Please stop with mBTC, microBTC, ...!

[101111]

Using "Bits" for bitcoin doesn't make sense to me.  

FTFY

Bits make sense for a lot of other people and causes them no confusion. Bits are far more like a familiar currency system to the average person, and using them means dealing with natural numbers which, eg according to wikipedia, "the natural numbers are those used for counting".

[edit Maybe I should have said integers, however the meaning should be clear to all but the most anally retentive, or retarded]
 
It is more aligned with how people think and could be strategic to higher adoption rates.

Of course you can continue calling them whatever you want, and that's good. Other naming conventions may eventually arise, and that's good too.

[sed]

Using "Bits" for bitcoin doesn't make sense to me. 

FTFY

Bits make sense for a lot of other people and causes them no confusion. Bits are far more like a familiar currency system to the average person, and using them means dealing with natural numbers which, eg according to wikipedia, "the natural numbers are those used for counting".

It is more aligned with how people think and could be strategic to higher adoption rates.

Of course you can continue calling them whatever you want, and that's good. Other naming conventions may eventually arise, and that's good too.

What do you mean when you say that "Bits are far more like a familiar currency system to the average person"?  Who is this average person who thinks of currency system upon hearing "Bits"?  Crucially, natural numbers refers to non-negative integers.  Does this mean that you can't talk about a negative number of Bits?  Most "average" people as I conceive of them don't mind using negative numbers.  Above, someone quoted to me a price in "Bits" that included a decimal fraction...is there some miscommunication the "Bits" supporters. Presumably Satoshi is the only undividable unit at this present time.

[dyask]

Using "Bits" for bitcoin doesn't make sense!

FTFY

Bits make sense for a lot of other people and causes them no confusion. Bits are far more like a familiar currency system to the average person, and using them means dealing with natural numbers which, eg according to wikipedia, "the natural numbers are those used for counting".

It is more aligned with how people think and could be strategic to higher adoption rates.

Of course you can continue calling them whatever you want, and that's good. Other naming conventions may eventually arise, and that's good too.

No, bits doesn't make sense.  It changes the meaning of a bit and dealing with 1,000,000 bits is lame.   Look at any annual report from a traded company.   All the values are listed in thousands or millions.   People typically don't write out very large numbers.   Besides that it would be a very HUGE climb in BTC price before 1 bit is even worth a penny.   Currently a .000001 transaction won't confirm.   Sure that may be different in 10 or 20 years, but we will have uBTC when we need it.  

The other very real problem is that if BTC were ever worth a huge amount you would then be faced with the number of digits being used in BTC changing.  (Mining awards would get too small for 8 digits)  For example it could go from 8 to 12.   Then where would the "bits" be?   The problem with it is that is doesn't solve any problem.   It only creates more problems down the road.

SI prefixes solve the issues.   They will be used no matter what, so the best bet is to get used to them.

[sed]

Using "Bits" for bitcoin doesn't make sense!

FTFY

Bits make sense for a lot of other people and causes them no confusion. Bits are far more like a familiar currency system to the average person, and using them means dealing with natural numbers which, eg according to wikipedia, "the natural numbers are those used for counting".

It is more aligned with how people think and could be strategic to higher adoption rates.

Of course you can continue calling them whatever you want, and that's good. Other naming conventions may eventually arise, and that's good too.

No, bits doesn't make sense.  It changes the meaning of a bit and dealing with 1,000,000 bits is lame.   Look at any annual report from a traded company.   All the values are listed in thousands or millions.   People typically don't write out very large numbers.   Besides that it would be a very HUGE climb in BTC price before 1 bit is even worth a penny.   Currently a .000001 transaction won't confirm.   Sure that may be different in 10 or 20 years, but we will have uBTC when we need it.  

The other very real problem is that if BTC were ever worth a huge amount you would then be faced with the number of digits being used in BTC changing.  (Mining awards would get too small for 8 digits)  For example it could go from 8 to 12.   Then where would the "bits" be?   The problem with it is that is doesn't solve any problem.   It only creates more problems down the road.

SI prefixes solve the issues.   They will be used no matter what, so the best bet is to get used to them.

Couldn't agree more.  I'm especially curious to hear what the problem is that people think that "bits" solves.  I can see all sorts of weird problems, but who would this help?

[101111]

Using "Bits" for bitcoin doesn't make sense!

FTFY

Bits make sense for a lot of other people and causes them no confusion. Bits are far more like a familiar currency system to the average person, and using them means dealing with natural numbers which, eg according to wikipedia, "the natural numbers are those used for counting".

It is more aligned with how people think and could be strategic to higher adoption rates.

Of course you can continue calling them whatever you want, and that's good. Other naming conventions may eventually arise, and that's good too.

No, bits doesn't make sense.  It changes the meaning of a bit and dealing with 1,000,000 bits is lame.   Look at any annual report from a traded company.   All the values are listed in thousands or millions.   People typically don't write out very large numbers.   Besides that it would be a very HUGE climb in BTC price before 1 bit is even worth a penny.   Currently a .000001 transaction won't confirm.   Sure that may be different in 10 or 20 years, but we will have uBTC when we need it.  

The other very real problem is that if BTC were ever worth a huge amount you would then be faced with the number of digits being used in BTC changing.  (Mining awards would get too small for 8 digits)  For example it could go from 8 to 12.   Then where would the "bits" be?   The problem with it is that is doesn't solve any problem.   It only creates more problems down the road.

SI prefixes solve the issues.   They will be used no matter what, so the best bet is to get used to them.

Couldn't agree more.  I'm especially curious to hear what the problem is that people think that "bits" solves.  I can see all sorts of weird problems, but who would this help?

Maybe you should be asking yourself what is it you can't understand about bits that a lot of other people can; coinbase, bitpay, and many others are using bits, for good reasons.

[dyask]

Using "Bits" for bitcoin doesn't make sense!

FTFY

Bits make sense for a lot of other people and causes them no confusion. Bits are far more like a familiar currency system to the average person, and using them means dealing with natural numbers which, eg according to wikipedia, "the natural numbers are those used for counting".

It is more aligned with how people think and could be strategic to higher adoption rates.

Of course you can continue calling them whatever you want, and that's good. Other naming conventions may eventually arise, and that's good too.

No, bits doesn't make sense.  It changes the meaning of a bit and dealing with 1,000,000 bits is lame.   Look at any annual report from a traded company.   All the values are listed in thousands or millions.   People typically don't write out very large numbers.   Besides that it would be a very HUGE climb in BTC price before 1 bit is even worth a penny.   Currently a .000001 transaction won't confirm.   Sure that may be different in 10 or 20 years, but we will have uBTC when we need it.  

The other very real problem is that if BTC were ever worth a huge amount you would then be faced with the number of digits being used in BTC changing.  (Mining awards would get too small for 8 digits)  For example it could go from 8 to 12.   Then where would the "bits" be?   The problem with it is that is doesn't solve any problem.   It only creates more problems down the road.

SI prefixes solve the issues.   They will be used no matter what, so the best bet is to get used to them.

Couldn't agree more.  I'm especially curious to hear what the problem is that people think that "bits" solves.  I can see all sorts of weird problems, but who would this help?

Maybe you should be asking yourself what is it you can't understand about bits that a lot of other people can; coinbase, bitpay, and many others are using bits, for good reasons.

Not worried, it won't last.   The unit has too many built in problems.   Also I use coinbase a lot and have never seen bits.   Probably an option or something country based, anyway it would be totally useless to me.   I mean would you want your coffee drink priced as: .0067 BTC or 6700 Bits, or 6.7 mBTS?   Bits is clearly the oddball.   Besides what happens if price of BTC really climbs?   Then you will have fractional Bits.   Totally lame.  

I won't reply now, but I have to start an overseas pain in the butt trip to the states.  So I guess you get the last word this time! 

[sed]

Using "Bits" for bitcoin doesn't make sense!

FTFY

Bits make sense for a lot of other people and causes them no confusion. Bits are far more like a familiar currency system to the average person, and using them means dealing with natural numbers which, eg according to wikipedia, "the natural numbers are those used for counting".

It is more aligned with how people think and could be strategic to higher adoption rates.

Of course you can continue calling them whatever you want, and that's good. Other naming conventions may eventually arise, and that's good too.

No, bits doesn't make sense.  It changes the meaning of a bit and dealing with 1,000,000 bits is lame.   Look at any annual report from a traded company.   All the values are listed in thousands or millions.   People typically don't write out very large numbers.   Besides that it would be a very HUGE climb in BTC price before 1 bit is even worth a penny.   Currently a .000001 transaction won't confirm.   Sure that may be different in 10 or 20 years, but we will have uBTC when we need it.  

The other very real problem is that if BTC were ever worth a huge amount you would then be faced with the number of digits being used in BTC changing.  (Mining awards would get too small for 8 digits)  For example it could go from 8 to 12.   Then where would the "bits" be?   The problem with it is that is doesn't solve any problem.   It only creates more problems down the road.

SI prefixes solve the issues.   They will be used no matter what, so the best bet is to get used to them.

Couldn't agree more.  I'm especially curious to hear what the problem is that people think that "bits" solves.  I can see all sorts of weird problems, but who would this help?

Maybe you should be asking yourself what is it you can't understand about bits that a lot of other people can; coinbase, bitpay, and many others are using bits, for good reasons.

Um, except that instead I'm asking you what you're talking about when you say "more familiar currency system to the average person".  I'm asking you about your confusion with natural numbers and fractions ("Bits" don't allow subdivision?!  That would intuitively fit with the familar notion of a bit as a 'binary digit' but then you just took away two decimal places from BTC?!).  I'm asking you what problems this solves.  I'm asking you to enumerate some of those putative "good reasons".

Cheers!

[Mobius]

Using "Bits" for bitcoin doesn't make sense!

FTFY

Bits make sense for a lot of other people and causes them no confusion. Bits are far more like a familiar currency system to the average person, and using them means dealing with natural numbers which, eg according to wikipedia, "the natural numbers are those used for counting".

It is more aligned with how people think and could be strategic to higher adoption rates.

Of course you can continue calling them whatever you want, and that's good. Other naming conventions may eventually arise, and that's good too.

No, bits doesn't make sense.  It changes the meaning of a bit and dealing with 1,000,000 bits is lame.   Look at any annual report from a traded company.   All the values are listed in thousands or millions.   People typically don't write out very large numbers.   Besides that it would be a very HUGE climb in BTC price before 1 bit is even worth a penny.   Currently a .000001 transaction won't confirm.   Sure that may be different in 10 or 20 years, but we will have uBTC when we need it.   

The other very real problem is that if BTC were ever worth a huge amount you would then be faced with the number of digits being used in BTC changing.  (Mining awards would get too small for 8 digits)  For example it could go from 8 to 12.   Then where would the "bits" be?   The problem with it is that is doesn't solve any problem.   It only creates more problems down the road.

SI prefixes solve the issues.   They will be used no matter what, so the best bet is to get used to them.

Couldn't agree more.  I'm especially curious to hear what the problem is that people think that "bits" solves.  I can see all sorts of weird problems, but who would this help?

Maybe you should be asking yourself what is it you can't understand about bits that a lot of other people can; coinbase, bitpay, and many others are using bits, for good reasons.

I don't think that coinbase actually uses bits. I don't think that I have actually bought something using bitpay, but IIRC bitpay lists the price of an item in both terms of fiat and BTC so it would be obvious as to the exact amount they would be paying (someone could just use the exchange rate of bitcoin)

[101111]

c'mon a simple google first next time? http://blog.coinbase.com/post/89405189782/its-bits

[DhaniBoy]

I think it doesn't sound like a different coin and it won't confuse a lot of people, if we know the formula

0.000 000 01 BTC = 1 satoshi
0.000 001 00 BTC = 100 satoshi = 1 uBTC
0.001 000 00 BTC = 100k satoshi = 1 mBTC
1.000 000 00 BTC = 100M satoshi = 1 BTC

maybe you can check this website : http://bitblah.com/
hopefully you can satisfied with this formula ...

[btcKaboom]

lets call them BOLLARS, and SENTS

10 satoshi = 1 SENT
100 SENTS = 1 BOLLAR

something lika dat

[DoraTheBTCexplorer]

Personaly all of this gives me an headache.

[botany]

lets call them BOLLARS, and SENTS

10 satoshi = 1 SENT
100 SENTS = 1 BOLLAR

something lika dat

Naah. Confusing bitcoins with USD, that is the last thing we should do.
That was one of the key arguments used to shut down liberty dollars - People were confusing it with the original.

[stryker]

I think it doesn't sound like a different coin and it won't confuse a lot of people, if we know the formula

0.000 000 01 BTC = 1 satoshi
0.000 001 00 BTC = 100 satoshi = 1 uBTC
0.001 000 00 BTC = 100k satoshi = 1 mBTC
1.000 000 00 BTC = 100M satoshi = 1 BTC

maybe you can check this website : http://bitblah.com/
hopefully you can satisfied with this formula ...

Is it me or is this much easier to read and digest if laid out like this?

0.00 000 001 BTC = 1 satoshi
0.00 000 100 BTC = 100 satoshi = 1 uBTC
0.00 100 000 BTC = 100k satoshi = 1 mBTC
1.00 000 000 BTC = 100M satoshi = 1 BTC

[101111]

One thing comes to mind: ENIAC programming.

We've got a long way to go.

[BurtW]

I think it doesn't sound like a different coin and it won't confuse a lot of people, if we know the formula

0.000 000 01 BTC = 1 satoshi
0.000 001 00 BTC = 100 satoshi = 1 uBTC
0.001 000 00 BTC = 100k satoshi = 1 mBTC
1.000 000 00 BTC = 100M satoshi = 1 BTC

maybe you can check this website : http://bitblah.com/
hopefully you can satisfied with this formula ...

Is it me or is this much easier to read and digest if laid out like this?

0.00 000 001 BTC = 1 satoshi
0.00 000 100 BTC = 100 satoshi = 1 uBTC
0.00 100 000 BTC = 100k satoshi = 1 mBTC
1.00 000 000 BTC = 100M satoshi = 1 BTC

Never seen that before but it sure looks cool, makes sense, easy to read, you should start the process to make it an international standard!

[fatguyyyyy]

I total agree with OP! I find hard to understand prices in mBTC and those things!
I prefer to see prices in BTC it's soo easy! Satoshi may be used just for faucets

[Ayers]

isn't just better to write it with decimals? 0.001, 0.000001 ecc... or 10^-8, 10^7 ecc...

[Strawbtcerries]

We need to find new ways, its not very marketeable as it is right now 

[tspacepilot]

We need to find new ways, its not very marketeable as it is right now 

I think your post is so vague it's hard to reply to.

The best I can say is that I think the people who find mBTC or uBTC to be a problem are really, really dense.  You simply can't stop the reality of the decimal system and most folks with more than 1 or 2 years of primary school understand how a number subdivides into parts of 10 as represented by a decimal point.