Quote from: KingOfTrolls on October 30, 2014, 07:07:15 PM

Quote from: jabo38 on October 30, 2014, 02:43:33 AM

Quote from: 101111 on October 30, 2014, 02:16:49 AM

Quote from: KingOfTrolls on October 30, 2014, 12:40:54 AM

Quote from: 101111 on October 28, 2014, 02:40:34 PM

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.

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

You seem to be missing the point (pun intended). 1,000.00 illustrates the format - comma separated and accurate to 2 decimal places, like dollars and cents. It's not just some random large number.

+1

We need the XXXX.00 format. That way someday 1 satoshi will psychological gravitate towards 0.01 USD. Yes, this is a real thing. At that point 1 Bitcoin will be worth 1 mill USD.

Nice pun.

But I don't miss the (decimal) point. And the Japanese population (126 million people) don't miss it either. The Yen is doing fine without any decimal places / decimal point.

Anyhow, neither of you two answered my question: Do you think introducing a decimal point makes the currency any easier to use (compared to plain integers)?
Because ease of use should be our goal here, isn't it?

Quote from: franky1 on October 30, 2014, 11:28:44 AM

i laugh at these crap polls.

as it is rather funny that there are over a dozen polls where people are trying very effort they can to denounce bits, yet if you check many many websites people are beginning to buy domains with bits in the name and not mbtc or ubtc..

You totally missed the point of this poll: There was no intention to denounce anything.

The basic idea was to ask a separate yes/no question for each unit, as opposed to just asking for the favourite option as all previous polls did.
Obviously, not everyone's favourite option can be realised, so looking for secondary choices can help reach consensus.

The only reason why the poll was negatively worded ("...do you NOT want..."), was to incentivise participants to agree with as many units as possible by asking them to actively check the box for every unit they dislike.
This should make it easier to find consensus.

Quote from: franky1 on October 30, 2014, 11:28:44 AM

top-down (micro/milli) only really works for a couple decimals. but the bottom up(satoshi/bits) works for smaller fractions of a bitcoin, which is more future proofing.

100% agreed.

A bottom-up system like sat/ksat/Msat is much better than the top-down approach BTC/mBTC/µBTC.
As said above, multiples are more intuitive than fractions.

Quote from: franky1 on October 30, 2014, 11:28:44 AM

so instead of the confusion of the different between u and m.. purely for future proofs sake the measurement will be the metric of ubit.. (100 sat) and the common name will (by already viewing the use of) be bits.

I don't see a need to have a nickname for 100 sats.

Do we have a nickname for 100 dollars? No, or at least, not that popular.
Do we have a nickname for 1000 dollars? Yes, 1000 dollars = 1 grand.

So when giving nicknames to multiples of satoshi, it appears to me that it is a better fit to go for 1000 sats, rather than 100 sats, for example:

1000 dollars = 1 grand
1000 satoshis = 1 grantoshi

The Japanese analogy is a good one, because it reminds me of when WW2 was over, a few Japanese refused to believe they had lost and kept on fighting, just as you are clutching at your belief, (good on you), but it is clear from signals in the wider community that you are fighting for a lost cause. That's not to say you can't call it whatever you like, just don't think the majority will be there with you.

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