When quoting small amounts of bitcoin, how do you call 100 satoshis?

[teukon]

Think of the average consumer here, not the crypto-electro-engineer in her microcomputer lab.

Why choose?

I'd agree, but OP is looking to make a choice for a website.

You're evading the question.  OP has already gathered the information they sought and has settled on "satoshi".

Again, why do you choose between alienating "common people" (with "μBTC = microbitcoins") and alienating "crypto-electro-engineers" (with "bits") when you can accommodate both so easily with "mikes"?

[1715233587]

1715233587

[1715233587]

1715233587

[fabiola!]

Think of the average consumer here, not the crypto-electro-engineer in her microcomputer lab.

Why choose?

I'd agree, but OP is looking to make a choice for a website.

You're evading the question.  OP has already gathered the information they sought and has settled on "satoshi".

Again, why do you choose between alienating "common people" (with "μBTC = microbitcoins") and alienating "crypto-electro-engineers" (with "bits") when you can accommodate both so easily with "mikes"?

Mikes is not great either, it's still confusing.

[EFS]

100 satoshi is 100 satoshi and I call them 100 satoshi.

[101111]

Think of the average consumer here, not the crypto-electro-engineer in her microcomputer lab.

Why choose?

I'd agree, but OP is looking to make a choice for a website.

You're evading the question.  OP has already gathered the information they sought and has settled on "satoshi".

Again, why do you choose between alienating "common people" (with "μBTC = microbitcoins") and alienating "crypto-electro-engineers" (with "bits") when you can accommodate both so easily with "mikes"?

I didn't mean to evade the question; no sinister intent or ulterior motive - just noting the fact that there was a poll asking for a choice to be made. That was 'why choose'. Otherwise I tend to the anarchic over the dictatorial.

I'm advocating an easy to use system for general use by people, one without the psychological high price barrier, one that might help bridge the adoption chasm, but if some folk decide to stick with SI good on them, that's their choice, and I'm sure there will be situations where it will be necessary to use SI, just as there'll be crossover between the groups; sometimes SI may be more appropriate, other times, bits.

I confess I don't know what the 'mikes' solution is, maybe you can explain? Maybe mikes will become another widely used option, and maybe there'll be more options we haven't thought of yet, each offering advantages in certain situations, for certain groups of users; for example, SI would be a good choice for backend IoT transactions; bits for the aforementioned coffee shop example.

[udet4food]

100 satoshi might be confusing for newbies, best is 0.000001 BTC

[teukon]

I confess I don't know what the 'mikes' solution is, maybe you can explain? Maybe mikes will become another widely used option, and maybe there'll be more options we haven't thought of yet, each offering advantages in certain situations, for certain groups of users; for example, SI would be a good choice for backend IoT transactions; bits for the aforementioned coffee shop example.

The 'mikes' solution is precisely the same as the 'bits' solution, only with a different name.  I believe 'mikes' predates 'bits' by nearly 3 years (or, about 2 years, if you count the older suggestion that we rename 'satoshi' to 'bit').

I completely agree that there's no single solution.  At a low level, satoshis are useful; for some applications, SI is good; for the coffee shop, I'd like a slang term.  I recall reading the reddit "it's bits" post almost a year ago now and thinking: "I very much agree with everything here except the term".

[harrymmmm]

I use:

1 BTC: one bitcoin
0.1 BTC: ten bitcents or zero point one bitcoins
0.01 BTC: one bitcent
0.001 BTC: one millibit
0.0001 BTC: ten thousand satoshis (edit: or one pip)
0.00001 BTC: one thousand satoshis
0.000001 BTC: one hundred satoshis, one microbit or one mike
0.0000001 BTC: ten satoshis
0.00000001 BTC: one satoshi (obviously)

So I voted for "100 satoshis".

That is basically how I say it, but I think the whole scheme is absolutely terrible.  Looks like a bunch of computer geeks made it up.

one of the reasons for 'bits'

short, sweet, simple, easy to say, easy to understand

but ridiculously confusing when you realize that a milibit now becomes a kbit.
It's absurd to use 'bit' to mean a bitcoin and also to mean a microbitcoin.
Not to say people  aren't absurd at times tho. lol.

I'll stick to bitcoins, millies and micros for clarity.

I'm guessing you don't genuinely find 1 btc = 1,000,000 bits 'ridiculously confusing'. But it's not really about you though is it? It's about the next billion adopters - what will be easy for them to use?

wut?
If someone told me a bit was also 1,000,000 bits, of course it's fkn confusing. Are you mad?
I'd never use number like 1,000,000 for that anyway. It would just be one bitcoin
I'm sure the other billion adopters would prefer that too. Lol.

[101111]

I'm guessing you don't genuinely find 1 btc = 1,000,000 bits 'ridiculously confusing'. But it's not really about you though is it? It's about the next billion adopters - what will be easy for them to use?

wut?
If someone told me a bit was also 1,000,000 bits, of course it's fkn confusing. Are you mad?
I'd never use number like 1,000,000 for that anyway. It would just be one bitcoin
I'm sure the other billion adopters would prefer that too. Lol.

No, it's not 1 bit = 1,000,000 bits, do you really think that is the suggestion here?

[101111]

I confess I don't know what the 'mikes' solution is, maybe you can explain? Maybe mikes will become another widely used option, and maybe there'll be more options we haven't thought of yet, each offering advantages in certain situations, for certain groups of users; for example, SI would be a good choice for backend IoT transactions; bits for the aforementioned coffee shop example.

The 'mikes' solution is precisely the same as the 'bits' solution, only with a different name.  I believe 'mikes' predates 'bits' by nearly 3 years (or, about 2 years, if you count the older suggestion that we rename 'satoshi' to 'bit').

I completely agree that there's no single solution.  At a low level, satoshis are useful; for some applications, SI is good; for the coffee shop, I'd like a slang term.  I recall reading the reddit "it's bits" post almost a year ago now and thinking: "I very much agree with everything here except the term".

Ok, mikes is good, I'm glad we agree, apart from the actual name.

It doesn't help the SI purists who insist we all do mental arithmetic to 8 decimal places, but I am sure their days are 'numbered'.

[R2D221]

It doesn't help the SI purists who insist we all do mental arithmetic to 8 decimal places, but I am sure their days are 'numbered'.

The fact that the whole world except the US (and a few other countries) use the SI system surely means their days are numbered. Totally. Like, why aren't we all reversing to the Imperial system right now?

[101111]

It doesn't help the SI purists who insist we all do mental arithmetic to 8 decimal places, but I am sure their days are 'numbered'.

The fact that the whole world except the US (and a few other countries) use the SI system surely means their days are numbered. Totally. Like, why aren't we all reversing to the Imperial system right now?

You have no idea of what we are talking about. Moving the decimal point is not the same as 'reversing' to an imperial system. Surely that's a very elementary concept?

In the bitcoin context, the 'SI purists" insist on the decimal point staying where it is, forcing everyone to deal with currency to 8 decimal places, making daily mental arithmetic impractical.

The 'bits' advocates want the decimal place moved 6 places right to a more standardised currency convention and format, it works better with financial software, and more importantly it better suits how our brains have evolved in dealing with 'counting numbers', it helps bridge bitcoins usability chasm. Having moved the decimal place, SI can operate as per normal. It's still a decimal system. It still has a decimal place.

Not only that but behind the user-interface level, the 'SI purists' can talk to each other in micro or milli all day long if they wish, so they have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

[KingOfTrolls]

100 satoshi might be confusing for newbies, best is 0.000001 BTC

I will provide a tool-tip that quotes the exact amount in BTC, for clarity.

However, it will certainly not be the main option as it is too inconvenient to pronounce ("oh point oh oh oh oh...") and carries the unwanted implication of being just a small fraction of something. People don't like to have small fractions of something.

You have no idea of what we are talking about. Moving the decimal point is not the same as 'reversing' to an imperial system. Surely that's a very elementary concept?

In the bitcoin context, the 'SI purists" insist on the decimal point staying where it is, forcing everyone to deal with currency to 8 decimal places, making daily mental arithmetic impractical.

The 'bits' advocates want the decimal place moved 6 places right to a more standardised currency convention and format, it works better with financial software, and more importantly it better suits how our brains have evolved in dealing with 'counting numbers', it helps bridge bitcoins usability chasm. Having moved the decimal place, SI can operate as per normal. It's still a decimal system. It still has a decimal place.

Not only that but behind the user-interface level, the 'SI purists' can talk to each other in micro or milli all day long if they wish, so they have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

You have a very good point about how using bits is better than using whole bitcoins or SI prefixes.
I especially agree with the green part. Many people underestimate the importance of these subconscious effects. The human brain prefers to use (positive) integers.

However, can you explain how using bits is superior to using sats? That's the part that I don't understand.

[R2D221]

In the bitcoin context, the 'SI purists" insist on the decimal point staying where it is, forcing everyone to deal with currency to 8 decimal places, making daily mental arithmetic impractical.

The 'bits' advocates want the decimal place moved 6 places right to a more standardised currency convention and format, it works better with financial software, and more importantly it better suits how our brains have evolved in dealing with 'counting numbers', it helps bridge bitcoins usability chasm. Having moved the decimal place, SI can operate as per normal. It's still a decimal system. It still has a decimal place.

Not only that but behind the user-interface level, the 'SI purists' can talk to each other in micro or milli all day long if they wish, so they have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

You do realize that if I talk about “100 mBTC” I've effectively MOVED the decimal place, right? Do you really think I would pronounce this “Oh point oh oh oh one bitcoins” when it clearly can be read “One hundred mikes”? (using “mike” as an abbreviation because obviously the word “microbitcoins” is too long)

[KingOfTrolls]

You do realize that if I talk about “100 mBTC µBTC” I've effectively MOVED the decimal place, right? Do you really think I would pronounce this “Oh point oh oh oh one bitcoins” when it clearly can be read “One hundred mikes”? (using “mike” as an abbreviation because obviously the word “microbitcoins” is too long)

Fixed that for you.

To understand the meaning of "µBTC" one has to understand the meaning of "BTC" first.
However, the whole point of moving the decimal (as far as I understand it) is about finding a setup that allows us to gradually phase out the unit "BTC" entirely. The eventual outcome would be that the term "bitcoin" refers to the currency system as a whole, not a unit.

The underlying problem is that µBTC is — and always will be — a subunit, not the base unit. I can understand that many people want to change the base unit, as it is too large. But I cannot understand why the new base unit should be 100 SAT instead of 1 SAT.

[rgenito]

Anyhoo, I will sum up the future of Bitcoin. For any of you early adopters out there, consider this your cheat sheet to know where the future of Bitcoin develops:

* "Bitcoin" is still the technology.

* 1 bit will be the "base unit".

* the smallest unit will be "1 bit cent", also known as "1 satoshi" to honor Satoshi Nakamoto. (sort of like 0.01 USD is referred to as a "1 cent", and also its proper name "1 penny", respectively)

* Some people will understand that "1 bitcoin = very rich". The term "Bitcoinaire" may even come up.

* XBT is the abbreviation -- it fits beautifully with "Bitcoin" and "bits", even though that wouldn't be intellectually 100% correct.

* Exchanges, traders, accountants, etc. will understand the price of Bitcoin as "$400 / XBT"

* Laymen will look at the price of Bitcoin as "2500 bits / dollar" (US Dollar) ... bookkeepers and accountants will be familiar with this as well, if necessary.

In response to KingOfTrolls:
I completely agree with you. Unfortunately, it's hard for your average user, and your average adopter, to understand what a "SAT" is, especially in the world of Bitcoin. If you go ahead and tell them, "oh, it's short for Satoshi! The guy who worked a lot on Bitcoin in the beginning had the first name Satoshi. He's anonymous and stuff. But don't ask about that".

...well, that's just adding more confusion. (Even if you make the explanation shorter). I'm not saying this because it is what I believe, I am saying it because it is the reactions and feelings of the layman (and even very technically-minded people).

Will newbies and average users understand? Yes.

Will they remember that "1 sat" is the base unit for Bitcoin? As most people forgot things very quickly, my *intentional* interactions with the layman show that they just don't remember "Satoshi" or "Sat". They entirely remember "bits". Things I have heard include:

"Oh ya... a 'bit', right?"

"Um, it was 1 'yoshi' right?" (to which I reply: "no, 1 SA-toshi")

[101111]

In the bitcoin context, the 'SI purists" insist on the decimal point staying where it is, forcing everyone to deal with currency to 8 decimal places, making daily mental arithmetic impractical.

The 'bits' advocates want the decimal place moved 6 places right to a more standardised currency convention and format, it works better with financial software, and more importantly it better suits how our brains have evolved in dealing with 'counting numbers', it helps bridge bitcoins usability chasm. Having moved the decimal place, SI can operate as per normal. It's still a decimal system. It still has a decimal place.

Not only that but behind the user-interface level, the 'SI purists' can talk to each other in micro or milli all day long if they wish, so they have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

You do realize that if I talk about “100 mBTC” I've effectively MOVED the decimal place, right? Do you really think I would pronounce this “Oh point oh oh oh one bitcoins” when it clearly can be read “One hundred mikes”? (using “mike” as an abbreviation because obviously the word “microbitcoins” is too long)

If you have recovered from shooting yourself in the foot yet again, perhaps you can address my other points. Is there anything there you can agree with?

[R2D221]

You defeated me. You win. I have nothing more to comment. All hail 10111111.

[101111]

But I cannot understand why the new base unit should be 100 SAT instead of 1 SAT.

Bits advocates a standardised, conventional, universal, currency format, accurate to 2 decimal places. Sats has merit, but getting the world to change to a new format is a big ask, it's probably not going to happen.

Other reasons are more subjective; imo it feels right, it sounds right, it looks right; it's a core feature of the Bitcoin technology; at this stage it's value is pretty small, not too big, just right for this stage of the adoption curve. It's easy to say. It sounds digital, and thus self-contextual. It's user friendly.

Well these are a few things that come to mind, I'm sure there's lots more.

edit grammar

[101111]

You defeated me. You win. I have nothing more to comment. All hail 10111111.

Don't feel defeated, you're welcome to join the the winning team ;-)

[R2D221]

You defeated me. You win. I have nothing more to comment. All hail 10111111.

Don't feel defeated, you're welcome to join the the winning team ;-)

Sarcastic comment was sarcastic.