Let's adapt the term Bitcoin cent

[iraszl]

We should make bitcoin as easy and as familiar to people as possible. We should build on the existing money units. Therefore I suggest we should list prices in bitcoin cents (bitcent in short, unit: cBTC or c฿).

Read details of proposal and download file here: http://bitcoinowl.com/lets-adopt-bitcoin-cent

[blatchcorn]

No.

[Meuh6879]

and No.

[googlemaster1]

Bitcent, maybe a little more marketable?  I like the idea, and interesting design.

[franky1]

bitcent?

0.001

..... i think the consensus has already voted any denomination bigger then 100 satoshi's (0.00000100) is futile as it will confuse people and by the time people get used to it and it becomes common. the value of bitcoin would require a lower denomination the bitcents to be used for day to day transactions.

so instead of tripping people up with temporary confusion followed by more confusion. it is best to skip all of that and go future proof by moving straight down to 100 satoshi denominations.

then comes the point that with people measuring from 100sat upwards as their wealth increases terms like micro and milli and cent.. becomes confusing

which is another reason to avoid making them popular now.

so lets think about future proofing my naming bottom up rather then top down
100sat= 1bit or 1 gav(honouring gavin Andressens bitcoin support)
1000sat= 10bit/gav (0.00001000btc)
10,000sat= 100bit/gav (0.00010000btc)
100,000sat= 1,000bit/gav (0.00100000btc)
1,000,000sat= 10,000bit/gav (0.01000000btc)
10,000,000sat=100,000bit/gav (0.10000000btc)

so what would you call 1000 10,000 100,000 lumps of bits/gavs

[Arghhh]

OP: Bitcent in your current form is not future proof. An example that I've used time and again:

Suppose that one BTC = $100,000, and 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 0.005 Bitcent please."
C. "That'll be 0.05 mBTC please."
D. "That'll be 50 uBTC please."
E. "That'll be 50 bits please."

A, B, and C 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 D and E, but the word "bit" is far more marketable than "micro-BTC". Micro-BTC just doesn't roll off the tongue like bits does.

Your bitcent, or one-hundreth of a bitcoin, will become obsolete rather quickly once bitcoin's valuation rises several magnitudes.

The current consensus is moving towards a bit as a standard bitcoin transaction sub-unit, and satoshi as cent by implication.

[Pente]

OP: Bitcent in your current form is not future proof. An example that I've used time and again:

Suppose that one BTC = $100,000, and 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 0.005 Bitcent please."
C. "That'll be 0.05 mBTC please."
D. "That'll be 50 uBTC please."
E. "That'll be 50 bits please."

A, B, and C 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 D and E, but the word "bit" is far more marketable than "micro-BTC". Micro-BTC just doesn't roll off the tongue like bits does.

Your bitcent, or one-hundreth of a bitcoin, will become obsolete rather quickly once bitcoin's valuation rises several magnitudes.

The current consensus is moving towards a bit as a standard bitcoin transaction sub-unit, and satoshi as cent by implication.

+1

[Jacqul]

OP: Bitcent in your current form is not future proof. An example that I've used time and again:

Suppose that one BTC = $100,000, and 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 0.005 Bitcent please."
C. "That'll be 0.05 mBTC please."
D. "That'll be 50 uBTC please."
E. "That'll be 50 bits please."

A, B, and C 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 D and E, but the word "bit" is far more marketable than "micro-BTC". Micro-BTC just doesn't roll off the tongue like bits does.

Your bitcent, or one-hundreth of a bitcoin, will become obsolete rather quickly once bitcoin's valuation rises several magnitudes.

The current consensus is moving towards a bit as a standard bitcoin transaction sub-unit, and satoshi as cent by implication.

Logical.

[activebiz]

Bitcent sounds good

[Bit_Happy]

OP: Bitcent in your current form is not future proof. An example that I've used time and again:

Suppose that one BTC = $100,000, and 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 0.005 Bitcent please."
C. "That'll be 0.05 mBTC please."
D. "That'll be 50 uBTC please."
E. "That'll be 50 bits please."

A, B, and C 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 D and E, but the word "bit" is far more marketable than "micro-BTC". Micro-BTC just doesn't roll off the tongue like bits does.

Your bitcent, or one-hundreth of a bitcoin, will become obsolete rather quickly once bitcoin's valuation rises several magnitudes.

The current consensus is moving towards a bit as a standard bitcoin transaction sub-unit, and satoshi as cent by implication.

At current prices the same burger will be a little over 11,000 bits. Perhaps it's a little early but still a great idea.
Can we accept this instead of repeated, endless debates?