Quote from: molecular on July 08, 2014, 06:15:49 AM

Quote from: dyask on July 07, 2014, 11:11:50 PM

Quote from: molecular on July 07, 2014, 05:54:34 PM

Quote from: dyask on July 07, 2014, 12:05:19 PM

Quote from: molecular on July 07, 2014, 09:43:08 AM

Quote from: Dallas5 on July 02, 2014, 01:23:36 PM

Just use BTC or satoshi (0.00000001) like in:

I just bought a car for 10 BTC!
The new Final Fantasy game will cost only 15000 satoshi!

Using mBTC, uBTC, μBTC is just unnecessary, sounds like a different coin and it will confuse a lot of people.

Coinedup and a few other sites are guilty of using mBTC.

1 satoshi is the smallest unit of BTC that's all people should have to learn. If you want massive user adoption you have to simplify things.

how is that simpler than 1 bitcoin is 1 million BITS?

Actually you mean 100 million BITS?

Actually no. 0.01 BITS = 1 satoshi

Argh! I stand corrected and BITS is the same a uBTC ... I much prefer uBTC as that is something I can EASILY understand. u = micro = 10^-6.

Yeah, BIT is just another name for uBTC. Initially I was opposed to "bits", because, well, we had the much more cleanly derived uBTC (and also mBTC). Then it dawned on me that "micro-bee-tee-cee" just had too many syllables and not everyone would value a clean derivation using metric prefixing. So I fell in love with "bits". 1 syllable, easy to pronounce, connotations with the digital world and money, future-proof, simple enough to handle / understand.

I acknowledge there can be confusion (you are a good example), but it can be overcome. I'll continue supporting the "bits" proposal.

The problem that I have with the term "bit" is that it is part of the word "bitcoin" and I would think that people could get confused as to the difference between a "bitcoin" and a "bit" as they could think that something is either massively over or under priced.