The unit poll

[dree12]

To everyone's surprise, Bitcoin was secretly centralized! The intergalactic Bitcoin central authority has announced it will mandate a particular unit. All people who use Bitcoin must deal with and only with that particular unit. Luckily, the IBCA is kind enough to allow the community to give input into units that they approve of. Do your part!


I want to see the level of support behind the various unit proposals. In the poll above, choose all units for which you would not mind being the "default" unit for day-to-day commerce. Please note some names ("bit" in particular) are intentionally duplicated as various proposals for their meaning have arisen in the past. When there are lots of zeroes, I included the base unit ("satoshi") conversion. Tonal units are at the end to avoid confusion; otherwise, units are ordered by denomination.

Edit: Ignore the percentages. To calculate approval rate, use approval_rate = votes_for_this_option / total_voters.

[1715067991]

1715067991

[1715067991]

1715067991

[1715067991]

1715067991

[1715067991]

1715067991

[knightcoin]

ok ... I will think about my vote ...

but came to my mind +volts -volts ... like analog signals
...so for historical reasons what king of CPU Nakamoto mined the genesis block ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CPU_core_voltage

[jbreher]

Poll is invalid. No option for 'pie'.

[dree12]

Keep the votes coming! Looks like we have some popular and unpopular units already.

[zimmah]

we already use cents (1/100th) and mills (1/1000th) for currency, so why not use the same for bitcoin and expand on it with mikes (1/1000000th)?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mill_(currency)

[whtchocla7e]

I don't approve anything except for Bitcoin and Satoshi.

[singularity]

Does anyone know if there is a limit on Newbie accounts voting in polls?

[jc01480]

You are all fired!

[neofelis]

How does one vote in these polls? I can't figure it out. Thanks.

[zimmah]

you probably need to have some amount of activity

[CreamyPie]

How does one vote in these polls? I can't figure it out. Thanks.

You need to have atleast Jr. Member status to vote in polls and that requires 30 activity.

[singularity]

Ok Thanks. Nearly there then.

[yayayo]

So far only Bitcoin and Satoshi in it's original sense have majority approval.

It turns out that after all the awkward standardization attempts, most people still choose sanity. The majority does not see any need for additional artificially introduced units. Introducing additional units as official standards has no benefit and only adds confusion.

ya.ya.yo!

[zimmah]

It is quite shocking to me though that even terms like 'microbitcoin' have less than 50% acceptance. I mean it's just a metric prefix to bitcoin. Are there that many Americans here on bitcointalk or something?

What about yardbitcoin and bitcoinounce?

[dree12]

Good and useful results so far. A lot of insight into what people really feel about units, since there is so much debate about this. I'll let this poll run for a few more days before posting a reflection.

[franky1]

Good and useful results so far. A lot of insight into what people really feel about units, since there is so much debate about this. I'll let this poll run for a few more days before posting a reflection.

minus 1

not alot of insight.. only 37 voters so far!!!!!

[dree12]

Good and useful results so far. A lot of insight into what people really feel about units, since there is so much debate about this. I'll let this poll run for a few more days before posting a reflection.

minus 1

not alot of insight.. only 37 voters so far!!!!!

That's enough for statistically significant results. We can say with 99.9% certainty, for example, that Bitcoin-bong is a widely undesired unit. Obviously more voters is better, but it's pointless to dismiss these results entirely.

[Ron~Popeil]

Oh good another one of these threads.  

Something metric based works. Terms will be popularized and adopted on their own.

[cbeast]

BTC0.0006 is the only new unit worth naming.

[franky1]

BTC0.0006 is the only new unit worth naming.

kind of true due to the satoshi dust limit not allowing for anything smaller...

but there no point naming temporary measures such as micro or 0.0006 when in a few years it will all change.. so this is why the endless discussion of atleast 9 months now has pretty much all agred to the 100satoshi being a nice round figure to name, which will be a long term thing. rather then the temporary stuff inbetweeen 100sat and 1btc

[adamstgBit]

[Bitcoin Cat]

I agree with Bitcoin (not bitcoins), and Bits for 100 satoshis. It would help us a lot to at least have these 3 decided on.

[The Bitcoin Institute]

No longer possible to vote? I agree with bitcoin, bits and satoshis... The new bitcoin logo could be used for bits and the old one for bitcoins. Satoshis have no logo because he's hidden.

[dree12]

No longer possible to vote? I agree with bitcoin, bits and satoshis... The new bitcoin logo could be used for bits and the old one for bitcoins. Satoshis have no logo because he's hidden.

It should still be possible to vote. I'll close the poll when we reach ~100 votes, but if that's too high, I might close it earlier.

[DannyHamilton]

Interesting.  As of the current vote,

There are only 18 votes for using the name "Bit" for 0.000001 BTC
There are 33 votes for any option other than "Bits" (such as Microbitcoin, Microbit, Mike, or Micro).

And yet people for some reason claim that there is a consensus for the word "Bit" to describe 0.000001 BTC, or that the matter is settled.

[nkocevar]

im gonna be conservative and say we just stay with the names that are already in place on the wiki for bitcoin... the names on there make so much more sense then some of the goofy and childish names some forum members are proposing.

[zimmah]

Interesting.  As of the current vote,

There are only 18 votes for using the name "Bit" for 0.000001 BTC
There are 33 votes for any option other than "Bits" (such as Microbitcoin, Microbit, Mike, or Micro).

And yet people for some reason claim that there is a consensus for the word "Bit" to describe 0.000001 BTC, or that the matter is settled.

Because there's a handful of people that formed a cult around bits much like dogecoin. It has become a meme almost. They even have fancy drawings now....

That shit really has to stop

[bg002h]

Interesting.  As of the current vote,

There are only 18 votes for using the name "Bit" for 0.000001 BTC
There are 33 votes for any option other than "Bits" (such as Microbitcoin, Microbit, Mike, or Micro).

And yet people for some reason claim that there is a consensus for the word "Bit" to describe 0.000001 BTC, or that the matter is settled.

You could look at the same data and conclude the only terminology that has more agreement than bits = 10^-6 bitcoins are the terms Satoshi and bitcoin for 10^-8 bitcoins and 1 bitcoin, respectively.

[nkocevar]

Interesting.  As of the current vote,

There are only 18 votes for using the name "Bit" for 0.000001 BTC
There are 33 votes for any option other than "Bits" (such as Microbitcoin, Microbit, Mike, or Micro).

And yet people for some reason claim that there is a consensus for the word "Bit" to describe 0.000001 BTC, or that the matter is settled.

You could look at the same data and conclude the only terminology that has more agreement than bits = 10^-6 bitcoins are the terms Satoshi and bitcoin for 10^-8 bitcoins and 1 bitcoin, respectively.

Which both of those are the original terminology.. thats why I believe that we should just keep the original.

[DannyHamilton]

Interesting.  As of the current vote,

There are only 18 votes for using the name "Bit" for 0.000001 BTC
There are 33 votes for any option other than "Bits" (such as Microbitcoin, Microbit, Mike, or Micro).

And yet people for some reason claim that there is a consensus for the word "Bit" to describe 0.000001 BTC, or that the matter is settled.

You could look at the same data and conclude the only terminology that has more agreement than bits = 10^-6 bitcoins are the terms Satoshi and bitcoin for 10^-8 bitcoins and 1 bitcoin, respectively.

Correct.  Bitcoin and Satoshi clearly have majority support with 37 out of 50 voters (74%) and 30 out of 50 voters (60%) respectively.

After that, there are opinions all over the place, with nothing at all gaining majority support.  I'm not sure why anyone would think that there was a consensus for any other name.

[bg002h]

Interesting.  As of the current vote,

There are only 18 votes for using the name "Bit" for 0.000001 BTC
There are 33 votes for any option other than "Bits" (such as Microbitcoin, Microbit, Mike, or Micro).

And yet people for some reason claim that there is a consensus for the word "Bit" to describe 0.000001 BTC, or that the matter is settled.

You could look at the same data and conclude the only terminology that has more agreement than bits = 10^-6 bitcoins are the terms Satoshi and bitcoin for 10^-8 bitcoins and 1 bitcoin, respectively.

Correct.  Bitcoin and Satoshi clearly have majority support with 37 out of 50 voters (74%) and 30 out of 50 voters (60%) respectively.

After that, there are opinions all over the place, with nothing at all gaining majority support.  I'm not sure why anyone would think that there was a consensus for any other name.

I would have thought millibits would have more support. Anyhow, I think bits is better than any other term for microbitcoins and I support the move to a 6.2 format. 

[The Bitcoin Institute]

We support "bitcoin", "bit(s)" and "satoshi(s)".

[dree12]

It seems voting is slowing down. If we don't get to 100 votes by this weekend, I'll close this poll.

[adamselene]

I think it'll sub-optimal to have bits (.000001) and millibits operating in the same paradigm.

I've already accustomed to millibits, but it is definitely less-than-ideal. The metric system makes this sound more complicated than it is to regular people.

Satoshi, Bits, and Bitcoin make the most sense.

[jc01480]

Bitcoin won.  Case closed.  Bring on the circus monkeys.  

[SatshiFan]

I'm no longer to wote it seems, but I like the Bits and Satoshis.

[Ron~Popeil]

Milli and satoshis work for me. I think the terms we use will evolve as the market needs.

[101111]

bitcoin, bit(s), and satoshi(s) in a 6.2 format

[fturco]

The "zib" option is not available... http://zibcoin.org/

[jc01480]

What about Pollcoin?  Where's the Pollcoin?

[Biodom]

Interesting.  As of the current vote,

There are only 18 votes for using the name "Bit" for 0.000001 BTC
There are 33 votes for any option other than "Bits" (such as Microbitcoin, Microbit, Mike, or Micro).

And yet people for some reason claim that there is a consensus for the word "Bit" to describe 0.000001 BTC, or that the matter is settled.

Because there's a handful of people that formed a cult around bits much like dogecoin. It has become a meme almost. They even have fancy drawings now....

That shit really has to stop

they infested the reddit and changetip each other-LOL
To those proponents: Nobody gives a hoot about bit(s)-understand it and go away with this nonsense, pretty please

[franky1]

There are 33 votes for any option other than "Bits" (such as Microbitcoin, Microbit, Mike, or Micro).

there is no single option saying:

'any option other than Bits' that has 33 votes..

stop trying to manipulate votes.

this is like saying this:

candidate 1: 10 votes
candidate 2: 8 votes
candidate 3: 2 votes

normal people will say candidate 1 wins due to most votes.. but you will twist it to say an equal number of people disagree that candidate 1 should win simply by combining other votes.

leave the votes as they are..

[DannyHamilton]

There are 33 votes for any option other than "Bits" (such as Microbitcoin, Microbit, Mike, or Micro).

there is no single option saying:

'any option other than Bits' that has 33 votes..

stop trying to manipulate votes.

this is like saying this:

candidate 1: 10 votes
candidate 2: 8 votes
candidate 3: 2 votes

normal people will say candidate 1 wins due to most votes.. but you will twist it to say an equal number of people disagree that candidate 1 should win simply by combining other votes.

leave the votes as they are..

No, it's more like saying:

Candidate 1: 18 votes
Candidate 2: 16 votes
Candidate 3: 17 votes

Normal people will say nobody wins, due to no majority.  But you twist it to say candidate 1 should win because of more votes than either of the other 2 candidates.

Meanwhile, if you held the same poll with ONLY Candidate 1 and ONE of the other two candidates, you might find that most of the people who originally voted for the eliminated candidate would not vote for candidate 1, and instead would place their vote for the remaining candidate.  In that case, the MAJORITY don't want candidate 1.

This is one of many reasons why this poll is not useful.

There were a total of 68 voters.  38 of them (55.8%) chose NOT to vote for "bits" as a replacement word for MicroBitcoin.  Clearly, the majority do not accept that new usage that the vocal minority are trying to ram through.

[Cubic Earth]

I didn't vote, but I am think we should adopt the 'stock split' model.  Every 1 Bitcoin would then equal 1000 bitcoins.  The total number of Satoshis would remain unchanged.

[franky1]

No, it's more like saying:

Candidate 1: 18 votes
Candidate 2: 16 votes
Candidate 3: 17 votes

Normal people will say nobody wins, due to no majority.  But you twist it to say candidate 1 should win because of more votes than either of the other 2 candidates.

Meanwhile, if you held the same poll with ONLY Candidate 1 and ONE of the other two candidates, you might find that most of the people who originally voted for the eliminated candidate would not vote for candidate 1, and instead would place their vote for the remaining candidate.  In that case, the MAJORITY don't want candidate 1.

This is one of many reasons why this poll is not useful.

There were a total of 68 voters.  38 of them (55.8%) chose NOT to vote for "bits" as a replacement word for MicroBitcoin.  Clearly, the majority do not accept that new usage that the vocal minority are trying to ram through.

i do not see an option that says

'not bits' : 38

you adding up multiple votes to twist results.

so now lets ignore your 18 17 16

and lets use:
Candidate 1 - 18
Candidate 2 - 12
Candidate 3 - 30
Candidate 4 - 6
Candidate 5 - 4

it is clearly obvious that candidate 3 has the most votes. yet you will add up candidates 1,2,4,5 to say 'no'.

you CANT add up other numbers just to twist the votes in your favour. as thats the kind of crappy move the UK government did, by adding the votes of candidates 4, 5 and 2. giving those votes to candidate 1 and made candidate 1 the leader (1 being a decision to form a coalition).

so lets remove the curtain:
Microbitcoin (0.000001), 100 b.u.    - 18
Microbit (0.000001), 100 b.u.    - 12
Bit (0.000001), 100 b.u.    - 30
Mike (0.000001), 100 b.u.    - 6
Micro (0.000001), 100 b.u.    - 4

using your logic i can say that
52 voters hate microbitcoin and only 18 love it
58 voters hate microbit and only 12 love it
40 voters hate Bit and only 30 love it
64 voters hate Mike and only 6 love it
66 voters hate Micro and only 4 love it

making Bit the least hated option, aswell as the most voted for lovers of Bit

[dree12]

There are 33 votes for any option other than "Bits" (such as Microbitcoin, Microbit, Mike, or Micro).

there is no single option saying:

'any option other than Bits' that has 33 votes..

stop trying to manipulate votes.

this is like saying this:

candidate 1: 10 votes
candidate 2: 8 votes
candidate 3: 2 votes

normal people will say candidate 1 wins due to most votes.. but you will twist it to say an equal number of people disagree that candidate 1 should win simply by combining other votes.

leave the votes as they are..

No, it's more like saying:

Candidate 1: 18 votes
Candidate 2: 16 votes
Candidate 3: 17 votes

Normal people will say nobody wins, due to no majority.  But you twist it to say candidate 1 should win because of more votes than either of the other 2 candidates.

Meanwhile, if you held the same poll with ONLY Candidate 1 and ONE of the other two candidates, you might find that most of the people who originally voted for the eliminated candidate would not vote for candidate 1, and instead would place their vote for the remaining candidate.  In that case, the MAJORITY don't want candidate 1.

This is one of many reasons why this poll is not useful.

There were a total of 68 voters.  38 of them (55.8%) chose NOT to vote for "bits" as a replacement word for MicroBitcoin.  Clearly, the majority do not accept that new usage that the vocal minority are trying to ram through.

I just want to note that the poll is approval voting, not first-past-the-post. So the poll's results do not change if an option is eliminated.

A consequence is that options should be compared with the total votes instead of with other bins, so the number of votes for other options is irrelevant to how well a particular option is approved.

[DannyHamilton]

I just want to note that the poll is approval voting, not first-past-the-post. So the poll's results do not change if an option is eliminated.

A consequence is that options should be compared with the total votes instead of with other bins, so the number of votes for other options is irrelevant to how well a particular option is approved.

Which only goes to prove my point further.

Only 30 out of (now) 69 voters "approve" of "bits".  That means that a majority, 39 out of 69 (56.5%), do not "approve" of bits.

As I said originally:

And yet people for some reason claim that there is a consensus for the word "Bit" to describe 0.000001 BTC, or that the matter is settled.

[giszmo]

Interesting. Given that only 75% of the Bitcoin forum users approve of Bitcoin, I have a doubt if people understand this voting mode. Personally I believe this is the first vote that actually makes sense as I never felt like making a choice between Satoshi, mɃ and Ƀ as it depends on whether I want to buy a second of telephony, a pizza or a car and having a pick of any single one of those gave those Bit-evangelists or Mike-evangelists a far too high representation.

Edit: Percentage was wrong. Also I now saw how people again try to determine the "winner". Why? Only trolls or what?

[BawsyBoss]

Oh, darn. I voted for the wrong one because I was too lazy to actually count.

[dree12]

Interesting. Given that only 75% of the Bitcoin forum users approve of Bitcoin, I have a doubt if people understand this voting mode. Personally I believe this is the first vote that actually makes sense as I never felt like making a choice between Satoshi, mɃ and Ƀ as it depends on whether I want to buy a second of telephony, a pizza or a car and having a pick of any single one of those gave those Bit-evangelists or Mike-evangelists a far too high representation.

Edit: Percentage was wrong. Also I now saw how people again try to determine the "winner". Why? Only trolls or what?

I feel the Bitcoin approval rating makes sense given how annoyed many on this forum are when people suggest maintaining the status quo. There are many here who would prefer any smaller unit over Bitcoin because of the great value of the latter.

I'll leave this poll open until we ideally have 100 votes. It's not far now.

[Bitcoin Casino Directory]

It doesn't let me vote but I vote for Bitcoin,Bits and Satoshis

Screw mBTC, go all the way down to uBitcoin (Bits)

[dree12]

Since the last few votes are always the hardest, I'm going to close the poll now. Conclusions:

• No consensus on any specific new proposal.
• Most people are fine with sticking to Bitcoin as-is.
• The satoshi has majority support.
• Tonal units are not wanted.
• Nanobitcoins are surprisingly quite popular given the inability to send just 1 nanobitcoin (probably for the same reason many games score 10 or 100 points at a time).

A further conclusion is the most popular name for each base unit. In satoshis:

Base units	Most popular name
100000000	Bitcoin
100000	Millibitcoin
100	Bit
1	Satoshi

(only units with 2 or more alternative included)