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

[101111]

Actually we have MicroBitcoin (μBTC) already. Why change it to Bits?

I prefer μBTC (spelled: uBit)

No we don't, we have microbitcoin. I think you've answered you're own question. Using those tiny fractional units is confusing and error prone.

[1715378109]

1715378109

[1715378109]

1715378109

[rme]

...That computer costs 300$, thats 672 mBTC or 672000 bits...




 

[BunsenBurner]

So 1 bit equals 100 satoshis, in the future, it's quite possible for 1 bit worthing 1dollar.

I don't see why you find it is "quite possible" to have 1 btc = 1 mil USD.

[BunsenBurner]

...That computer costs 300$, thats 672 mBTC or 672000 bits...

That's the reason I still prefer "bitcoin" to be the base unit at this current moment.

It may sounds unnatural to some of you when you need to make a payment of 0.001 btc now.
But IMHO it will be more odd to make a payment of 10000000 for a meal, if we switch to use bits.

[N[e]wBie]

Actually we have MicroBitcoin (μBTC) already. Why change it to Bits?

I prefer μBTC (spelled: uBit)

These are very confusing to use and they absolutely will not catch on in the near future. Whole numbers are easy, even if they are big numbers. Even laymen know what 100,000 is, but good luck trying to get everyone to understand what 1/1000th of something is. People ARE familiar with 1 cent and 10 cents, though. Bits uses large whole numbers and familiar fractions to be perfectly convenient. A $300 computer for 672,000 bits is NOT confusing.

[Toxonaut]

And why is it not possible to do something like a stock split and split one bitcoin into 1'000'000 parts and still call the resulting units Bitcoin ?
Everybody owning 1 Bitcoin will own 1'000'000 Bitcoins worth 1/1'000'000th each.
Problem solved!!

[BunsenBurner]

And why is it not possible to do something like a stock split and split one bitcoin into 1'000'000 parts and still call the resulting units Bitcoin ?
Everybody owning 1 Bitcoin will own 1'000'000 Bitcoins worth 1/1'000'000th each.
Problem solved!!

It would just create more confusion.

[Arghhh]

We are talking about future proofing so let's make 1 BTC = $100,000 for easy math.

Suppose Joe blow wants to order a $5 cheeseburger in BTC. Here's a few different scenarios:

A. "That'll be 0.00005 BTC please."
B. "That'll be 0.05 mBTC please."
C. "That'll be 50 uBTC please."
D. "That'll be 50 bits please."

A and B are eliminated right off the bat because nobody wants to recall how many zeroes they've put after the decimal.

This leaves us with reasonable C and D, but the word "bit" is far more marketable than "micro-BTC". Micro-BTC just doesn't roll off the tongue like bits does.

For those who say we have MicroBitcoin already, it's not about us... we get it, we're fine. We're already invested into BTC. Get over yourself. It's about widespread adoption transcending mathematical literacy, and "bit" is the ideal solution concerning avoiding decimals as well as ownership psychology.

[Grinny]

i would stick to the current model.
in the long run, bitcoin will be mainly used for saving money (equivalent to a bank) and/or storing values (equivalent to gold) than for paying consumer goods (it's too slow therefor imho), so i'm okay with saying 'i put 0.5BTC to my robocoin/lamassu/cryptex/you-name-it bank'. i don't think that ppl will buy chewing gums with BTC in 10 years from now - there will be at least one established Altcoin (stable, fast, worth a few pennies) that fills this consumer gap.

[ErnieRox]

if there's no other option i would say bits, i can't stand mBtc or uBtc or whatever, its confusing, bits is simpler, catchier and seems reasonable 

[rikkie]

I think bits should be a good alternative. Now too much 0.000...

[LMGTFY]

Actually we have MicroBitcoin (μBTC) already. Why change it to Bits?

I prefer μBTC (spelled: uBit)

No we don't, we have microbitcoin. I think you've answered you're own question. Using those tiny fractional units is confusing and error prone.

Oh. Now I am confused. I thought we had BTC and - by definition - mBTC and µBTC (uBTC). We also have a protocol - Bitcoin. So is "microbitcoin" a fraction of the protocol, or an alternative name for a fraction of BTC?

Incidentally, when you say "using those tiny fractional units is confusing and error prone" - what subset of the global population do you have in mind? What size is that subset? Reason I ask is - the only time I've ever (I'm middle aged) seen people say this is confusing is on Bitcointalk (I'm not a scientist, engineer, etc, but I have lived/worked in a number of different countries in APAC and EMEA).

[molecular]

So

100 satoshis = 1 bit

and

1 million bits = 1 coin?


am i right?

That appears to be the idea in this thread.

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.

Idiots and Joes have much less of a problem with a price like 12 thousand bits or even 120 million bits than with a price like 0.0012 BTC. Me included.

[LMGTFY]

Idiots and Joes have much less of a problem with a price like 12 thousand bits or even 120 million bits than with a price like 0.0012 BTC. Me included.

And presumably that's why wine (say) is sold in 750ml bottles, as opposed to 0.75l bottles. But that doesn't seem to be an argument in support of moving the decimal point 2, 3 or 6 places.

[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)

It's good enough. Language is fuzzy anyway.

It is not "good enough", its outright counter productive, having slept on it i find i like the idea even less.  English language is fuzzy because of the natural evolution of it as people accept a meaning change and morph to it, usually attempts to generate a word or force a new meaning fail.  This could end up making acceptance more difficult as it will cause confusion, people will rolleyes and walk away.

[gojomo]

We are talking about future proofing so let's make 1 BTC = $100,000 for easy math.

Suppose Joe blow wants to order a $5 cheeseburger in BTC. Here's a few different scenarios:

A. "That'll be 0.00005 BTC please."
B. "That'll be 0.05 mBTC please."
C. "That'll be 50 uBTC please."
D. "That'll be 50 bits please."

A and B are eliminated right off the bat because nobody wants to recall how many zeroes they've put after the decimal.

This leaves us with reasonable C and D, but the word "bit" is far more marketable than "micro-BTC". Micro-BTC just doesn't roll off the tongue like bits does.

For those who say we have MicroBitcoin already, it's not about us... we get it, we're fine. We're already invested into BTC. Get over yourself. It's about widespread adoption transcending mathematical literacy, and "bit" is the ideal solution concerning avoiding decimals as well as ownership psychology.

I'd also eliminate C. There's no one way to say it – it could be "yu bee tee cee", "myu bee tee cee", "yu bits", "myu bits" – and all are multisyllable mouthfuls. (Another alternative not shown, "mics", can need clarification that it's said "mikes" to avoid it being said like "micks", which can be read as a slur term for Irish.)

But there should also be an E, for the made-up synonym for µBTC 'zib', leaving the two options:

D. "That'll be 50 bits please."
E. "That'll be 50 zib please."

This is just as easy to say, has only one pronunciation, and avoids possible confusion from redefining 'bit'... which already has been used as an abbreviation for 'bitcoin', as in 'millibits', and has another important meaning as 'indivisible binary-digit' in the core crypto that generates/secures Bitcoin.

Zib also offers a better currency-character, 'Ƶ' (Z-with-stroke). Compare price labels:

ƀ50.00 (is that bitcoin or bits?)
Ƶ50.00

Small units (millionths) are a great idea. But the name doesn't have to be overloaded 'bits'.

[solex]

Lots of great points in this thread and a real majority of votes for change, much more than might have been assumed beforehand.

We (BitPay) like moving to "bits" …Jeff has written a blog post articulating how we intend to make the transition if we feel there is a consensus to go in this direction.

http://blog.bitpay.com/2014/05/02/bitpay-bitcoin-and-where-to-put-that-decimal-point.html

Good to know this!

And presumably that's why wine (say) is sold in 750ml bottles, as opposed to 0.75l bottles. But that doesn't seem to be an argument in support of moving the decimal point 2, 3 or 6 places.

You might not see bottles in the real world labelled 0.75l but here in Bitcoinland we sell wine in 0.00075kl bottles.

This will be really good for Bitcoin as one of the key psychological advantages that altcoins have over Bitcoin will be gone.

It's about widespread adoption transcending mathematical literacy, and "bit" is the ideal solution concerning avoiding decimals as well as ownership psychology.

Agreed with these comments. The psychological aspect is very important and this change will likely attract more people to Bitcoin rather than put them off.

[btcusr]

Am I late here..?

/r/bitcoin was kind of friendly.

can someone here do a review of the following post.

Leave satoshi alone; and mBTC, uBTC too..

I think, we should stop using direct bitcoin, or bitcoin denominated units (mBTC, uBTC, etc.). There should be some 'new unit', which can be adjusted in such a way that, for $1 you can always buy 1 - 10 new unit of bitcoins (?).

For example,

1 BTC = x newBTC

Where, x, a number newBTC, new bitcoin unit (just for example, it can be called BTC / XAU)

To keep, 1 newBTC between $0.1 and $1 » for $500 a BTC, x should be between 500 and 5000. This x can be decided, based on exchange rates and calculations (?). As an end result, people don't see wide fluctuations, and newBTC stays always between $0.1 and $1.

Why $0.1 to $1? Just my guess, but it should be kept stable adjusting BTC, newBTC ratio.

Say, x = 2000 » 1 newBTC = 0.5 mBTC » @ $500, 1 newBTC = $0.25

x = 2000, is good for $200 - $2000 range.

So, we should keep this x dynamic, reflecting current exchange rate.

newBTC is the same as BTC, for people, wallets and exchanges. Software front end show this unit, and internally work as usual.

Even if 2 / 4 more digits added further to current 8 digits precision, this new unit can hide the tech (satoshi) details from public.

It works as a stock split, but no internal changes required. End users don't have to understand this, because they are just paying bitcoins worth in fiat currency.

Just a quick draft of a rough idea. Let me know what you think. (Actually I wrote it last week, and I only made small changes..)

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/24lceo/leave_satoshi_alone_and_mbtc_ubtc_too/

[LMGTFY]

And presumably that's why wine (say) is sold in 750ml bottles, as opposed to 0.75l bottles. But that doesn't seem to be an argument in support of moving the decimal point 2, 3 or 6 places.

You might not see bottles in the real world labelled 0.75l but here in Bitcoinland we sell wine in 0.00075kl bottles.

I'll take your word for it! And - as ludicrous as 0.00075kl sounds (I prefer 750µl - it tastes better ) - this is a good thing. Individually, as BTC users, merchants, exchanges - we can choose the system that suits us. Right now. Some people use "Satoshi". Some people use µBTC. Some people use mBTC. Some people use BTC. And some people won't get out of bed for less than kBTC. All of this is possible right now. If my region/country uses 10000s instead of 1000s - that works too.

Put another way - whatever system we have, whatever system we adopt, it will confuse some people, delight others, and be irrelevant to still more. Given that there's a cost to change (time, resources, risk of confusion, etc) if we want to change the existing system we should be very clear about who will be affected, and in what ways. Too much of this discussion is based round "people" finding the current system confusing. It is not at all clear to me who these people are, and whether the benefits they'd gain would outweigh the detriments other people would face. Nor whether the immediate gains would remain in the longer term (as price changes).

[shields]

We already have an established smaller unit that everyone agrees on - Satoshi. Just build up from that, ksat = 1,000 sat, msat= 1,000,000 sat. People are already familiar with using thousands, and millions in relation to money, in many currencies everydays prices are already in 1000s (argentine peso, yen).

Using 'milli' and 'micro' for money is unfamiliar and confusing to ordinary people. especially micro with the added μ u confusion.

People are also already used to smaller units not having the same name as bigger units, so I don't see this as a problem, we don't have centi-dollars, we have pennies. In fact I even like that the currency units not be related to the name bitcoin at all, to help distinguish it from Bitcoin the network/technology.

What's the problem with this approach?