Please stop with mBTC, microBTC, ...!

[InwardContour]

But this example is of someone who is not interest in bitcoin and just somehow knows that mBTC and uBTC mean with no prior knowledge.

Then it doesn't matter what units or names are used!  For any unit of measurement some knowledge is necessary. 

That is exactly my point is that it would be impossible to know that mBTC or uBTC means without some prior knowledge.

[dyask]

But this example is of someone who is not interest in bitcoin and just somehow knows that mBTC and uBTC mean with no prior knowledge.

Then it doesn't matter what units or names are used!  For any unit of measurement some knowledge is necessary. 

That is exactly my point is that it would be impossible to know that mBTC or uBTC means without some prior knowledge.

So?  How does that have anything to so with what the unit should be?   Following a standard is easiest for learning new units.  The SI standard is by far the best choice because it will be used no matter what other units are put out to use.   

For example if BITs were used then people would use KBITs because BIT becomes just like a gram.  (Kg) 
Now KBITs is just bad because it is overloaded and confusing.   

[tmobileguy]

A lot of you all are missing the point. You are making assumptions that the average person has a higher intelligence then what they really do...Watch Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" excerpts and you will see what we are dealing with...

If you want to use 6 places past the decimal for daily transacting then bitcoin will either stay where it is, as a niche currency, or it will fail....because it is impossible to use by average people within those constraints....

I don't think people realize how easy it is to make mistakes and miss a zero and pay 10x the amount you should have...

what really needs to happen is to split bitcoin and essentially rename btc to whatever denomination will properly suit the times....that's how bitcoin becomes worth a million bucks....multiple splits were people forget what the old valuation of it was....

Thats also where an exchange like the Winklevoss one could spearhead moves like this. Its just nomenclature, but its important....

it BTC were to split right now and sell for 6 dollars each, people would buy a lot more of them and the price would creep back up to 600 again in no time....thus essentially be worth 3600 now (im rounding)....

splitting is the answer to everything, its just a matter of 'how' to implement such a system...

PS - when i say splitting essentially what i am saying is use a lower denomination of BTC as the BTC nomenclature, not actually ADDING bitcoins to the network...I know there is a finite amount....but right now we have room to move those decimal points to the right to make everything more user friendly...

[dyask]

A lot of you all are missing the point. You are making assumptions that the average person has a higher intelligence then what they really do...Watch Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" excerpts and you will see what we are dealing with...

If you want to use 6 places past the decimal for daily transacting then bitcoin will either stay where it is, as a niche currency, or it will fail....because it is impossible to use by average people within those constraints....

I don't think people realize how easy it is to make mistakes and miss a zero and pay 10x the amount you should have...

what really needs to happen is to split bitcoin and essentially rename btc to whatever denomination will properly suit the times....that's how bitcoin becomes worth a million bucks....multiple splits were people forget what the old valuation of it was....

Thats also where an exchange like the Winklevoss one could spearhead moves like this. Its just nomenclature, but its important....

it BTC were to split right now and sell for 6 dollars each, people would buy a lot more of them and the price would creep back up to 600 again in no time....thus essentially be worth 3600 now (im rounding)....

splitting is the answer to everything, its just a matter of 'how' to implement such a system...

PS - when i say splitting essentially what i am saying is use a lower denomination of BTC as the BTC nomenclature, not actually ADDING bitcoins to the network...I know there is a finite amount....but right now we have room to move those decimal points to the right to make everything more user friendly...

Your point about too many zeros causing problems is valid.   That is why people will use SI prefixes to avoid zeros.

The rest?  You really sound like you are just out of the loony bin.   Let's see if I just take a gold bar and split it I'll soon have 2x the value ... Yea right.

[tmobileguy]

A lot of you all are missing the point. You are making assumptions that the average person has a higher intelligence then what they really do...Watch Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" excerpts and you will see what we are dealing with...

If you want to use 6 places past the decimal for daily transacting then bitcoin will either stay where it is, as a niche currency, or it will fail....because it is impossible to use by average people within those constraints....

I don't think people realize how easy it is to make mistakes and miss a zero and pay 10x the amount you should have...

what really needs to happen is to split bitcoin and essentially rename btc to whatever denomination will properly suit the times....that's how bitcoin becomes worth a million bucks....multiple splits were people forget what the old valuation of it was....

Thats also where an exchange like the Winklevoss one could spearhead moves like this. Its just nomenclature, but its important....

it BTC were to split right now and sell for 6 dollars each, people would buy a lot more of them and the price would creep back up to 600 again in no time....thus essentially be worth 3600 now (im rounding)....

splitting is the answer to everything, its just a matter of 'how' to implement such a system...

PS - when i say splitting essentially what i am saying is use a lower denomination of BTC as the BTC nomenclature, not actually ADDING bitcoins to the network...I know there is a finite amount....but right now we have room to move those decimal points to the right to make everything more user friendly...

Your point about too many zeros causing problems is valid.   That is why people will use SI prefixes to avoid zeros.

The rest?  You really sound like you are just out of the loony bin.   Let's see if I just take a gold bar and split it I'll soon have 2x the value ... Yea right.

You misunderstand what I say...And there is no need for the personal attack.

What I am saying is from a consumer standpoint call it 'a split'...but in reality it would just be a renaming of the nomenclature so that whereas right now a BTC=BTC but after the split a mBTC would become the new BTC...

And your gold bar example makes no sense...I did not say that a BTC would automatically double...what I said is that the value would reset to $6 and you would have 100x times more of the $6 valued BTC...same numbers....but (and this is IMO), it would be easier for the value of the $6 to go to $10 then the value of a $600 to go to a $1000....Why do you think the stock market uses splitting so much...no value is actually increased, but it allows the continual rise by keeping the values within a range of numbers that are easier for people to work with and that are more appealing....

[dyask]

A lot of you all are missing the point. You are making assumptions that the average person has a higher intelligence then what they really do...Watch Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" excerpts and you will see what we are dealing with...

If you want to use 6 places past the decimal for daily transacting then bitcoin will either stay where it is, as a niche currency, or it will fail....because it is impossible to use by average people within those constraints....

I don't think people realize how easy it is to make mistakes and miss a zero and pay 10x the amount you should have...

what really needs to happen is to split bitcoin and essentially rename btc to whatever denomination will properly suit the times....that's how bitcoin becomes worth a million bucks....multiple splits were people forget what the old valuation of it was....

Thats also where an exchange like the Winklevoss one could spearhead moves like this. Its just nomenclature, but its important....

it BTC were to split right now and sell for 6 dollars each, people would buy a lot more of them and the price would creep back up to 600 again in no time....thus essentially be worth 3600 now (im rounding)....

splitting is the answer to everything, its just a matter of 'how' to implement such a system...

PS - when i say splitting essentially what i am saying is use a lower denomination of BTC as the BTC nomenclature, not actually ADDING bitcoins to the network...I know there is a finite amount....but right now we have room to move those decimal points to the right to make everything more user friendly...

Your point about too many zeros causing problems is valid.   That is why people will use SI prefixes to avoid zeros.

The rest?  You really sound like you are just out of the loony bin.   Let's see if I just take a gold bar and split it I'll soon have 2x the value ... Yea right.

You misunderstand what I say...And there is no need for the personal attack.

What I am saying is from a consumer standpoint call it 'a split'...but in reality it would just be a renaming of the nomenclature so that whereas right now a BTC=BTC but after the split a mBTC would become the new BTC...

And your gold bar example makes no sense...I did not say that a BTC would automatically double...what I said is that the value would reset to $6 and you would have 100x times more of the $6 valued BTC...same numbers....but (and this is IMO), it would be easier for the value of the $6 to go to $10 then the value of a $600 to go to a $1000....Why do you think the stock market uses splitting so much...no value is actually increased, but it allows the continual rise by keeping the values within a range of numbers that are easier for people to work with and that are more appealing....

Renaming something has little to no impact on the value.   It isn't easier for the value to change if it is smaller or larger.   Especially something that can be handled in fractions.   Claiming renaming bitcoin will have an impact on value isn't rational or even logical.

With stocks sometimes a stock split helps a small amount because stocks typically can only be bought and sold in whole units.   However any effect is typically short lived.    Typically only stocks that are growing a lot are split.  The reason they go up after the split isn't related to the split. 

[tmobileguy]

A lot of you all are missing the point. You are making assumptions that the average person has a higher intelligence then what they really do...Watch Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" excerpts and you will see what we are dealing with...

If you want to use 6 places past the decimal for daily transacting then bitcoin will either stay where it is, as a niche currency, or it will fail....because it is impossible to use by average people within those constraints....

I don't think people realize how easy it is to make mistakes and miss a zero and pay 10x the amount you should have...

what really needs to happen is to split bitcoin and essentially rename btc to whatever denomination will properly suit the times....that's how bitcoin becomes worth a million bucks....multiple splits were people forget what the old valuation of it was....

Thats also where an exchange like the Winklevoss one could spearhead moves like this. Its just nomenclature, but its important....

it BTC were to split right now and sell for 6 dollars each, people would buy a lot more of them and the price would creep back up to 600 again in no time....thus essentially be worth 3600 now (im rounding)....

splitting is the answer to everything, its just a matter of 'how' to implement such a system...

PS - when i say splitting essentially what i am saying is use a lower denomination of BTC as the BTC nomenclature, not actually ADDING bitcoins to the network...I know there is a finite amount....but right now we have room to move those decimal points to the right to make everything more user friendly...

Your point about too many zeros causing problems is valid.   That is why people will use SI prefixes to avoid zeros.

The rest?  You really sound like you are just out of the loony bin.   Let's see if I just take a gold bar and split it I'll soon have 2x the value ... Yea right.

You misunderstand what I say...And there is no need for the personal attack.

What I am saying is from a consumer standpoint call it 'a split'...but in reality it would just be a renaming of the nomenclature so that whereas right now a BTC=BTC but after the split a mBTC would become the new BTC...

And your gold bar example makes no sense...I did not say that a BTC would automatically double...what I said is that the value would reset to $6 and you would have 100x times more of the $6 valued BTC...same numbers....but (and this is IMO), it would be easier for the value of the $6 to go to $10 then the value of a $600 to go to a $1000....Why do you think the stock market uses splitting so much...no value is actually increased, but it allows the continual rise by keeping the values within a range of numbers that are easier for people to work with and that are more appealing....

Renaming something has little to no impact on the value.   It isn't easier for the value to change if it is smaller or larger.   Especially something that can be handled in fractions.   Claiming renaming bitcoin will have an impact on value isn't rational or even logical.

With stocks sometimes a stock split helps a small amount because stocks typically can only be bought and sold in whole units.   However any effect is typically short lived.    Typically only stocks that are growing a lot are split.  The reason they go up after the split isn't related to the split. 

Youre looking at it from a very narrow point of view, not the view of the average joe shmoe making 30k a year...they are not going to buy a 600 BTC and play around with it...and buying a .1 BTC is a very foreign concept to most people....

You're looking at it from too logical point of view...People are not logical...

[jjc326]

I'm also with OP. I see a lot of talk about hey guys let's make a new name and let's call such and such this new name. Guys I'll be honest when I first started it took forever just to understand what a satoshi was and  fairly intelligent and tec Davy and I couldn't find the answer. Just keep it simple for now. If BTC price goes to $1,000,000 then I'm sure due to common usage a new nickname will emerge and we won't have to "vote" on it

[galbros]

I like satoshi now too.  Everything else is just confusing.  It took awhile but it is a lot easier to keep track of now, especially as the new unit people keep advocating for us all to use keeps changing.  Forget it, just use satoshi, feel rich!

It makes sense to use Satoshi as long as it is not more then 100 satoshi, otherwise you should just use BTC and use decimal places to the right.

I think satoshi are totally the way to go.  I'd much rather say 100,000 satoshi than one-thousandth of a bitcoin.  Looking through this tread and seeing people not even agree on what bits are further reinforces this.  Simple is good and satoshi are simple.  Zeros to the left of the decimal place are easier for most people than zeros to the right even if it denotes exactly the same thing.

[dyask]

Renaming something has little to no impact on the value.   It isn't easier for the value to change if it is smaller or larger.   Especially something that can be handled in fractions.   Claiming renaming bitcoin will have an impact on value isn't rational or even logical.

With stocks sometimes a stock split helps a small amount because stocks typically can only be bought and sold in whole units.   However any effect is typically short lived.    Typically only stocks that are growing a lot are split.  The reason they go up after the split isn't related to the split. 

Youre looking at it from a very narrow point of view, not the view of the average joe shmoe making 30k a year...they are not going to buy a 600 BTC and play around with it...and buying a .1 BTC is a very foreign concept to most people....

You're looking at it from too logical point of view...People are not logical...

The vast majority of BTC owners only own a small fraction of a whole bitcoin.   It isn't a foreign concept at all.   A main selling point of bitcoin is that it is easily to divide down to any size you want.  Thinking that you have to have a whole unit and a label to go with it is the narrow point of view.   

[Harley997]

I like satoshi now too.  Everything else is just confusing.  It took awhile but it is a lot easier to keep track of now, especially as the new unit people keep advocating for us all to use keeps changing.  Forget it, just use satoshi, feel rich!

It makes sense to use Satoshi as long as it is not more then 100 satoshi, otherwise you should just use BTC and use decimal places to the right.

I think satoshi are totally the way to go.  I'd much rather say 100,000 satoshi than one-thousandth of a bitcoin.  Looking through this tread and seeing people not even agree on what bits are further reinforces this.  Simple is good and satoshi are simple.  Zeros to the left of the decimal place are easier for most people than zeros to the right even if it denotes exactly the same thing.

If you use satoshi when referring to this high of a percentage of a bitcoin, it makes it seem like, to an outsider, that bitcoin is not worth very much. Kind of like how one DOGE is worth very little and the fact that DOGE is not really worth anything as a coin.

[Gimmelfarb]

I'm also with OP. I see a lot of talk about hey guys let's make a new name and let's call such and such this new name.

well, i certainly see the merit in using an international standard like the metric system over some made-up denomination like "bits", but generally i agree. it's BTC, and i'm quite used to calculating in that denomination...

[molecular]

I'm also with OP. I see a lot of talk about hey guys let's make a new name and let's call such and such this new name.

well, i certainly see the merit in using an international standard like the metric system over some made-up denomination like "bits", but generally i agree. it's BTC, and i'm quite used to calculating in that denomination...

some people are used to measuring distances in inches, feet and miles.

[dyask]

I'm also with OP. I see a lot of talk about hey guys let's make a new name and let's call such and such this new name.

well, i certainly see the merit in using an international standard like the metric system over some made-up denomination like "bits", but generally i agree. it's BTC, and i'm quite used to calculating in that denomination...

some people are used to measuring distances in inches, feet and miles.

Only a small percent of the world's population.   Even they aren't supposed to be using those absurd units anymore.   

[tmobileguy]

Renaming something has little to no impact on the value.   It isn't easier for the value to change if it is smaller or larger.   Especially something that can be handled in fractions.   Claiming renaming bitcoin will have an impact on value isn't rational or even logical.

With stocks sometimes a stock split helps a small amount because stocks typically can only be bought and sold in whole units.   However any effect is typically short lived.    Typically only stocks that are growing a lot are split.  The reason they go up after the split isn't related to the split. 

Youre looking at it from a very narrow point of view, not the view of the average joe shmoe making 30k a year...they are not going to buy a 600 BTC and play around with it...and buying a .1 BTC is a very foreign concept to most people....

You're looking at it from too logical point of view...People are not logical...

The vast majority of BTC owners only own a small fraction of a whole bitcoin.   It isn't a foreign concept at all.   A main selling point of bitcoin is that it is easily to divide down to any size you want.  Thinking that you have to have a whole unit and a label to go with it is the narrow point of view.   

The vast majority of BTC owners are tech conscience or savvy and constitute an extremely tiny percent of the population. It's probably not a foreign concept at all...

Can I ask what you do for a living that would make you an expert on dealing with the general population? Because I meet hundreds and hundreds of people from all walks of life and 99% of them have never even heard of bitcoin...and the 1% that have are fairly intelligent.... I can tell you that most people can't even understand the concept let alone use math properly to understand zeros on the right side...

but the minute I explain to them the concept of a digital dollar they seem to grasp the concept much better....

[dyask]

Renaming something has little to no impact on the value.   It isn't easier for the value to change if it is smaller or larger.   Especially something that can be handled in fractions.   Claiming renaming bitcoin will have an impact on value isn't rational or even logical.

With stocks sometimes a stock split helps a small amount because stocks typically can only be bought and sold in whole units.   However any effect is typically short lived.    Typically only stocks that are growing a lot are split.  The reason they go up after the split isn't related to the split.  

Youre looking at it from a very narrow point of view, not the view of the average joe shmoe making 30k a year...they are not going to buy a 600 BTC and play around with it...and buying a .1 BTC is a very foreign concept to most people....

You're looking at it from too logical point of view...People are not logical...

The vast majority of BTC owners only own a small fraction of a whole bitcoin.   It isn't a foreign concept at all.   A main selling point of bitcoin is that it is easily to divide down to any size you want.  Thinking that you have to have a whole unit and a label to go with it is the narrow point of view.  

The vast majority of BTC owners are tech conscience or savvy and constitute an extremely tiny percent of the population. It's probably not a foreign concept at all...

Can I ask what you do for a living that would make you an expert on dealing with the general population? Because I meet hundreds and hundreds of people from all walks of life and 99% of them have never even heard of bitcoin...and the 1% that have are fairly intelligent.... I can tell you that most people can't even understand the concept let alone use math properly to understand zeros on the right side...

but the minute I explain to them the concept of a digital dollar they seem to grasp the concept much better....

I have lived and worked in the USA and I'm currently living in Japan.   I believe I have a much broader view of the world than the typical American.   I have actually also lived in Egypt and spent considerable time in multiple countries beside America, Japan and Egypt.   For the record my children are bilingual and go to normal Japanese schools.   (As in they also read and write Japanese as well as English.)  We have high educational standards.

You seem to be the one throwing out generalities, mostly which would only apply to Americans.  While it is true that bitcoin is easier for the tech savvy it isn't limited to them.   That is really true of younger people.   Bitcoin isn't an American thing, it is international and that is what it needs to be to survive than thrive.

The real problem of adaption have nothing to do with the name or units, they are fine.   BTC or Satoshi work fine with SI units.   The real problems are the complexity of wallets and security related to bitcoin storage.   Those are the issues that need to be easy to handle.   A new name does nothing but add confusion.   That is my view, but probably one largely shared.  

[SirChiko]

So may anyone explain me...1mBTC= 0.01 btc or 0.001 btc?

[molecular]

So may anyone explain me...1mBTC= 0.01 btc or 0.001 btc?

0.001 (1/1000th, milli = 1000)

but hey: 1 satoshi = 0.01 bits and 1 million bits is a bitcoin. All you need to know ;-)

[tmobileguy]

Renaming something has little to no impact on the value.   It isn't easier for the value to change if it is smaller or larger.   Especially something that can be handled in fractions.   Claiming renaming bitcoin will have an impact on value isn't rational or even logical.

With stocks sometimes a stock split helps a small amount because stocks typically can only be bought and sold in whole units.   However any effect is typically short lived.    Typically only stocks that are growing a lot are split.  The reason they go up after the split isn't related to the split. 

Youre looking at it from a very narrow point of view, not the view of the average joe shmoe making 30k a year...they are not going to buy a 600 BTC and play around with it...and buying a .1 BTC is a very foreign concept to most people....

You're looking at it from too logical point of view...People are not logical...

The vast majority of BTC owners only own a small fraction of a whole bitcoin.   It isn't a foreign concept at all.   A main selling point of bitcoin is that it is easily to divide down to any size you want.  Thinking that you have to have a whole unit and a label to go with it is the narrow point of view.   

The vast majority of BTC owners are tech conscience or savvy and constitute an extremely tiny percent of the population. It's probably not a foreign concept at all...

Can I ask what you do for a living that would make you an expert on dealing with the general population? Because I meet hundreds and hundreds of people from all walks of life and 99% of them have never even heard of bitcoin...and the 1% that have are fairly intelligent.... I can tell you that most people can't even understand the concept let alone use math properly to understand zeros on the right side...

but the minute I explain to them the concept of a digital dollar they seem to grasp the concept much better....

I have lived and worked in the USA and I'm currently living in Japan.   I believe I have a much broader view of the world than the typical American.   I have actually also lived in Egypt and spent considerable time in multiple countries beside America, Japan and Egypt.   For the record my children are bilingual and go to normal Japanese schools.   (As in they also read and write Japanese as well as English.)  We have high educational standards.

You seem to be the one throwing out generalities, mostly which would only apply to Americans.  While it is true that bitcoin is easier for the tech savvy it isn't limited to them.   That is really true of younger people.   Bitcoin isn't an American thing, it is international and that is what it needs to be to survive than thrive.

The real problem of adaption have nothing to do with the name or units, they are fine.   BTC or Satoshi work fine with SI units.   The real problems are the complexity of wallets and security related to bitcoin storage.   Those are the issues that need to be easy handle.   A new name does nothing but add confusion.   That is my view, but probably one largely shared. 

I believe you have a much broader view of a similar socio-economic class people...Different cultures, different people, but still higher functioning then the average...but these are just assumptions I am making based on your perceptions and things that you state, like one for instance being that your children are very high functioning and well educated...A lot of that explains your outlook....

My situation is different...I am around very very low functioning people all the way up to people that are intelligent enough to crack online federal security systems (and yes I do know one person, and while he would never do it because he is very moralistic, he possesses the capability to do so)... I have homeless people that work for, people that grew up with broken homes, as well as kids that have parents that are CEO's of Fortune 500 companies, and even children of celebrities and sports celebrities...so your probably right, I probably am making my generalizations based on American observations and not looking from a world standpoint...but I can tell you I am looking at from all facets of mental capabilities and thats where I see the flaws with the nomenclature....

I would also agree that the complexity of the wallets and security issues are major issues and the issues that affect me personally the most...but there is no point in building the perfect system if it entails use math that is too difficult for the average person to navigate effectively...and thats why I think the nomenclature is so important...not for you, not for me, but for the average IQ person and below average IQ person...because those people make up the largest portion of the world's populations and bitcoin can't succeed without them...and they need an easy name, with few to no zeros....

[tmobileguy]

So may anyone explain me...1mBTC= 0.01 btc or 0.001 btc?

0.001 (1/1000th, milli = 1000)

but hey: 1 satoshi = 0.01 bits and 1 million bits is a bitcoin. All you need to know ;-)

I agree...either SPLIT BTC or use BIT for BTC...

That's the new campaign...SPLIT or BIT