Denoting bitcoin prices for consumers

[NealKenneth]

Something that has always bothered me about bitcoin is that it is messy when it comes to denotation.  If this really is the currency of the future, it's not nearly as easy for consumers to identify a value as it could be.  For example, when you're discussing 87 hundred millionths of a bitcoin, you could write it as 0.00000087BTC or 87 satoshis or 0.87 microbitcoins.  That's four different ways to denote the same value and I'm not even sure that they match!

I propose a simple way to denote Bitcoin.  Suppose that we consider the total of all currency in the blockchain as 1.000000000000000000BTC instead of 21,000,000BTC.  In this scenario, if someone were to own 70% of all bitcoins, it would be denoted as 0.7BTC instead of 14,700,000BTC.  One result of this system of denotation is that the first digit (preceding the decimal) becomes practically irrelevant.  What I mean is, all transactions and balances would be denoted 0.XXXXBTC, making the first digit essentially irrelevant in the sense that it would always be zero for normal uses.

This irrelevancy allows the decimal-preceding digit(s) to be used for an alternative purpose: indicating the number of leading zeros post-decimal.  For example, to express a value of 0.034% of all bitcoin, the denotation of 0.00034BTC would be shortened to 3.34BTC because there are three leading zeros post-decimal.  A few more examples:

1.4BTC = 0.04BTC
7.667BTC = 0.0000000667BTC
0.18BTC = 0.18BTC
14.2215BTC = 0.000000000000002215BTC
4.901BTC = 0.0000901BTC

The digit preceding the decimal point is atypical in regards to value when using this system of denotation.  12.87BTC would be worth a lot less than 5.87BTC, despite the fact that 12 is greater than 5, while the digits following the decimal would function as normal (5.87BTC is less than 5.91BTC).  This initially seems very peculiar, but it has a useful effect.

In this system of denotation, a greater starting digit ALWAYS indicates a smaller value.  If you saw an item listed for 0.00000001BTC from one vendor and 0.0000000099999999BTC from another vendor, how quickly could you figure out which option is cheaper?  With the proposed system of denotation, the answer is obvious.  You can be absolutely certain that 8.99999999BTC is cheaper than 7.1BTC because 8 is greater than 7.

With the current way microprices are listed in bitcoin, it is very easy to mistake the value of something by a factor of 10 because it only requires the presence of one additional zero.  This is a huge problem for a currency with irreversible transactions.  For example, suppose an item costing 0.0040506708BTC is accidentally or criminally listed as 0.040506708BTC, a value ten times higher.  How many consumers would notice the difference?

In the proposed system of denotation, the actual price would be listed as 2.40506708BTC and the accidental/criminal price would be listed as 1.40506708BTC.  A false price would be obvious to the consumer.  The example also demonstrates that the proposed system allows for much greater divisibility without increasing confusion.  If the currency were utilized by ten billion people who frequently used micro-transactions, divisibility beyond satoshis would become critical and the proposed system accommodates this elegantly.  A single satoshi is about 15.47BTC in the proposed system, and a thousandth of that would be 18.47BTC.  In our current system, these values are 0.00000001BTC and 0.0000000001BTC.

We need to consider how prices in the real world are denoted in bitcoin if we want the real world to use them.  To me, it's laughable to think that Wal-Mart is ever going to list candy bars as 0.00000075BTC ($0.75 in the scenario that bitcoin are worth a million dollars.)  So many pointless zeros are required!  The proposed denotation (13.36BTC) is much more reasonable.  Not only does it require five less digits, but it also combats accidental/criminal price misunderstandings.

Finally, the proposed system of denotation expresses a more meaningful value.  14,700,000BTC is essentially meaningless, but 0.7BTC can be interpreted as a value equaling 70% of all bitcoin.  All transactions and balances could easily be interpreted as a shares or percentages of the total network with the proposed system.  To me, this seems much more like the pricing system of the future than what we are currently using.

Let me know what you think and if you have any questions!

[o0o0]

Something that has always bothered me about bitcoin is that it is messy when it comes to denotation.  If this really is the currency of the future, it's not nearly as easy for consumers to identify a value as it could be.  For example, when you're discussing 87 hundred millionths of a bitcoin, you could write it as 0.00000087BTC or 87 satoshis or 0.87 microbitcoins.  That's four different ways to denote the same value and I'm not even sure that they match!

I propose a simple way to denote Bitcoin.  Suppose that we consider the total of all currency in the blockchain as 1.000000000000000000BTC instead of 21,000,000BTC.  In this scenario, if someone were to own 70% of all bitcoins, it would be denoted as 0.7BTC instead of 14,700,000BTC.  One result of this system of denotation is that the first digit (preceding the decimal) becomes practically irrelevant.  What I mean is, all transactions and balances would be denoted 0.XXXXBTC, making the first digit essentially irrelevant in the sense that it would always be zero for normal uses.

This irrelevancy allows the decimal-preceding digit(s) to be used for an alternative purpose: indicating the number of leading zeros post-decimal.  For example, to express a value of 0.034% of all bitcoin, the denotation of 0.00034BTC would be shortened to 3.34BTC because there are three leading zeros post-decimal.  A few more examples:

1.4BTC = 0.04BTC
7.667BTC = 0.0000000667BTC
0.18BTC = 0.18BTC
14.2215BTC = 0.000000000000002215BTC
4.901BTC = 0.0000901BTC

The digit preceding the decimal point is atypical in regards to value when using this system of denotation.  12.87BTC would be worth a lot less than 5.87BTC, despite the fact that 12 is greater than 5, while the digits following the decimal would function as normal (5.87BTC is less than 5.91BTC).  This initially seems very peculiar, but it has a useful effect.

In this system of denotation, a greater starting digit ALWAYS indicates a smaller value.  If you saw an item listed for 0.00000001BTC from one vendor and 0.0000000099999999BTC from another vendor, how quickly could you figure out which option is cheaper?  With the proposed system of denotation, the answer is obvious.  You can be absolutely certain that 8.99999999BTC is cheaper than 7.1BTC because 8 is greater than 7.

With the current way microprices are listed in bitcoin, it is very easy to mistake the value of something by a factor of 10 because it only requires the presence of one additional zero.  This is a huge problem for a currency with irreversible transactions.  For example, suppose an item costing 0.0040506708BTC is accidentally or criminally listed as 0.040506708BTC, a value ten times higher.  How many consumers would notice the difference?

In the proposed system of denotation, the actual price would be listed as 2.40506708BTC and the accidental/criminal price would be listed as 1.40506708BTC.  A false price would be obvious to the consumer.  The example also demonstrates that the proposed system allows for much greater divisibility without increasing confusion.  If the currency were utilized by ten billion people who frequently used micro-transactions, divisibility beyond satoshis would become critical and the proposed system accommodates this elegantly.  A single satoshi is about 15.47BTC in the proposed system, and a thousandth of that would be 18.47BTC.  In our current system, these values are 0.00000001BTC and 0.0000000001BTC.

We need to consider how prices in the real world are denoted in bitcoin if we want the real world to use them.  To me, it's laughable to think that Wal-Mart is ever going to list candy bars as 0.00000075BTC ($0.75 in the scenario that bitcoin are worth a million dollars.)  So many pointless zeros are required!  The proposed denotation (13.36BTC) is much more reasonable.  Not only does it require five less digits, but it also combats accidental/criminal price misunderstandings.

Finally, the proposed system of denotation expresses a more meaningful value.  14,700,000BTC is essentially meaningless, but 0.7BTC can be interpreted as a value equaling 70% of all bitcoin.  All transactions and balances could easily be interpreted as a shares or percentages of the total network with the proposed system.  To me, this seems much more like the pricing system of the future than what we are currently using.

Let me know what you think and if you have any questions!

Your proposed system seems to just adjust the current holdings people have to sound larger. I personally think there is nothing wrong with the current system. 21 million max bitcoin is fine. People tend to know this as the upper maximum and comparing that to the current holding of satoshi's or bits people have is fine. Bitcoin is something new its a different system. We shouldn't try to match it to an old failing currency system just because its what people are used to. Sometimes a new start is good.

Satoshi's are fine as is and the concept of holding 1BTC as 100,000,000 satoshi's is fine. It doesn't adjust the way of thinking for people that have been with bitcoin from the start. There are more important things than denomination to discuss. Adoption is more paramount than how to represent it. We need to get out there and spread it and get more involved. The masses will decide if 100,000,000 satoshi's per bitcoin is too hard to deal in sales once we get that mass adoption.

[KingOfTrolls]

I also made a little write-up of my opinion on bitcoin's denominational issues:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=845203.0

Something that has always bothered me about bitcoin is that it is messy when it comes to denotation.  If this really is the currency of the future, it's not nearly as easy for consumers to identify a value as it could be.  For example, when you're discussing 87 hundred millionths of a bitcoin, you could write it as 0.00000087BTC or 87 satoshis or 0.87 microbitcoins.  That's four different ways to denote the same value and I'm not even sure that they match!

I propose a simple way to denote Bitcoin.  Suppose that we consider the total of all currency in the blockchain as 1.000000000000000000BTC instead of 21,000,000BTC.  In this scenario, if someone were to own 70% of all bitcoins, it would be denoted as 0.7BTC instead of 14,700,000BTC.  One result of this system of denotation is that the first digit (preceding the decimal) becomes practically irrelevant.  What I mean is, all transactions and balances would be denoted 0.XXXXBTC, making the first digit essentially irrelevant in the sense that it would always be zero for normal uses.

This irrelevancy allows the decimal-preceding digit(s) to be used for an alternative purpose: indicating the number of leading zeros post-decimal.  For example, to express a value of 0.034% of all bitcoin, the denotation of 0.00034BTC would be shortened to 3.34BTC because there are three leading zeros post-decimal.  A few more examples:

1.4BTC = 0.04BTC
7.667BTC = 0.0000000667BTC
0.18BTC = 0.18BTC
14.2215BTC = 0.000000000000002215BTC
4.901BTC = 0.0000901BTC

The digit preceding the decimal point is atypical in regards to value when using this system of denotation.  12.87BTC would be worth a lot less than 5.87BTC, despite the fact that 12 is greater than 5, while the digits following the decimal would function as normal (5.87BTC is less than 5.91BTC).  This initially seems very peculiar, but it has a useful effect.

In this system of denotation, a greater starting digit ALWAYS indicates a smaller value.  If you saw an item listed for 0.00000001BTC from one vendor and 0.0000000099999999BTC from another vendor, how quickly could you figure out which option is cheaper?  With the proposed system of denotation, the answer is obvious.  You can be absolutely certain that 8.99999999BTC is cheaper than 7.1BTC because 8 is greater than 7.

With the current way microprices are listed in bitcoin, it is very easy to mistake the value of something by a factor of 10 because it only requires the presence of one additional zero.  This is a huge problem for a currency with irreversible transactions.  For example, suppose an item costing 0.0040506708BTC is accidentally or criminally listed as 0.040506708BTC, a value ten times higher.  How many consumers would notice the difference?

In the proposed system of denotation, the actual price would be listed as 2.40506708BTC and the accidental/criminal price would be listed as 1.40506708BTC.  A false price would be obvious to the consumer.  The example also demonstrates that the proposed system allows for much greater divisibility without increasing confusion.  If the currency were utilized by ten billion people who frequently used micro-transactions, divisibility beyond satoshis would become critical and the proposed system accommodates this elegantly.  A single satoshi is about 15.47BTC in the proposed system, and a thousandth of that would be 18.47BTC.  In our current system, these values are 0.00000001BTC and 0.0000000001BTC.

We need to consider how prices in the real world are denoted in bitcoin if we want the real world to use them.  To me, it's laughable to think that Wal-Mart is ever going to list candy bars as 0.00000075BTC ($0.75 in the scenario that bitcoin are worth a million dollars.)  So many pointless zeros are required!  The proposed denotation (13.36BTC) is much more reasonable.  Not only does it require five less digits, but it also combats accidental/criminal price misunderstandings.

Finally, the proposed system of denotation expresses a more meaningful value.  14,700,000BTC is essentially meaningless, but 0.7BTC can be interpreted as a value equaling 70% of all bitcoin.  All transactions and balances could easily be interpreted as a shares or percentages of the total network with the proposed system.  To me, this seems much more like the pricing system of the future than what we are currently using.

Let me know what you think and if you have any questions!

The system that you propose is exactly equivalent to scientific notation.


For example, a number like 0.00001234 is written as 1.234 × 10⁻⁵ in scientific notation. The green part is called significant and the blue part is called exponent.

In your proposed variant of scientific notation, the exponent is written to the left of the point, and the significant is written to the right of the point. Also, you assume a negative exponent by default and decrement it by one, i.e.:

1.234 × 10⁻⁵ (scientific notation) = 4.1234 (your proposed system)

It is important to realise that your proposed system is nearly the same as scientific notation, because this allows us to judge how likely it is to be adopted by the average consumer.

Will the average consumer adopt scientific notation? I'm afraid the answer is no.


As explained in my write-up I believe that we should use plain integers (1, 2, 3, ...) for bitcoin denominations, because these are most intuitive for the human brain to deal with.

Your proposed system seems to just adjust the current holdings people have to sound larger. I personally think there is nothing wrong with the current system. 21 million max bitcoin is fine. People tend to know this as the upper maximum and comparing that to the current holding of satoshi's or bits people have is fine. Bitcoin is something new its a different system. We shouldn't try to match it to an old failing currency system just because its what people are used to. Sometimes a new start is good.

To be fair: The OP proposes a notation that is not used for any old, failing currency system. (Scientific notation is never used for currency, as far as I know.)

Satoshi's are fine as is and the concept of holding 1BTC as 100,000,000 satoshi's is fine. It doesn't adjust the way of thinking for people that have been with bitcoin from the start. There are more important things than denomination to discuss. Adoption is more paramount than how to represent it. We need to get out there and spread it and get more involved. The masses will decide if 100,000,000 satoshi's per bitcoin is too hard to deal in sales once we get that mass adoption.

I absolutely agree with this.

[Stedsm]

I disagree to all of this. 1BTC should always equal 10,000,000 bits, 1,000 mbtc and 100 bitcents, respectively.

[KingOfTrolls]

I disagree to all of this. 1BTC should always equal 10,000,000 bits, 1,000 mbtc and 100 bitcents, respectively.

The problem here is that the term bits is often misunderstood and causes confusion. People will see bitcoin amounts written like 0.00012345BTC and intuitively assume that it is 12345 bits. (In fact, there are already documented cases of these misunderstandings.)

More generally, different people have different notions of what the term "bit" should mean, thus adding to the confusion.



Instead, we should use the (much more established) convention that 1 BTC = 100 000 000 sats.

Keep it simple.

[Flashman]

Ban the metric system, all that nanometers, millimeters, centimeters, decimeters, kilometers crap is too confusing.

[herzmeister]

almost as wacky as Tonal Bitcoins https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Tonal_Bitcoin 

[Flashman]

That might be a good plan, start over, rather than explain to the great unwashed that what they think they know about numbers is wrong (2001 was the start of the century/millennium!)

[crazy-pilot]

I don't like this suggestion. It would not work with the current protocol. As it stands right now you must sign a TX that spends specific inputs which contain specific bitcoin amounts. If the amount of bitcoin each input would have would change based on the total number of bitcoin mined then it would be impossible to push a TX without a fully synched wallet making cold storage impossible.

[philiveyjr]

this could get confusing when the price is 1BTC or higher.. if the price is 2.75BTC then ppl might just pay you 0.0075BTC.. :p

[odolvlobo]

Ban the metric system, all that nanometers, millimeters, centimeters, decimeters, kilometers crap is too confusing.

Oh, like points, picas, inches, feet, yards, fathoms, furlongs, and miles are not confusing.

[Pierre11]

Ban the metric system, all that nanometers, millimeters, centimeters, decimeters, kilometers crap is too confusing.

Much better than feet and miles and yards for sure... At least they decent in an orderly fashion ^^ miles and feet do not, they are so random -_-

[Flashman]

Well that was sarcasm, it being straightforward and simple, meaning if people can cope with metric, WTH is wrong with millibits, microbits etc?