Possible fix to the "Bit"/"mBTC" problem

[Black Tie]

What if in all years where the value of a bitcoin is equal to or greater than $500 on December 1, a new coin is created on January 1 of the next year, given the technical name of BTC[Year] (in our case, it would be BTC2015), but known to all as simply a Bitcoin, and its initial value is set at $5. The new coins are introduced into existence in a wallet (let's call it the Conversion Wallet) which contains an amount of the new coins equal to the value of all the old coins in existence. The blockchain then only recognizes the old coins in one case: If it is sent to the Conversion Wallet in exchange for an equal value of new coins. That is, all you can do with the old coins is convert them to the new ones. The old coins are destroyed upon reaching the Conversion Wallet.

What do you think?

[Black Tie]

Updated the OP. Adjusted some numbers and fleshed it out.

With this system, we could have huge leaps like we had in 2013, over and over. Imagine that.

It's like integrating the energy of alt coins into bitcoin.

[rhino34567]

I see the logic behind this. Kind of like turning an hourglass where every grain of sand has to go through the center to get to the bottom, except it converts into something new afterwards. However, I find it unnecessary. We could just start using uBTC/bits as the standard with 2 decimal points, just like most currencies out there.

[BookLover]

Or we could just have the option to move the decimal point on Bitcoin Core.

One of the big principles of Bitcoin is that there will never be more than 21 million bitcoins.  This "fix" remove that and adds an unnecisary layer of complexity.

Imagine if we tried your idea with the USD.  Every year people would people would have to exchange their USD for newUSD at an abritrary exchange rate set by the government.  Unless the US government forces merchants to accept newUSD at their rate then people have no guarantee that they will get a fair exchange of value when converting from USD to newUSD.  If the US government does force merchant to accept newUSD at their rate then production will stop.  (If you don't believe me look at any example in history where goverment sets prices, scarcity ensues)

Now compare the current bitcoin model to gold:

While their there is still some gold being mined it is still a deflationary system.  As the value goes up relative to goods people simply use a different unit such as tenth-ounces rather than ounces.  This is simple and effective currency model that avoids the unnecisary problem caused by a central authority forcing a currency exchange.

P.S. please forgive any typos/grammatical errors, this was typed in a hurry.

[Jesu]

Can't we just call everything in satoshis? Would make things a lot easier.

[ShakyhandsBTCer]

Can't we just call everything in satoshis? Would make things a lot easier.

It you were to do that then you would quote how many bitcoin you have in the tens of millions of satoshis if you only had a few hundred dollars worth. This would make the value of bitcoin look less then it really is.

If the price of one bitcoin is too high (some may argue that point now) in terms of per unit, not in terms of value, then it may deter users from adapting.

[Este Nuno]

What's wrong with milibits and microbits?

It's all pretty straight forward to me. I don't see why everything has to change. It's always been mbtc, ubtc and satoshis.

Why all the hate for the old school methods?