin?


am i right?

I should have made it clearer like this ... implication is to call bitcoins coins. So there is no such thing as a 'bitcoin' currency unit, only the satoshis, bits and coins ... (side benefit "Bitcoin" can then refer solely to the transaction network.

That would clear up three messes in just one thread! 

[renee25]

hi,
i was in Vietnam and 1 coffee = 15000 VND  
so it's more or less like bits !!  

so, i'm a millionaire, you're a millionaire ,
everybody can be an early adopter now!  

also 1 bit=1 doge 

[solomon]

I very much like this idea, but unless a coin is worth 1 million then that is still way too many numbers for:
Idiots- (yes mean but we all know them), average joes, older persons(not all), and electronically handicapped(mother) will still have difficulties and they account for a big number of the population currently.

No it will be fine. Humans are far better with big whole numbers like 10,000 than small decimals like 0.0001. Italian lira and Chinese Yen are a couple of examples, I'm sure they have their fair share of 'dumb' people in these countries

[solomon]

Look, any change, other than a move to satoshis (no decimals), is arbitrary and therefore unnecessary. Call THOSE bits if you like, but moving the decimal around seems silly.

A bitcoin is arbitrary, but it is still more practical to price something as 1BTC than 100000000 Satoshi

[pening]

The principle is fine, but the name "bit" isnt going to help acceptance, it has too much meaning already, in common language (i'll have a bit of cake), technical IT especially networks and colloquially.  Need to come up with a better name (shame Satoshi already seems defined)

[jzcjca00]

1 bit is also 1/8 of one USD.

Seeing all the hoopla over BTC versus XBT I would support the following:

1 BTC = 1 Bitcoin = same as it ever was

1 XBT = 1 Bit = 0.000001 BTC

1000000 XBT (Bit) = 1 BTC (Bitcoin)

I would be behind this 100% as it "fixes" the whole BTC/XBT issue and give those who have been worried about the size of the BTC something to use.

+1

This is no time for half measures.  We need to adopt a solution today that will serve us well for centuries to come, and "bits" (worth 100 Satoshi each) are the right size.

The scale is usable today, when a gasoline costs around 8,000 bits per gallon, and even something as expensive as a house uses understandable numbers like $500 million bits. 

Once we achieve global adoption, I estimate that one bit will have roughly the same value as $1 in today's dollars, so having 2 decimal places should be just right.  Of course, specialized applications might use three or four decimal places in calculations, as is done today in investing and other places, even if the protocol is never updated to allow transfers of fractional Satoshi.

The abbreviation BTC is already widely established as 100,000,000 Satoshi, and it would be difficult to change its definition now.  However, XBT is not yet widely used and could easily be redefined as 100 Satoshi, as long as we do it quickly, before too many people start using it as a synonym for BTC.

Let's get rid of this annoying problem now!

I'm looking forward to the time when a shave and a haircut actually costs 2 bits again!

[bitsmichel]

you could also use the term 'satoshis' or an abbreviations 'sats'.

[N[e]wBie]

absolutely bits. I have been pondering this issue for a while, never really thought about 100 satoshis, but when I heard of this it dawned on me that this is the right approach. Before this I was a fan of using single satoshis over milibits (much less confusing).

[biea]

hope the name mBTC we can change it.

[gojomo]

My proposal is 'zib', chosen to be very similar to 'bit' – usable in all the same places – with even-better options for abbreviation and no meaning-collisions. More info is at:

http://zibcoin.org

...and discussion thread....

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=529301

Of all the many, many proposals (all of which seem to me to be solutions in search of a problem) "Zib" is the only one I've seen where there's been a real effort to provide the tools and information to make the change - most times the issue is presented as either "all we need to do is... [non trivial thing]" (social problem) or "all the developers need to do is... [non trivial thing]" (technical problem).

Thanks!

Incidentally, the names you say are variants of "microbitcoin" - strictly they're variants of BTC itself, the same way gigabyte is a variant of byte, millilitre is of litre, microgram of gram, etc. Well, the familiar ones are - "crobits" and "eubits" are new to me, and I can't determine scale from the names (which, incidentally, is one thing I do dislike about "Zib" - it uses a new name to replace familiar names).

Sure, but they each derive from "bitcoin" through "microbitcoin"... and so while there's a logical path, they bring the issues with "micro" along with them. (Those issues being: that's a lesser-known, more-confusable SI prefix, because of the m/mu similarity, and implies something that's trifling/invisible.)

Ultimately if believing (like I do) that a handy new one-syllable 100-satoshi unit will help with broad adoptions, the choices are something that brings a lot of baggage through strong existing relationships (like 'microbit' or 'bit'), or a totally-contrived word (like 'zib') that can take on a new, precise meaning after overcoming the initial unfamiliarity.

'Zib' was the result of a search for a word that was as much like 'bit' (in size and sound) as possible... but unburdened with any prior English definition, and with distinctive abbreviation possibilities.

[OC19850520]

uBTC sounds much beter than bits, and why add more names for the same 

[hello_good_sir]

With Bitpay's announcement of a move to 100 satoshis being the base unit, the time has come to vote on the name of this unit.  Vote in the poll here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=593705.0