Which of these bitcoin units do you NOT want to use?

[101111]

That guy says "I thought 1 bit = 1 satoshi. I guess i stand corrected" so you could equally argue satoshis were the problem.

Not at all.  "satoshi" is a much better established term than "bit" in this context. 

That's not the issue. We're not debating over which is more established. We're looking forward and debating what may be.

When people want to refer to an amount of bitcoin in a nomenclature thread they almost invariably use "BTC" or "satoshis" for simplicity/clarity.

Yes of course they do, but bitcoin is not at issue, and in most contexts neither is satoshi.

People argue about the name to give "0.000 001 BTC" or "100 satoshis". 

Yes that's right, very well spotted. Let's make that obvious point no. 1.

Also, notice the order used here: "1 bit = 1 satoshi", not "1 satoshi = 1 bit".

You might even notice I was the one who quoted it.

"satoshi" was not pushed in the way that "bit" was.  The first suggestion that "satoshi" might refer to 0.000 000 01 BTC was made over 3 years ago and slowly and naturally became adopted because it was a useful term which resonated with those that would use it.  There were no leagues of "satoshis" threads where people denounced the term, came up with various alternatives.  There was no crowd of SI proponents claiming "10 nans" to be superior.

Now you're just being silly. Have you ever actually looked at the bits proposal? Do you know what you are talking about?

A few months later, the first suggestion that the term "Bit" might represent 1 µBTC was made.  In this case, the term naturally died out, only to be resurrected by an evangelical Reddit thread and an advertising campaign launched by a small number of (either linguistically foolish or intentionally destructive) people.  Rather than the gradual emergence of a new useful term brought about by need, we've been treated to a year of flamewars, causing many to avoid the 100-satoshi unit altogether.

"satoshi" is to "bits" as free-market is to central planning or evolution is to intelligent design.  Arguing a peership between the two is just laughable.

Sorry but this is all just quasi-religious, irrational nonsense. If you can't come up with a use case just say so.

[lightningmccoin]

I am using satoshi and not mbtc.

[pissedoff]

Everything should go except this format: 0.000001 and it should be called zero point zero zero zero zero zero one.

[KingOfTrolls]

Not at all.  "satoshi" is a much better established term than "bit" in this context. 

That's not the issue. We're not debating over which is more established. We're looking forward and debating what may be.

This example use case illustrated how it is difficult to establish "bit" because it is already established that small amounts of bitcoin are satoshis. Looking forward, this means that establishing "bit" will always be an up-hill battle because satoshi isn't magically going to go away.

Yes of course they do, but bitcoin is not at issue, and in most contexts neither is satoshi.

Yes, "bit" is what makes the issues.

Also, notice the order used here: "1 bit = 1 satoshi", not "1 satoshi = 1 bit".

You might even notice I was the one who quoted it.

You quoted it, but you didn't even notice that it implies that the speaker is already familiar with satoshis and confused by "bits".

"satoshi" was not pushed in the way that "bit" was.  The first suggestion that "satoshi" might refer to 0.000 000 01 BTC was made over 3 years ago and slowly and naturally became adopted because it was a useful term which resonated with those that would use it.  There were no leagues of "satoshis" threads where people denounced the term, came up with various alternatives.  There was no crowd of SI proponents claiming "10 nans" to be superior.

Now you're just being silly. Have you ever actually looked at the bits proposal? Do you know what you are talking about?

A quick glance at teukon's recent posts reveals that you are talking bullshit.

Sorry but this is all just quasi-religious, irrational nonsense.

The weaknesses of "bits" won't go away by ignoring them.

If you can't come up with a use case just say so.

Remember how this discussion started? You were making the initial claim that "bits" is easier to use:

We want to get bitcoin out of the lab, so to speak. It needs to be much easier to use, and the question you should be asking, is not what do you want, but what makes better sense for the (hopefully) billions of future adopters, many of whom may be far less numerate than the average bitcoiner, and much more comfortable with a conventional 1,000.00 currency format.

To which I responded:

Do you think 1,000.00 is easier to understand than 100,000 for the next billion adopters?

Causing you to ask for use cases:

On usability, if you want to argue that, put up some use cases to demonstrate your point.

Because you were making the initial claim, the burden of proof is on you!

[101111]

Not at all.  "satoshi" is a much better established term than "bit" in this context. 

That's not the issue. We're not debating over which is more established. We're looking forward and debating what may be.

This example use case illustrated how it is difficult to establish "bit" because it is already established that small amounts of bitcoin are satoshis. Looking forward, this means that establishing "bit" will always be an up-hill battle because satoshi isn't magically going to go away.

Yes of course they do, but bitcoin is not at issue, and in most contexts neither is satoshi.

Yes, "bit" is what makes the issues.

Also, notice the order used here: "1 bit = 1 satoshi", not "1 satoshi = 1 bit".

You might even notice I was the one who quoted it.

You quoted it, but you didn't even notice that it implies that the speaker is already familiar with satoshis and confused by "bits".

"satoshi" was not pushed in the way that "bit" was.  The first suggestion that "satoshi" might refer to 0.000 000 01 BTC was made over 3 years ago and slowly and naturally became adopted because it was a useful term which resonated with those that would use it.  There were no leagues of "satoshis" threads where people denounced the term, came up with various alternatives.  There was no crowd of SI proponents claiming "10 nans" to be superior.

Now you're just being silly. Have you ever actually looked at the bits proposal? Do you know what you are talking about?

A quick glance at teukon's recent posts reveals that you are talking bullshit.

Sorry but this is all just quasi-religious, irrational nonsense.

The weaknesses of "bits" won't go away by ignoring them.

If you can't come up with a use case just say so.

Remember how this discussion started? You were making the initial claim that "bits" is easier to use:

We want to get bitcoin out of the lab, so to speak. It needs to be much easier to use, and the question you should be asking, is not what do you want, but what makes better sense for the (hopefully) billions of future adopters, many of whom may be far less numerate than the average bitcoiner, and much more comfortable with a conventional 1,000.00 currency format.

To which I responded:

Do you think 1,000.00 is easier to understand than 100,000 for the next billion adopters?

Causing you to ask for use cases:

On usability, if you want to argue that, put up some use cases to demonstrate your point.

Because you were making the initial claim, the burden of proof is on you!

Well done, you've so well managed to justify irrational quasi-religious nonsense with your own illogical twists that in the process you've dug yourself in so deep you're locked in a psychotic delusion.

Any further attempt at rational discourse here is simply a waste of time.

[KingOfTrolls]

Well done, you've so well managed to justify irrational quasi-religious nonsense with your own illogical twists that in the process you've dug yourself in so deep you're locked in a psychotic delusion.

Any further attempt at rational discourse here is simply a waste of time.

Ad-hominem attacks aren't valid reasoning, either.

What's your point, actually?