What should 100 Satoshis be called?

[hello_good_sir]

Bitpay is making the move to 100 satoshi's being the main unit.  The only strong contenders for names are "bitcoin" (redefining the basic unit) and "bit" (which conflicts with the other uses of the word, such as talking about how many bits a private key is).

I was tempted to put "other" as an option but the reality is that no other option really has sufficient support.  If you prefer something else please vote anyway.  We need to know which of the two popular choices you are willing to support.

[1715133554]

1715133554

[1715133554]

1715133554

[1715133554]

1715133554

[hello_good_sir]

I voted for "bitcoin" because it actually makes the most sense.  When governments revalue their currencies (usually going the other way) they end up using the same name.  For example, back in the 90s Mexico moved the decimal place on the peso over by three.  The currency is called the peso now, and it was called the peso before the switch.

Likewise, when a stock splits the name is kept the same.

I see no reason to use any term other than bitcoin.  Bitcoin is an established brand and a good name.

[DeathAndTaxes]

A bitcoin is  1E8 satoshis.  Bitpay isn't considering renaming a bitcoin and they shouldn't.  Adding a new name is a different scenario than redefining an existing name.  IF not everyone uses "bits" it may cause the user to say "hey what is bits" but when some people use Bitcoin to mean one value and some use it to mean another value it creates a different type of confusion.

When governments revalue their currencies (usually going the other way) they end up using the same name. 

A government is an example of an absolute central authority.  There is nothing like that in the Bitcoin world.  You will never have absolute consensus so redefining an existing word means a period of time where two competing camps call different things "a bitcoin".  Can you imagine a user paying $400+ thinking they are getting "one bitcoin" as described by Satoshi and instead getting 1/1,000,000 of that by some scammer?

[hello_good_sir]

A bitcoin is  1E8 satoshis.  Bitpay isn't considering renaming a bitcoin and they shouldn't.  Adding a new name is a different scenario than redefining an existing name.  IF not everyone uses "bits" it may cause the user to say "hey what is bits" but when some people use Bitcoin to mean one value and some use it to mean another value it creates a different type of confusion.

That sounds correct in theory, but in practice you are wrong.  As I said, Mexico switched the definition of a peso in the 1990s and everything worked out.  That's a currency that was actually being used in shops and by illiterate peasants.  If they could do it, we can do it.

In order to make the switch we would just need to coordinate it so that several major sites switch over on the same day.  We can call it "split day" or something.  Flashy logo, etc... everyone is happy.  Everyone would switch over, because the people who don't will look like idiots.

Whereas attempting to get people to adopt bits would be harder.  That's because the old term "bitcoin" would still be available.  So we'd have a tiny minority using an inherently confusing term, and the majority sticking with the tried and true.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Once again a government can do that because they act with absolute centralized authority.  Some people will not be calling 100 sat "one bitcoin" so you will have to different definitions for the same thing.  There is no absolute central authority to force the change.  Decentralized consensus system do not work that way.  You can't force people to change so enhancements should be backward and forward compatible.

If someone says they are selling something for 5,000 bits you either know what it is worth or you don't but there is never a situation where you are confused between two possible values.  Someone says 5,000 Bitcoins how much is that worth.  Today once again there is a single absolute value but under your proposal there would not be.

[hello_good_sir]

Once again a government can do that because they act with absolute centralized authority.

Have you noticed that everyone has the same blocks in their blockchain?  Somehow we manage to have consensus without centralized authority.

Some people will not be calling 100 sat "one bitcoin" so you will have to different definitions for the same thing.

Nope.  Everyone would switch over.  Anyone who doesn't will find himself unable to interact with the rest of the bitcoin economy.  This is a case of the network effect.  Everyone would switch over, including you.

You can't force people to change so enhancements should be backward and forward compatible.

People would switch over voluntarily.  No one would need to be forced.  Some would be reluctant (such as yourself) but everyone would switch.

[gojomo]

You're missing lots of options that have been proposed:

microbitcoin
microbits
micros
mics
µBTC
uBits
crobits
zib

It's not much use as a poll if you've already limited it to your two favorites, including one (renaming "bitcoin") that's nearly impossible to pull off without major confusion and risk of money-losing errors.

[franky1]

You're missing lots of options that have been proposed:

microbitcoin
microbits
micros
mics
µBTC
uBits
crobits
zib

It's not much use as a poll if you've already limited it to your two favorites, including one (renaming "bitcoin") that's nearly impossible to pull off without major confusion and risk of money-losing errors.

we have moved passed the mBTC uBTC argument as moving to those would only be temporary and short term. it appears the consensus is to stay with bitcoin for while longer and then move to 'bits' (100 satoshi) that way the move across is not temporary and wont confuse people.

as for anyone proposing to call 100sats a 'bitcoin' i find this will confuse people. its far easier to separate the two as bitcoin and bits, the same way that people separate
1 from million
ingots from bars
ounces from tonnes

basically i am trying to say that calling a ingot a 'bar of gold' is stupid and confusing.. yes i understand that there are some poor people that want to scream to the heavens "i have a whole bitcoin". but thats just a ridiculous thing to do as those that have multiple real bitcoins (100,000,000 sats) will just laugh at them and correct them that they are still poor.

i prefer bitcoins being 100,000,000 satoshi's and bits being 100 satoshi's.. it just makes sense

[hello_good_sir]

You're missing lots of options that have been proposed:

microbitcoin
microbits
micros
mics
µBTC
uBits
crobits
zib

It's not much use as a poll if you've already limited it to your two favorites, including one (renaming "bitcoin") that's nearly impossible to pull off without major confusion and risk of money-losing errors.

I did not pick my favorites.  I am deeply opposed to "bits" but I included it in the poll, because it is popular.  None of options on your list (one of which I came up with) have a chance of being accepted.  So no, I did not include the one that I came up with (which I would have done if I were playing favorites) and instead I included the one that is pure confusion ("bits").  Redefining how many satoshi's to a bitcoin would not cause major confusion.  In theory it would, but in reality it wouldn't.

[tins]

I don't think 100 Satoshi's needs any other name.
It would just cause confusion, IMO.

[DeathAndTaxes]

None of options on your list (one of which I came up with) have a chance of being accepted.

That is your opinion.  Many people have the opinion that bitcoin has no chance in hell of being redefined ... EVER.  However you included that in your poll.  Starting to see the selection bias.

[acoindr]

Redefining how many satoshi's to a bitcoin would not cause major confusion.  In theory it would, but in reality it wouldn't.

Glad you cleared that up for us.

[Stn]

Moderators please move this topic to the Humor section.

[RUEHL]

Satoshi My Nigamotto, domo arigato mister robato

[gojomo]

You're missing lots of options that have been proposed:

microbitcoin
microbits
micros
mics
µBTC
uBits
crobits
zib

It's not much use as a poll if you've already limited it to your two favorites, including one (renaming "bitcoin") that's nearly impossible to pull off without major confusion and risk of money-losing errors.

I did not pick my favorites.

Then why did you include your snowball's-chance-in-hell favorite choice, 'bitcoin redefined as 100 satoshi', but none of the others?

[pedrog]

Hey, how about: One Hundred Satoshis?

[pabpete]

I think satoshis would be good, because pennies and dollars. yeah. plus it's like an inside thing for those who know

[Siegfried]

I voted for "bitcoin" because it actually makes the most sense.  When governments revalue their currencies (usually going the other way) they end up using the same name.  For example, back in the 90s Mexico moved the decimal place on the peso over by three.  The currency is called the peso now, and it was called the peso before the switch.

Likewise, when a stock splits the name is kept the same.

I see no reason to use any term other than bitcoin.  Bitcoin is an established brand and a good name.

I agree, this is the best solution. It has precedent and would be easy enough for people to understand. Bitcoin should be the name of the unit that is commonly used. The other proposed names, such as bits, millibitcoins, microbitcoins, mBTC, or uBTC, are all vastly inferior. The currency abbreviation needs to be three letters, BTC, not four, mBTC or uBTC. A four-syllable pronunciation (millibitcoin or microbitcoin) is way too long. Bitcoin, dollars, pesos, euros, rubles, are two syllables. Bits is just too generic of a word, and it already has another meaning in the computer space.

So if the general consensus is that people cannot deal with decimals, let's move the decimal over six places so that today 1 Bitcoin = 100 satoshi = 0.00045 dollars. When the Bitcoin market cap reaches 700 billion dollars in a few years, the price will be 1 BTC = 0.045 dollars. We will never need another shift.

[DeathAndTaxes]

Hey, how about: One Hundred Satoshis?

I say 87.5 satoshis.  In theory it would be confusing but in reality it would not.

[solomon]

There is no way in hell you are going to get the whole network to simultaneously re-define a bitcoin. Dumbest idea I've heard in a while.