Which Bitcoin logo do you prefer? [I want your input for a study]

[Kluge]

Orange is the color representing Bitcoin. Anything without orange isn't Bitcoin.

I agree with Kluge, so I would also prefer the classic one.

I'm also in favor of creating unicode chars for bitcoin sub-units, at least for satoshis.

I'm ok with using uBTC and mBTC.

mBTC and uBTC looks weird though.

I agree.

Actually, I am in favor of a very radical change, which'd be the redefinition of a bitcoin, which I'd suggest should be one hundred satoshis. This gets around the issue of everyone talking "bitcoins" when they're dealing with maybe .003BTC for small transactions. From all the many discussions on this, the biggest take-away I get is that people are going to be talking in bitcoins no matter what, so there needs to be a very strong, unified push for "bitcoin" as being something orders of magnitude smaller for all these definition schemes to work -- we can't just make up definitions for "sub-bitcoins," I think - but need to completely redefine what a bitcoin is.

Assuming that, we can use a completely different symbol for "change" (I'm thinking like US/CAN dollar systems here, where we generally pay, say, $1.24 or $1095.95), and we'd literally just call it "bitcents." This way, we really only need two currency definitions, similar to many currencies, where it's the equivalent of dollars and cents -- very manageable. -But we can really use any symbol for the cents... we don't want it to look like the bitcoin symbol... If we go with satoshis as the "change," we can use a modified "s," and still following the dollar-type schemes, it'd just be an "s" with a diagonal or straight vertical through-strike (ideally, not in a way which makes it look like an "8," heh). There's an issue with the radix point, here, though, and that's really an even bigger problem, beyond Bitcoin, we're seeing with economic globalization and which exists on this forum, where "$1,950" is "$1.95" to someone else.


In reality, I don't think any proposal will be pushed with enough unity and force to work, and we'll end up with a very fractured set of words and icons used, where we talk bitcoins and then ("thousands-place type")satoshis, so like kilosatoshis and the like. Frankly, I don't think we can all come around to adopt something new and beneficial -- it'll probably just be something confusing we'll have to live with until we die, and it'll just be more and more difficult to change as more people start using it.

[DrG]

I like the classic look of beta symbol for microBTC but I think it might get confused in the context of other things that use beta as well.  The fourth one doesn't look to bad.

[gelar24]

I prefer the Classic Bitcoin because of the more striking in terms of color and light.

so that the people are interested to know the meaning of a logo haha   

[joshraban76]

I’d vote for the classic, its more appealing in my eye as far as aesthetic view goes. The classic logo is definitely more artsy.

[cryptworld]

answered, Classic bitcoin
if there were other logos,maybe other one

[TYT]

I voted for the classic logo, though there's nothing stopping people from using whatever logo they like.

[littlewizard]

I prefer the bottom logo, the "B" is more formal, the top one is itallic.

[Harley997]

I think most of us like the classic one, the other one looks plain

[Dillar]

Classic Bitcoin. If I were shown other ones I would doubt whether it is BTC or something else because there are many different coins appeared.

[Catmoonglow]

The first one. Classic stuff.

[Cubic Earth]

Actually, I am in favor of a very radical change, which'd be the redefinition of a bitcoin, which I'd suggest should be one hundred satoshis. This gets around the issue of everyone talking "bitcoins" when they're dealing with maybe .003BTC for small transactions. From all the many discussions on this, the biggest take-away I get is that people are going to be talking in bitcoins no matter what, so there needs to be a very strong, unified push for "bitcoin" as being something orders of magnitude smaller for all these definition schemes to work -- we can't just make up definitions for "sub-bitcoins," I think - but need to completely redefine what a bitcoin is.

Assuming that, we can use a completely different symbol for "change" (I'm thinking like US/CAN dollar systems here, where we generally pay, say, $1.24 or $1095.95), and we'd literally just call it "bitcents." This way, we really only need two currency definitions, similar to many currencies, where it's the equivalent of dollars and cents -- very manageable. -But we can really use any symbol for the cents... we don't want it to look like the bitcoin symbol... If we go with satoshis as the "change," we can use a modified "s," and still following the dollar-type schemes, it'd just be an "s" with a diagonal or straight vertical through-strike (ideally, not in a way which makes it look like an "8," heh). There's an issue with the radix point, here, though, and that's really an even bigger problem, beyond Bitcoin, we're seeing with economic globalization and which exists on this forum, where "$1,950" is "$1.95" to someone else.


In reality, I don't think any proposal will be pushed with enough unity and force to work, and we'll end up with a very fractured set of words and icons used, where we talk bitcoins and then ("thousands-place type")satoshis, so like kilosatoshis and the like. Frankly, I don't think we can all come around to adopt something new and beneficial -- it'll probably just be something confusing we'll have to live with until we die, and it'll just be more and more difficult to change as more people start using it.

I totally agree with this thinking.  I think we should redefine a single bitcoin as 100,000 Satoshis.  That would put its current value at around $0.60 cents.  If and when 100,000 Satoshis become worth $10 or $100, a bitcoin could again be redefined as 1,000 Satoshis.  This community would only have to make that difficult change once.  By the time we are 1-2 orders of magnitude more valuable, we will have governments and professional marketing firms helping to decide what nomenclature to use so as to not disrupt the economy.

The concept of a Bitcoin has tremendous brand awareness and reputation behind it.  By having that 'unit' be so valuable as it is now ($600), it becomes basically unusable.  And we scare people off when they think it is too 'expensive'.  If we redefined what a bitcoin was, it would make education that much easier.

[crook015]

Good luck on your rebrand of bitcoin. l like Classic Bitcoin

[Este Nuno]

I've never been a fan of that new style Bitcoin logo with the dash on the lower part of the B.

The classic one is not amazing or anything, but it's superior to the other one.

The new symbol has a lot of sketchy private interests trying to push for its use as well from what I've read on here and reddit.

[wordman267645]

I prefer classic bitcoin logo..it's really cool..

[franky1]

seems people prefer BTC for bitcoins

seems people prefer ъ for 'bits' (ubtc/100 satoshis)

[itsAj]

I really don't think it is possible to really "change" the logo for bitcoin, nor is there truly an "official" logo for bitcoin. Since no one is in charge of bitcoin, no one can make this decision, nor can they set what the logo is. As of today there is no official logo for bitcon, only a symbol that is generally associated with bitcoin.

[R2D221]

seems people prefer ъ for 'bits' (ubtc/100 satoshis)

People haven't even agreed “bits” should be used for that.