Please stop with mBTC, microBTC, ...!

[BurtW]

There is already a preexisting definition of 8 bits to one dollar.  This definition predated Bitcoin, me and you.  That is not a proposal that is a fact.

The proposal is to reuse the same word, a word that has already been used in the past as a unit of money, as a shorthand or shortcut for writing or saying 0.000001 BTC.  Yes that is 1 microBitcoin, 100 satoshis, 1 uBTC, or 1 bit - use whatever floats your boat.

[dyask]

There is already a preexisting definition of 8 bits to one dollar.  This definition predated Bitcoin, me and you.  That is not a proposal that is a fact.

The proposal is to reuse the same word, a word that has already been used in the past as a unit of money, as a shorthand or shortcut for writing or saying 0.000001 BTC.  Yes that is 1 microBitcoin, 100 satoshis, 1 uBTC, or 1 bit - use whatever floats your boat.

However, bitcoin doesn't have anything to do with the dollar.  There is no reason to reuse an old term that is already been reused multiple times.  In fact there is no need for another term

0.000001 BTC is 1 uBTC.   That is clear, easy and actually follows already excepted standards.   

[BurtW]

I understand your opinion.  If you feel that way don't use bits as proposed.  Use you favorite nomenclature.

[dyask]

I understand your opinion.  If you feel that way don't use bits as proposed.  Use you favorite nomenclature.

That is pretty much what everyone will do.  I see bits was listed on a bitcoin wiki too.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UBTC

[HarmonLi]

I understand your opinion.  If you feel that way don't use bits as proposed.  Use you favorite nomenclature.

yep. and my feeling is that most people won't use it. and it will then die off.

[billyscuz]

i generally agree with the OP.... BTC is an established denomination. but metric is better than "bits"...

[BurtW]

I understand your opinion.  If you feel that way don't use bits as proposed.  Use you favorite nomenclature.

yep. and my feeling is that most people won't use it. and it will then die off.

You are a powerful and mighty prognosticator

I never thought the whole "satoshis = 10^-8 BTC" thing would ever catch on.  I thought that it was stupid, just use 0.01 uBTC or 10 nBTC I said, that is why we have a metric system I said, but there it is - all over the place and accepted as specified fact.

We shall see.

[rarkenin]

I feel like metric/SI prefixes help establish the infinite divisibility possible in Bitcoin. That being said, all I've used for calculations are BTC and mBTC (since mBTC is somewhat of a convenience at current BTC/USD exchange prices, and a denomination I deal with frequently)

[Kellyjazz]

But it's difficult to count the decimal place of Satoshi

[BurtW]

But it's difficult to count the decimal place of Satoshi

It is interesting to me how we use ',' (or '.' in some places in the world) for large numbers but we do not do that for small numbers.  For example we write "there are 100,000,000 satoshis in one BTC".  The ','s make it easy to read but we write "one satoshi is 0.00000001 BTC".  I wonder why we don't write "one satoshi is 0.000,000,01 BTC"?  That would help but I just have never seen it done.

[tmobileguy]

But it's difficult to count the decimal place of Satoshi

It is interesting to me how we use ',' (or '.' in some places in the world) for large numbers but we do not do that for small numbers.  For example we write "there are 100,000,000 satoshis in one BTC".  The ','s make it easy to read but we write "one satoshi is 0.00000001 BTC".  I wonder why we don't write "one satoshi is 0.000,000,01 BTC"?  That would help but I just have never seen it done.

I was just thinking the same thing lol...

[dyask]

But it's difficult to count the decimal place of Satoshi

It is interesting to me how we use ',' (or '.' in some places in the world) for large numbers but we do not do that for small numbers.  For example we write "there are 100,000,000 satoshis in one BTC".  The ','s make it easy to read but we write "one satoshi is 0.00000001 BTC".  I wonder why we don't write "one satoshi is 0.000,000,01 BTC"?  That would help but I just have never seen it done.

I was just thinking the same thing lol...

Because most people don't write all the zeros in the first place, they use prefixes or scientific notation.   In the world of computer programming it is common to using spacing in very large numbers.   Well that isn't always the case, it isn't unusual to be able to break numbers up into many parts.   

[STT]

there are 100,000,000 satoshis in one BTC

Thats exactly how it should be done.     I dont use the zeros, its only the silly exchanges which force people to look at it this way.
When can already describe 1 million sats, why is there need for other inventions like bits.     It should be entirely optional and maybe thats fine but nothing further is actually required now

[BurtW]

there are 100,000,000 satoshis in one BTC

Thats exactly how it should be done.     I dont use the zeros, its only the silly exchanges which force people to look at it this way.
When can already describe 1 million sats, why is there need for other inventions like bits.     It should be entirely optional and maybe thats fine but nothing further is actually required now

The main reason for "something other than satoshis" is because satoshis is not a nice "round" 10^-3x SI division.  It is a bit off being 10^-8 and is it not a number of microBitcoins or nanoBitcoins - it is between them.

So "bits" is proposed as a shorcut for 100 satoshis, the nearest SI prefix.

[molecular]

So "bits" is proposed as a shorcut for 100 satoshis, the nearest SI prefix.

Get your point, but the nearest one would be nanoBTC: 0.1 satoshis.

[dyask]

So "bits" is proposed as a shorcut for 100 satoshis, the nearest SI prefix.

Get your point, but the nearest one would be nanoBTC: 0.1 satoshis.

Thinking the same thing!   

[BurtW]

nBTC would be very confusing since there is no way to currently represent/transact/buy/sell 1 nBTC.

So yes you could represent amounts in nBTC but only in steps of 10 (for now):  10 nBTC, 20 nBTC, 30 nBTC etc.

[Erdogan]

nBTC would be very confusing since there is no way to currently represent/transact/buy/sell 1 nBTC.

So yes you could represent amounts in nBTC but only in steps of 10 (for now):  10 nBTC, 20 nBTC, 30 nBTC etc.

That's the one parameter satoshi got wrong. To make it compliant with the scientific notation, it should really be 1 BCT = 10⁹ satoshi, or 1 BTC = 10⁶ satoshi.

Anyway, that's not going to be changed.

[wachtwoord]

nBTC would be very confusing since there is no way to currently represent/transact/buy/sell 1 nBTC.

So yes you could represent amounts in nBTC but only in steps of 10 (for now):  10 nBTC, 20 nBTC, 30 nBTC etc.

That's the one parameter satoshi got wrong. To make it compliant with the scientific notation, it should really be 1 BCT = 10⁹ satoshi, or 1 BTC = 10⁶ satoshi.

Anyway, that's not going to be changed.

At some point we'll stop using Bitcoin as a unit altogether and just use Satoshi or metric derivations of it (KiloSatoshi, MegaSatoshi etc.).

[AliceWonder]

nBTC would be very confusing since there is no way to currently represent/transact/buy/sell 1 nBTC.

So yes you could represent amounts in nBTC but only in steps of 10 (for now):  10 nBTC, 20 nBTC, 30 nBTC etc.

That's the one parameter satoshi got wrong. To make it compliant with the scientific notation, it should really be 1 BCT = 10⁹ satoshi, or 1 BTC = 10⁶ satoshi.

Anyway, that's not going to be changed.

He didn't get it wrong.

It is compliant with metric notation.

1 satoshi = .01 uBTC.

With respect to scientific notation, you pick one and use it throughout.

e.g. if you are using mks like physics often does - you represent a thousandth of a meter as 10^(-3) m and not as mm.

If you are using cgs like chemists often do - you represent a thousandth of a meter as 10^(-1) cm and not as mm

People keep confusing scientific with metric.