Implementing a smaller denomination

[fryarminer]

Much discussion has been had regarding making the 100 satoshi the norm of bitcoin. Discussion about what to call it - mikes, bits, ubits, zits, your mom, whatever.

But reality is that it should be implemented on a level that people purchasing bitcoins with fiat would purchase in the 100 satoshi denomination. That way, (for example) instead of having to spend $440 for one bitcoin they could presume they are buying one entity for under a penny each.
That would drive the price of bitcoin up significantly, in my opinion.

How could that be implemented?

[klabaki]

The first step would be to ask wallet developers to switch the default unit:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=598082.0

If this gets done, then online wallet providers will probably follow.
Finally, exchanges and payment providers will also start using what their customers' wallets are using.

[Predict27]

So you want to name 100 satoshi as a unit? But I don't really understand what you want to say. You can buy whatever amount of bitcoins you want so how that should effect bitcoin?

[chakra74]

Basically everything would have to be listed in bits.  Quotes for the price of bitcoin would be in number of bits per dollar.  All our wallets would switch to bits and all prices you see would be shown in bits.

I don't understand why people are getting so bent out of shape about the use of the term bits.  I believe the non vocal majority love the idea of bits, but no matter how good an idea is there's going to be people who fight against change.

[fryarminer]

So you want to name 100 satoshi as a unit? But I don't really understand what you want to say. You can buy whatever amount of bitcoins you want so how that should effect bitcoin?

Basically yes. A unit that people new to bitcoin would think in. So Joe or Mary off the street would think: "Gee, I want to buy bitcoin. Look, it costs less than a cent! I should buy some!"

My initial entry sounds kinda confusing I guess. I didn't want a discussion about what it would be called, hence I use the phrase "100 satoshi denomination". Rather a discussion about how to implement it, as a unit that would be the norm.

I think it would be easier to implement if it had a name, that people could relate to and almost forget "bitcoin" and think more in this denomination. But my real question is: "How do we get the ball rolling. How do we make this happen?"

[Omnikron]

interesting

[thezerg]

So you want to name 100 satoshi as a unit? But I don't really understand what you want to say. You can buy whatever amount of bitcoins you want so how that should effect bitcoin?

Its like this:  no matter how much engineers and other science types wish and believe it to be otherwise, there is a psychological "sweet spot" for stocks which ranges from around 20 to 100 bucks.  Dropping below 10 implies that the company is in trouble.  Above 100 and its "too expensive".  Also, on the too expensive side, non-techies have a much harder time on the right side of the decimal point (i.e. 0.00345 BTC) then on the left+2 decimals (3.45 mBTC).  This is WHY stock splits happen, since the nominal purchasing unit is 100 shares, its not like the stock has gotten "too expensive" for someone to buy.

From the perspective of someone who's been arguing for this since 2012, we need to stop sweating the details and just DO it.  

You may prefer milli or micro, "bits", "finneys" or "uBTC" but I think ANY of that is better than staying at BTC.  So please throw your vote behind ANY and ALL proposals to actually do it.  Once wallets and online services start to do it, a common use name (and likely denomination, I mean milli vs. micro) will naturally emerge.

[klabaki]

I think it would be easier to implement if it had a name, that people could relate to and almost forget "bitcoin" and think more in this denomination.

It already has a name:
The Bitcoin reference client (Bitcoin Core) officially calls it "µBTC".

But some people (including me) want to rename it.

But my real question is: "How do we get the ball rolling. How do we make this happen?"

Have a look at my post #2 above, I think it could trigger a chain reaction.

[franky1]

The first step would be to ask wallet developers to switch the default unit:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=598082.0

If this gets done, then online wallet providers will probably follow.
Finally, exchanges and payment providers will also start using what their customers' wallets are using.

actual steps for everyone to follow.. dont worry the first 4 are easy, even you can do it..... and should

5 get used to using measurements of 100sat
6 put a request on the bitcoin github to ask devs to default 100sat as the first choice. and to rename ubtc as a common name such as bits or whatever consensus is.... as long as its not zib as that word has been taken and used as a currency and binary measurement already

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z_with_stroke#As_currency

As currency
Ƶ was sometimes used instead of Z to represent the zaire, a former currency of the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Ƶ is used as a currency symbol in the video game EVE Online to represent the in-game currency Interstellar Kredits (ISK).
Also, the popular British TV show Doctor Who uses ƶ as the symbol for the unit of money, Galactic Credits

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebibyte
Zib is also a measure of binary!!!

i do laugh when all the excuses to not use bit, but to use zib.... actually also apply to zib

[martinnew]

With the recent amount of 1 BTC, few or less can or will avail it. If making certain amount of satoshis available to be bought, that could be just pennies and might get some to be interested on buying it. Still, it is a very little amount most will find just not valuable at all.

[solex]

Much discussion has been had regarding making the 100 satoshi the norm of bitcoin. Discussion about what to call it - mikes, bits, ubits, zits, your mom, whatever.

But reality is that it should be implemented on a level that people purchasing bitcoins with fiat would purchase in the 100 satoshi denomination. That way, (for example) instead of having to spend $440 for one bitcoin they could presume they are buying one entity for under a penny each.
That would drive the price of bitcoin up significantly, in my opinion.

How could that be implemented?

Implementing a smaller denomination is best achieved in a 2-step process.

1. Asking (nicely!) Bitcoin website owners and software authors to support "bits" for display purposes which users can select as a drop-down or config option, or showing both btc and bits where appropriate.

2. Publicizing a "switch-over" date, such as January 1st 2015, when the option becomes a default setting.

This allows months of time to see that the ecosystem is still on-board with the change, the rate of it being supported and feedback from users. Perhaps a website or thread could track all the various Bitcoin sites and systems where "bits" can be seen.

There are merits to other names: mikes, ubits etc, but the fact is no name is perfect. There will always be a difference of opinion. What is most important is making Bitcoin easier to use for everyone, and that is eliminating small decimals and the psychological barrier of a high unit value.

[acoindr]

There are merits to other names: mikes, ubits ...

Actually this post proposes bits and ubits are the same name, only that bits is slang.

I like that idea because many feel 'bit' is overloaded (for good reason) and ubit changes things up phonetically without total deviation. It also means the more preferred term can catch on naturally in the marketplace, just as 'thalers' became dollars, became 5 bucks, etc.

[solex]

There are merits to other names: mikes, ubits ...

Actually this post proposes bits and ubits are the same name, only that bits is slang.

I like that idea because many feel 'bit' is overloaded (for good reason) and ubit changes things up phonetically without total deviation. It also means the more preferred term can catch on naturally in the marketplace, just as 'thalers' became dollars, became 5 bucks, etc.

Seems reasonable, though there is enthusiasm for a simple term for general use.
A non-Latin character or an embedded capital letter, certainly do not help except for in limited technical usage.

[Mrrr]

Since 100.000.000 satoshi to a BTC is already rather impossible to mentally compute I must say I'm in full support. (I still think 1 billion or 1 million would have been far easier)

People are far better at working with numbers in front of the comma than numbers behind the comma. 10000 is more easily understood and calculated with than 0.0001

[fryarminer]

Much discussion has been had regarding making the 100 satoshi the norm of bitcoin. Discussion about what to call it - mikes, bits, ubits, zits, your mom, whatever.

But reality is that it should be implemented on a level that people purchasing bitcoins with fiat would purchase in the 100 satoshi denomination. That way, (for example) instead of having to spend $440 for one bitcoin they could presume they are buying one entity for under a penny each.
That would drive the price of bitcoin up significantly, in my opinion.

How could that be implemented?

Implementing a smaller denomination is best achieved in a 2-step process.

1. Asking (nicely!) Bitcoin website owners and software authors to support "bits" for display purposes which users can select as a drop-down or config option, or showing both btc and bits where appropriate.

2. Publicizing a "switch-over" date, such as January 1st 2015, when the option becomes a default setting.

This allows months of time to see that the ecosystem is still on-board with the change, the rate of it being supported and feedback from users. Perhaps a website or thread could track all the various Bitcoin sites and systems where "bits" can be seen.

There are merits to other names: mikes, ubits etc, but the fact is no name is perfect. There will always be a difference of opinion. What is most important is making Bitcoin easier to use for everyone, and that is eliminating small decimals and the psychological barrier of a high unit value.

This is genius. Who could do it though? Some Joe off the blog won't get far asking website owners.

[fryarminer]

The first step would be to ask wallet developers to switch the default unit:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=598082.0

If this gets done, then online wallet providers will probably follow.
Finally, exchanges and payment providers will also start using what their customers' wallets are using.

If Bitcoin Core would implement these changes it would go a long way. They just need to see that everything is advantage and not much disadvantage here - just needs to be done!

[jbreher]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebibyte
Zib is also a measure of binary!!!

Jeebuz, franky. Didn't your mom ever teach you that when you resort to lying, you lose the argument?

zib != Zebi

.
.
.
.
.

Besides, a Zebizib would be many many times more bitcoins than will ever exist.

[Elwar]

STOP THESE STUPID THREADS!

[franky1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebibyte
Zib is also a measure of binary!!!

Jeebuz, franky. Didn't your mom ever teach you that when you resort to lying, you lose the argument?

zib != Zebi

Besides, a Zebizib would be many many times more bitcoins than will ever exist.

me liar? check the link

Its unit symbol is ZiB.

here ill hand you the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebibyte

want me to get team viewer access and type it for you too?

if you think wiki is lying then how about:
http://www.techopedia.com/definition/5259/zebibyte-zib
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/zebibyte
http://forbrains.co.uk/standards/si_and_data_size_units

Zib is USED as a symbol for the measure of binary data, specifically 2⁷⁰..
take large numbers EG mega, giga, well it is larger than TiB, larger then PiB, next is EiB.. and then ZiB

goodluck in your research, and have a nice day

[Fugofugo]

so  that's why we need a special deprtment for making regulations about questions like that

[jbreher]

Yes, I know quite a bit (no pun ... err ...) about binary SI-like prefixes, what with being a frequent contributor to the development of international standards for data processing equipment, and a decades-long proseletyzer for the folly of misusing SI prefixes when 2^(10*n) is really what was meant.

Nevertheless, zib, the proposed unit to denote microbitcoins, is not spelled like the abbreviated form of ZebiBytes, which would be (as you freely admit) ZiB.

On the other hand, it would appear that bit, which seems to be your preferred nomenclature for microbitcoin, has the exact same spelling as the widespread term for binary digit.

Incidentally, while a Zebizib is way huger than the the total world supply of bitcoins, 'bit' is in common parlance for other concepts floating around the BITcoin universe. Whatever point you were trying to make about 'zib' being overloaded is absolutely nonsensical in the face of this.

The funny part is that I'm not even shilling for zib. While I think it is a better term (again due to the overloading issue) than bit, I'll likely keep calling them microbitcoins. Written uBTC and pronounced mikes. Or more likely, perhaps I will, someday when microbitcoins are a value worth even speaking of.