A difference of opinions at the Bitcoin Foundation regarding the XBT proposal?

[solex]

Non-mathematicians have difficulty picturing sums like 0.00014321 BTC, which would be 143.21 XBT if XBT=100 satoshi(s)
The transition would be even more seamless because people already started thinking in bits. If 1XBT=1bit=100 satoshi, it would all make sense.

I like this too, and think it is the best option.

However, an alternative is to try and get two ISO codes, with XBT for 1 bitcoin and XBU for millionths (which would be used in existing financial systems).

[1715076375]

1715076375

[1715076375]

1715076375

[1715076375]

1715076375

[molecular]

Non-mathematicians have difficulty picturing sums like 0.00014321 BTC, which would be 143.21 XBT if XBT=100 satoshi(s)
The transition would be even more seamless because people already started thinking in bits. If 1XBT=1bit=100 satoshi, it would all make sense.

I like this too, and think it is the best option.

Me too. I started supporting this proposal sometime earlier this year. It still feels right.

It also seems opposition is much less fierce than last time the topic bubbled to attention.

However, an alternative is to try and get two ISO codes, with XBT for 1 bitcoin and XBU for millionths (which would be used in existing financial systems).

I can't quite get myself to like that.

btw, the "bit proposal" is supported by Gavin now (for whatever that's worth): Gavin Andresen: 'I think everybody should switch to talking in "bits"

[pawel7777]

There are voices who opt for "Bits" instead of "uBTC". If "XBT" stands for Bits and not Bitcoin, it makes sense and could make bitcoin more user friendly.

I'm against denominating bitcoin (when XBT=Bitcoin=100 satoshi), but the above could work.

From the quoted article:

...
These existing minor units of bitcoin will be submitted in the ISO application for XBT and it is not required for all of the individual minor units to be submitted.
...

So if XBT is registered as 'Bit', 'Bitcoin' could be submitted as 'major unit' and 'satoshi' as 'minor unit'. That's pretty important, otherwise it would be very strange if the word 'Bitcoin' was not mentioned anywhere in the application.


But still think it could cause unnecessary confusion. After all, if XBT=Bitcoin, it's not really stopping anyone from using 'millibits' or 'bits'.

[Q7]

For me the issue of adoption comes first. Not sure about others but maybe we can just reach a consensus later part. So if i understand correctly, if follow the ISO standard 1 btc will essentially mean 1 000 000 XBT. I don't see an issue here as most people are holding a fraction of a complete coin so the number actually doesn't sound too big

[KingOfTrolls]

It also seems opposition is much less fierce than last time the topic bubbled to attention.

This is demonstratably false:

Last time this topic came up "bits" was leading the polls, e.g. this one.
In a more recent poll, "bits" only ranked second, i.e. it is declining in popularity.



(I'm well aware that these polls are not representative. If you have any better evidence, then cite it.)

[bg002h]

I'm on the working group. There are lots of options for units to go with an ISO 4217 currency code. Would XBT = 100M satoshis (1 bitcoin) be better than XBI = 100 satoshis (1 bit)?

If XBT = 1 bitcoin, I don't foresee people writing 0.00098 XBT to describe the cost of bubblegum. People _might_ write 980 XBI though.

I think we need more community input on this choice. Can we get two currency codes? Doubtful, but is worth discussing.

Another related idea that I think needs community input is getting a Unicode currency symbol(s). We are all used to using BTC for bitcoin and some are starting to use ƀ for bits...unfortunately, a capital ƀ is Ƀ, which is also used for 1 bitcoin. Nothing like a capitalization error to cost you 1 million times more than you wanted to spend!

Should we try to get Unicode characters for 1 bitcoin and 1 bit? Just bits? Just bitcoin?

A benefit of using 1 bitcoin as a standard is that the symbol µ is separately encoded in Unicode from the Greek letter μ (which case folds to the Greek letter M).

Therefore, 1 µXBT and 1 µBTC shouldn't accidentally change value at the whim of a shift key.

I think a wide discussion is needed. Bitcoin is different. It's global. Different cultures would likely have different opinions and we should push for standards that meet all those needs.

[Spendulus]

....Nothing like a capitalization error to cost you 1 million times more than you wanted to spend! ....

I think a wide discussion is needed. Bitcoin is different. It's global. Different cultures would likely have different opinions and we should push for standards that meet all those needs.

Have you made up a problem to warn people about?

If not, show where someone has made a 1 million x error please.

If so, why make up imaginary problems when there are lots of real ones?

[pawel7777]

I'm on the working group. There are lots of options for units to go with an ISO 4217 currency code. Would XBT = 100M satoshis (1 bitcoin) be better than XBI = 100 satoshis (1 bit)?

If XBT = 1 bitcoin, I don't foresee people writing 0.00098 XBT to describe the cost of bubblegum. People _might_ write 980 XBI though.

I think we need more community input on this choice. Can we get two currency codes? Doubtful, but is worth discussing.

What's actually wrong with XBT=1BTC (100m sats), since we could popularise usage of millibitcoin (BTC0.001)? It's easier to comprehend by average Joe, since it's closer in value to $1. So the chewing gum would be mBTC0.98, which looks better than 0.00098 or 980.

With XBT=100 sat, the brand/name of "bitcoin" would suffer a serious blow. If all the major players start using terms "XBT" or "bits", there would be no practical use for "Bitcoin". In terms of brand awareness, we would have to start from scratch. Loads of people worldwide heard of 'bitcoin' (even if they don't fully realise what it is), if the name is changed (and also the exchange rate etc) they probably wouldn't even know that XBT (bit) and Bitcoin relate to the same thing.

[KingOfTrolls]

I'm on the working group. There are lots of options for units to go with an ISO 4217 currency code. Would XBT = 100M satoshis (1 bitcoin) be better than XBI = 100 satoshis (1 bit)?

If XBT = 1 bitcoin, I don't foresee people writing 0.00098 XBT to describe the cost of bubblegum. People _might_ write 980 XBI though.

I think we need more community input on this choice. Can we get two currency codes? Doubtful, but is worth discussing.

I'd like to propose 1 XST = 1 satoshi.



Many people will now protest that "XST" bears no resemblance with our "brand name" Bitcoin.

To those I will respond:
The Chinese currency Renminbi bears no resemblance with "CNY" either, even though the latter is its official ISO 4217 code.
So, as the most populous country in this world is able to cope with that, the rest of the world can understand it, too.


The advantages of using satoshi are (at least) threefold:
The unit "satoshi" is unambiguously defined, the term has developed naturally, and it is universally accepted, even by those who prefer a different unit.

These are three important properties for standardisation.

[TheButterZone]

I'm on the working group. There are lots of options for units to go with an ISO 4217 currency code. Would XBT = 100M satoshis (1 bitcoin) be better than XBI = 100 satoshis (1 bit)?

If XBT = 1 bitcoin, I don't foresee people writing 0.00098 XBT to describe the cost of bubblegum. People _might_ write 980 XBI though.

I think we need more community input on this choice. Can we get two currency codes? Doubtful, but is worth discussing.

I'd like to propose 1 XST = 1 satoshi.

I concur. There should be only two currency codes, and at the extremes, no half measures to confuse the fuck out of average people. The largest unit, 1 BTC=XBT, and the smallest subunit, 1 satoshi/0.00000001 BTC=XST.

We need to lock in the smallest subunit, the furthest point of divisibility. If 1 XST ends up being exchanged to $0.01 USD, then 1 XBT will be equal to $1,000,000 USD.

Clients should allow setting XBT or XST as the default display (with appropriate warnings), and pricing can be displayed both ways in the global marketplace. No changes in the way TXs are constructed in the background would be necessary.

[solex]

I'm on the working group. There are lots of options for units to go with an ISO 4217 currency code. Would XBT = 100M satoshis (1 bitcoin) be better than XBI = 100 satoshis (1 bit)?

I have over 20 years experience working on FX systems, and I strongly advise that the primary objective here, with the standards authorities, is:

[An official ISO code] = 100 satoshis.

If Bitcoin is to remake the mainstream financial world, this will give it a massive advantage, but obtaining any other official standard will be of little benefit in comparison.

Can we get two currency codes? Doubtful, but is worth discussing.

If we can get two currency codes, that would be excellent. However, the standards people would want to see them alphabetically contiguous, so XBT:XBU could fly, but XBI:XBT is improbable.

[pequelore]

For me the issue of adoption comes first.

Agreed. How can bitcoin be a success if people doesnt know what it is?

[Biodom]

I'm on the working group. There are lots of options for units to go with an ISO 4217 currency code. Would XBT = 100M satoshis (1 bitcoin) be better than XBI = 100 satoshis (1 bit)?

I have over 20 years experience working on FX systems, and I strongly advise that the primary objective here, with the standards authorities, is:

[An official ISO code] = 100 satoshis.

If Bitcoin is remake the mainstream financial world, this will give it a massive advantage, but obtaining any other official standard will be of little benefit in comparison.

Can we get two currency codes? Doubtful, but is worth discussing.

If we can get two currency codes, that would be excellent. However, the standards people would want to see them alphabetically contiguous, so XBT:XBU could fly, but XBI:XBT is improbable.

I totally agree that the objective is [An official ISO code] = 100 satoshis.
and everything else is secondary. If you make the minor unit a 0.00000001 of the major unit (in proposed standard), then you accomplished nothing toward the ease of use/acceptance by a large % of the population. 90-99% of all people would not want to deal with eight numbers after period. People, however, will decide how to call the official unit in day-to day life.
CNY has nothing in common in pronunciation with renminbi/yuan.

[KingOfTrolls]

90-99% 100% of all people would not want to deal with eight numbers after period.

Fixed that for you. It's 100%.

It is empirically proven that the human brain prefers to deal with positive integers.
This can be easily seen by when children are tought integers versus decimals in elementary school. Even some animals are capable of using integers, yet none are capable of using decimals.

An international currency like Bitcoin deserves to have the easiest conceivable system for measuring value, i.e. plain integers.


Existing financial traditions might differ; it is especially notable that western cultures prefer to have two decimal places to the right of the point, while arabic cultures prefer three decimal places. African cultures, on the other hand, use division by five, i.e. one decimal place.

Bitcoin oughts to have a system that allows each culture to establish their own currency units, while still having one common unit for all of them. My proposal is to use the smallest possible denomination for international exchange, while still allowing higher denominations for use in individual countries, according to their respective financial traditions.

[An official ISO code] = 100 satoshis.

[An official ISO code] = 100 satoshis.

This option is only viable if we have consensus on what the [bracket expression] will substitute for.

[pawel7777]

Can we get two currency codes? Doubtful, but is worth discussing.

If we can get two currency codes, that would be excellent. However, the standards people would want to see them alphabetically contiguous, so XBT:XBU could fly, but XBI:XBT is improbable.

Don't think two ISO codes are possible. After all, it's the same currency.

[solex]

Can we get two currency codes? Doubtful, but is worth discussing.

If we can get two currency codes, that would be excellent. However, the standards people would want to see them alphabetically contiguous, so XBT:XBU could fly, but XBI:XBT is improbable.

Don't think two ISO codes are possible. After all, it's the same currency.

Each country has 26 codes reserved for it, including island states with an economy smaller than that of Bitcoin's ecosystem. Some countries have used more than one, such as Turkey when they shifted the decimal 6 places. X-codes are a different case however, and yeah, it is not that much more useful to have 2 codes than one.

Only this matters. [An official ISO code] = 100 satoshis.

[teukon]

I'm on the working group. There are lots of options for units to go with an ISO 4217 currency code. Would XBT = 100M satoshis (1 bitcoin) be better than XBI = 100 satoshis (1 bit)?

If XBT = 1 bitcoin, I don't foresee people writing 0.00098 XBT to describe the cost of bubblegum. People _might_ write 980 XBI though.

I certainly feel that XBT for 1 bitcoin is a better choice than XBI for 1 bit, mainly because the term "bitcoin" is far better established (one can even look it up in the dictionary).  Currency codes are very much a realm for formality, accuracy, unambiguity, and stability; XBI for one "bit" is simply not appropriate today given the youth and contention surrounding the term.  If the 100-satoshi unit is desired (e.g. for decimal point-related issues) and the working group wants to push this now then I think the only appropriate term to build around is "microbitcoin".  This is not the end of the world (The formal UK currency name is the cumbersome "Pound sterling" yet, GBP works and people get by with slang such as "pounds" or "quid" in everyday situations).

People are unlikely to write "0.000 98 XBT" or "980 XBI" in my opinion but they may well write "980 bits".

I think we need more community input on this choice. Can we get two currency codes? Doubtful, but is worth discussing.

Just in case the working group hasn't seen it, here's an Old, short, Bitcoin Foundation discussion on the topic.

Another related idea that I think needs community input is getting a Unicode currency symbol(s). We are all used to using BTC for bitcoin and some are starting to use ƀ for bits...unfortunately, a capital ƀ is Ƀ, which is also used for 1 bitcoin. Nothing like a capitalization error to cost you 1 million times more than you wanted to spend!

Should we try to get Unicode characters for 1 bitcoin and 1 bit? Just bits? Just bitcoin?

A benefit of using 1 bitcoin as a standard is that the symbol µ is separately encoded in Unicode from the Greek letter μ (which case folds to the Greek letter M).

Therefore, 1 µXBT and 1 µBTC shouldn't accidentally change value at the whim of a shift key.

I quite like the µBTC idea.

Another thought: Perhaps a "µ" with a bar through it, "µ" say, would be easier to get given that "₥" for a mill already exists and is currency agnostic.  I could certainly see prices like "1500µ" (or "µ1500") being commonly read as "fifteen hundred bits" but also sometimes "fifteen hundred mikes" or "one point five mills".

I feel worth stressing a second time is that, given the current upset surrounding the 100-satoshi term, it might be wise to simply work on a currency code for the "bitcoin" unit for now, leaving the issue of the smaller unit to settle for a few years.

Disclaimer: While I've honestly tried to be unbiased and logical, it's no secret that I openly oppose the term "bit" for 100 satoshis.

[Biodom]

I'm on the working group. There are lots of options for units to go with an ISO 4217 currency code. Would XBT = 100M satoshis (1 bitcoin) be better than XBI = 100 satoshis (1 bit)?

If XBT = 1 bitcoin, I don't foresee people writing 0.00098 XBT to describe the cost of bubblegum. People _might_ write 980 XBI though.

I certainly feel that XBT for 1 bitcoin is a better choice than XBI for 1 bit, mainly because the term "bitcoin" is far better established (one can even look it up in the dictionary).  Currency codes are very much a realm for formality, accuracy, unambiguity, and stability; XBI for one "bit" is simply not appropriate today given the youth and contention surrounding the term.  If the 100-satoshi unit is desired (e.g. for decimal point-related issues) and the working group wants to push this now then I think the only appropriate term to build around is "microbitcoin".  This is not the end of the world (The formal UK currency name is the cumbersome "Pound sterling" yet, GBP works and people get by with slang such as "pounds" or "quid" in everyday situations).

People are unlikely to write "0.000 98 XBT" or "980 XBI" in my opinion but they may well write "980 bits".

I think we need more community input on this choice. Can we get two currency codes? Doubtful, but is worth discussing.

Just in case the working group hasn't seen it, here's an Old, short, Bitcoin Foundation discussion on the topic.

Another related idea that I think needs community input is getting a Unicode currency symbol(s). We are all used to using BTC for bitcoin and some are starting to use ƀ for bits...unfortunately, a capital ƀ is Ƀ, which is also used for 1 bitcoin. Nothing like a capitalization error to cost you 1 million times more than you wanted to spend!

Should we try to get Unicode characters for 1 bitcoin and 1 bit? Just bits? Just bitcoin?

A benefit of using 1 bitcoin as a standard is that the symbol µ is separately encoded in Unicode from the Greek letter μ (which case folds to the Greek letter M).

Therefore, 1 µXBT and 1 µBTC shouldn't accidentally change value at the whim of a shift key.

I quite like the µBTC idea.

Another thought: Perhaps a "µ" with a bar through it, "µ" say, would be easier to get given that "₥" for a mill already exists and is currency agnostic.  I could certainly see prices like "1500µ" (or "µ1500") being commonly read as "fifteen hundred bits" but also sometimes "fifteen hundred mikes" or "one point five mills".

I feel worth stressing a second time is that, given the current upset surrounding the 100-satoshi term, it might be wise to simply work on a currency code for the "bitcoin" unit for now, leaving the issue of the smaller unit to settle for a few years.

Disclaimer: While I've honestly tried to be unbiased and logical, it's no secret that I openly oppose the term "bit" for 100 satoshis.

For those who are FOR or AGAINST bits:

Why can't we recalculate bitcoin as=100 satoshis, then we end up with just bitcoin [XBI or XBT=100satoshi] and satoshi itself.
Why some people so hung up on bitcoin being 100mil satoshis? This change would be very easy to implement.

[R2D221]

Why can't we recalculate bitcoin as=100 satoshis, then we end up with just bitcoin [XBI or XBT=100satoshi] and satoshi itself.
Why some people so hung up on bitcoin being 100mil satoshis? This change would be very easy to implement.

Do you serioulsy think redefining a word is an easy task? Considering how many people already talk about Bitcoin (maybe it's less than 1% of the world, it's still a big amount)

[Biodom]

Why can't we recalculate bitcoin as=100 satoshis, then we end up with just bitcoin [XBI or XBT=100satoshi] and satoshi itself.
Why some people so hung up on bitcoin being 100mil satoshis? This change would be very easy to implement.

Do you serioulsy think redefining a word is an easy task? Considering how many people already talk about Bitcoin (maybe it's less than 1% of the world, it's still a big amount)

don't need to redefine any word
AAPL was $700/share and after a stock split (1:7) it became $100/share with increase in unit numbers, but not value
Nobody is talking about changing the number of fundamental units (which are 2.1 quadrillion satoshis)
Just split bitcoin 1:1000000 and say that it (defined as XBT or XBI) is now only 100 satoshis, but you have 21 trillion of such "bitcoins" or "bits" or "whatever" (XBT or XBI)
The concept of a stock split is familiar to EVERYBODY