Bitcents?

[tardo]

Is Bitcent the official term for a hundrendth of a Bitcoin? Soon the value of Bitcoins will be so high that it would be more practical to use Bitcents or even Bitmills (or Bitmilles). I think that the Bitcoin value will rise faster also. People are more interested buying 100 Bitcents or 1000 Bitmills for $3 than 1 Bitcoin for $ 3, right?

[1715063519]

1715063519

[1715063519]

1715063519

[ribuck]

1.02 - One bitcoin and two bitcents
0.001 - One millibitcoin (nickname "one Millie")
0.000001 - One microbitcoin (nickname "one Mike")
0.00000001 - The bitcoin base unit (nickname "one Satoshi")

Is Bitcent the official term for a hundrendth of a Bitcoin?

Nothing is official.

[ribuck]

People are more interested buying 100 Bitcents or 1000 Bitmills for $3 than 1 Bitcoin for $ 3, right?

I don't think so. Google stock sells just fine for hundreds of dollars. You could try an experiment over at #bitcoin-otc if you like.

[deadlizard]

1.02 - One bitcoin and two bitcents
0.001 - One millibitcoin (nickname "one Millie")
0.000001 - One microbitcoin (nickname "one Mike")
0.00000001 - The bitcoin base unit (nickname "one Satoshi")

Is Bitcent the official term for a hundrendth of a Bitcoin?

Nothing is official.

4.00 - 1 nybble 
8.00 - 1 Byte coin
 

[tardo]

People are more interested buying 100 Bitcents or 1000 Bitmills for $3 than 1 Bitcoin for $ 3, right?

I don't think so. Google stock sells just fine for hundreds of dollars. You could try an experiment over at #bitcoin-otc if you like.

It's all about psychology, 100 Bitcents sounds more even though it's exactly the same amount as 1 Bitcoin, so unconsciously you think that you make a better deal even though you're not.

[ribuck]

It's all about psychology, 100 Bitcents sounds more even though it's exactly the same amount as 1 Bitcoin, so unconsciously you think that you make a better deal even though you're not.

By that line of reasoning, why say 100 Bitcents when you can say 100000000 Satoshis instead?

[Ian Maxwell]

Speaking for myself, I've been saying "point zero five bitcoins" for 0.05 btc. It's the only thing everyone understands, and it will make the transition to saying "point zero zero five" require less explanation. Most people in the West are terribly confused by sub-cent amounts of money and will screw up the terminology (see the Verizon incident if you don't believe me), so avoiding it altogether is probably safest.

It would be nice if the decimal place were a few more units to the right so that we don't have to eventually be saying "point zero zero zero one nine" all the time, but honestly no one knows how much a bitcoin will eventually be worth, so it's hard to say exactly where it should have been. (My preference is that there should have been no decimal point at all so that I could be a billionaire the first time I generate a block, but I'm kind of a geek and my preference shouldn't be taken as an actual good idea.)

[ffe]

It's all about psychology, 100 Bitcents sounds more even though it's exactly the same amount as 1 Bitcoin, so unconsciously you think that you make a better deal even though you're not.

By that line of reasoning, why say 100 Bitcents when you can say 100000000 Satoshis instead?

Makes it seem cheap.

[tardo]

It's all about psychology, 100 Bitcents sounds more even though it's exactly the same amount as 1 Bitcoin, so unconsciously you think that you make a better deal even though you're not.

By that line of reasoning, why say 100 Bitcents when you can say 100000000 Satoshis instead?

Makes it seem cheap.

Exactly, too many zeros makes them seem to be worthless.

[mcdett]

One share of BRK:A == $121,709

[rebuilder]

Someone tries to manipulate me by playing number games like that, I'm likely to distrust them.

[deadlizard]

Someone tries to manipulate me by playing number games like that, I'm likely to distrust them.

if you're talking about the Verizon incident it was just basic math. They probably thought he was gaming them. or they understood the mistake and didn't want accept liability. just my 0.02 cents 

[lulzplzkthx]

Someone tries to manipulate me by playing number games like that, I'm likely to distrust them.

if you're talking about the Verizon incident it was just basic math. They probably thought he was gaming them. or they understood the mistake and didn't want accept liability. just my 0.02 cents 

I think he meant 100 bitcents vs. 1 bitcoin.

Here's my question: Should Bitcoin be capitalized when you are referring to the unit? "I have 10 bitcoins." "I have 10 Bitcoins." Following English rules, I'm thinking no, but I see it both ways. Frequently.

[jon_smark]

Myself, I think the use of the "bitcent" terminology should be discouraged.  I've laid out my rationale in other threads, but I'll do it again:

Human beings are not particularly adept at dealing with large numbers and/or great variations in orders of magnitude.  Nevertheless, in the West people have been educated to group orders of magnitude into threes: thousands, millions, billions, etc.  Now, Bitcoin currently has 8 decimal cases.  This means that further subunits will be demanded even if the term "bitcent" becomes widely used.  These may be called millicents, microcents, or whatever.  And herein lies a huge potential source of confusion, since we would have a system which would mix two different groupings for orders of magnitude: a two-order grouping (1BTC = 100 bitcent) and a three-order grouping (1 Bitcent = 1000 millicent).

If you still don't see this as a problem, try to answer instinctively (and correctly!) to the following question: "How many Bitcoins in a million millicents?".  Do you understand now why mixing different order of magnitude groupings within the same system is a recipe for disaster?

Hence, I propose that instead of talking in bitcents we encourage the use of millicoins, microcoins, and nanocoins.  That way the entire system relies on a single three-order grouping.

[Gavin Andresen]

Hence, I propose that instead of talking in bitcents we encourage the use of millicoins, microcoins, and nanocoins.  That way the entire system relies on a single three-order grouping.

+1

[phelix]

I don't think so. Google stock sells just fine for hundreds of dollars. You could try an experiment over at #bitcoin-otc if you like.

It's all about psychology, 100 Bitcents sounds more even though it's exactly the same amount as 1 Bitcoin, so unconsciously you think that you make a better deal even though you're not.

+1 this is a very important factor, especially for newcomers. also after a split stocks often rise for no apparent reason.

By that line of reasoning, why say 100 Bitcents when you can say 100000000 Satoshis instead?

+1 good name. 1 Satoshi = 1 mBTC = 0.001 BTC

[FreeMoney]

It's all about psychology, 100 Bitcents sounds more even though it's exactly the same amount as 1 Bitcoin, so unconsciously you think that you make a better deal even though you're not.

By that line of reasoning, why say 100 Bitcents when you can say 100000000 Satoshis instead?

Because 1000 is substantial and 100000000 is scary.

Cents are tiny and worthless, use millies imo. Very much looking forward to shipping 3 mikes for a tasty beverage.

[ribuck]

...use millies imo...

As soon as the minimum fee-free transaction size drops to a millie, I think this unit will become widely used. And the minimum fee-free size does need to drop, if only so that the Bitcoin Faucet won't run dry so easily.

[tardo]

Myself, I think the use of the "bitcent" terminology should be discouraged.  I've laid out my rationale in other threads, but I'll do it again:

Human beings are not particularly adept at dealing with large numbers and/or great variations in orders of magnitude.  Nevertheless, in the West people have been educated to group orders of magnitude into threes: thousands, millions, billions, etc.  Now, Bitcoin currently has 8 decimal cases.  This means that further subunits will be demanded even if the term "bitcent" becomes widely used.  These may be called millicents, microcents, or whatever.  And herein lies a huge potential source of confusion, since we would have a system which would mix two different groupings for orders of magnitude: a two-order grouping (1BTC = 100 bitcent) and a three-order grouping (1 Bitcent = 1000 millicent).

If you still don't see this as a problem, try to answer instinctively (and correctly!) to the following question: "How many Bitcoins in a million millicents?".  Do you understand now why mixing different order of magnitude groupings within the same system is a recipe for disaster?

Hence, I propose that instead of talking in bitcents we encourage the use of millicoins, microcoins, and nanocoins.  That way the entire system relies on a single three-order grouping.

Well, the term millicoins is fine with me too, I wasn't really pushing the term "bitcent" at all, I was only pointing out that a person is much more likely to pay $1000 for 1000 millicoins (or 100 bitcents whichever catches on), instead of paying the same amount for 1 bitcoin even though it's the exact same amount he's getting. Thats how the human mind works, and it would be good if there was an official term so it would be used consistently by everyone. Why not have a poll about what term should be official?

About your question "How many Bitcoins in a million millicents?". The thing is that your mixing terms with "millicent". It has neither the word "bit" or "coin" in it, because is just a prefix and a suffix and nothing else. "Millicent" could just as well refer to american cents because the term has no connection to bitcoins. So only either prefixes or suffixes should be used but never combined. So the use of either 0.01 bitcents or 100 microcoins are acceptable to me, but never 10 millicents.

[carlerha]

Myself, I think the use of the "bitcent" terminology should be discouraged.  I've laid out my rationale in other threads, but I'll do it again:

Human beings are not particularly adept at dealing with large numbers and/or great variations in orders of magnitude.  Nevertheless, in the West people have been educated to group orders of magnitude into threes: thousands, millions, billions, etc.  Now, Bitcoin currently has 8 decimal cases.  This means that further subunits will be demanded even if the term "bitcent" becomes widely used.  These may be called millicents, microcents, or whatever.  And herein lies a huge potential source of confusion, since we would have a system which would mix two different groupings for orders of magnitude: a two-order grouping (1BTC = 100 bitcent) and a three-order grouping (1 Bitcent = 1000 millicent).

If you still don't see this as a problem, try to answer instinctively (and correctly!) to the following question: "How many Bitcoins in a million millicents?".  Do you understand now why mixing different order of magnitude groupings within the same system is a recipe for disaster?

Hence, I propose that instead of talking in bitcents we encourage the use of millicoins, microcoins, and nanocoins.  That way the entire system relies on a single three-order grouping.

+1

Furthermore, as many people argued in the discussion against using the thai baht symbol for Bitcoin because it implied some association with an existing currency or country, using cents would bring about the same effect regarding it's use in a selection of existing currencies. Use of the SI prefixes will provide the advantage that most people are already familiar with it, either through schooling and/or exposure to everyday technology. And SI is somewhat open source, is it not?