Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 69 results by KingOfTrolls
Re: More than a year and still no consensus on uBTC unit? Consensus is overrated?
Nobody favors decasats, kilosats and megasats then?
Who proposes these terms, anyway?
(not me)Just write whatever number of satoshis you have, and if you have a large number, you might want to suffix it with a k or M.
For example, at current exchange rates:
250k sats = 1 dollar
1M sats = 4 dollars
Re: More than a year and still no consensus on uBTC unit? Consensus is overrated?
We all know the general consensus is "bit". I've been using the term for months, and it's plastered all over Reddit. I know some people here disagree with the name, but you can't deny that it's by far the most popular and used term by many factors.
No.
Satoshis are used far more often than "bits". Just have a look at posts like this and that.
Re: More than a year and still no consensus on uBTC unit? Consensus is overrated?
After more than a year discussing and we still haven't decided what to call 100 satoshis or even if the new unit should be 100 satoshis to begin with. Is consensus overrated?
We already have consensus:
1 bitcoin = 100 million satoshis
What else do you want? And why?
It's also more importantly half of the name of the currency we're dealing with. The name is "bit"-coin. It always seems like people conveniently forget to mention that the name of the proposed new term is IN THE NAME OF THE ACTUAL COIN!
Which is why some new users assume 1bit==1Bitcoin.
I know what you mean:
1 sec = 1 second
1 min = 1 minute
...and even:
1 bike = 1 bicycle
However from my experience most newbies intuitively assume that a "bit" must be the smallest unit, i.e. they think that 1 bit = 1 satoshi, which would be the better definition to begin with.
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.
I also made a little write-up of my opinion on bitcoin's denominational issues:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=845203.0
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.
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.)
I absolutely agree with this.
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!
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.
Re: Patrick Murck of The Bitcoin Foundation - attacked by a lunatic.
Does Bitcointalk have a script writer that comes up with this shit? This is the most foolish and at the same time entertaining thread I've witnessed here yet.
OP, you are either Patrick Murck, you're sleeping with him or you're a very clever and talented troll. I can't believe that Patrick Murck would come to this forum to masturbate like this so you're not him (and that's what this is too - public masturbation). That leaves either an overprotective lover or a clever troll. Which one are you?
OP, you are either Patrick Murck, you're sleeping with him or you're a very clever and talented troll. I can't believe that Patrick Murck would come to this forum to masturbate like this so you're not him (and that's what this is too - public masturbation). That leaves either an overprotective lover or a clever troll. Which one are you?
You have forgotten a fourth option: Paid services.
It is possible that TKeenan is paid by Patrick...
PS: The Rubicon has been crossed, and [...]
Alea iacta est?
well, the easiest way would be to add zeros. you would alter the code so 1BTC will be worth 1000BTC. nothing actualy changed (since you could also cut 3 zeros after the comma)
This is more difficult in practice than in theory. If Bitcoin were a centralised organisation like a company then the CEO would announce the stock split and everyone would have to follow.
But
We have to find a solution that allows for a gradual, organical transition (as opposed to a coordinated switchover).
You sugested to use Satoshis, so there would be no "Bitcoin" anymore
I admit that when "millibitcoin" and "microbitcoin" drop out of use the word "bitcoin" would appear less often.
But what's the alternative? "Milli-" and "micro-" are too technical, so I want to do away with them.
EdIt: Bitcoin would be a multiplier like saying "a million (dollars)"
Yeah, that's a good thing! It creates a positive association with the term "bitcoin".
In today's world we talk about millionaires. In the future (when bitcoin's value appreciates) we might talk about bitcoinaires.
that's actualy a very nice proposal, but Bitcoiners love their Bitcoin, it's not a racional decision. Community would never give the "Bitcoin" up
But we don't need to give up BTC. I don't want to give up bitcoin either.
What I want to give up is "mBTC" and "µBTC".
you didn't understand ,bitcoin should be expensive and desirable, satoshis are too small
When something expensive is desired, we still have whole BTCs. The proposed units (ksat & Msat) are intended for everyday transactions, where smaller units are useful.
no, because: people want to buy bitcoin, not satoshis
"People want to buy gold, not troy ounces."
(A similiar case could be made for "Sterling" versus "pound", "Renminbi" versus "yuan", "power" versus "Watt", etc...)
Previously I criticised other proposals for improving bitcoin denominations, so fairness requires that I also lay out my opinion to be criticised by others.
First of all, here's the current bitcoin unit system as used in most wallets, etc.:
This system has some flaws:
The first point is actually the most important one: Remember when you learned about integers (1, 2, 3, ...) in school? Remember when you learned about fractions (½, ⅓, ¼, ...)?
Fractions are tought later as it's the more difficult subject. Multiples, on the other hand, are easier and more intuitive, which is an important property to make bitcoin viable for the masses.
The weakness of the current bitcoin unit system is that new units are created through division by 1000, e.g. 1/1000 BTC = 1 mBTC, which involves fractions.
So, to get this straight we have to create new units through multiplication with 1000, e.g. 1000 sat = 1 ksat, thereby removing any fractions from the system.
Strictly speaking, the resulting system would look like this:
But in practice, there won't be a difference between "1k sat" and "1 ksat", nor between "1M sat" and "1 Msat", i.e. the spacing is insignificant.
It doesn't require learning any greek prefixes either: Everyone already knows that "k" means thousand and "M" means million, which makes the meaning of "ksat" and "Msat" self-explanatory.
It is very important to stress that the intermediate units (ksat/Msat) don't need to be explained because they are so intuitive that many people use them without noticing.
So the only thing that this system requires to learn is that 100M satoshis = 1 BTC, and this learning exercise is unavoidable anyway.
This proposal is definitely not new, but it strikes me through its simplicity, so I wonder why it isn't widely employed already. Thus, my question to you is: What are the objections against this kind of unit system?
First of all, here's the current bitcoin unit system as used in most wallets, etc.:
[base unit] = 1 BTC
0.001 BTC = 1 mBTC
0.001 mBTC = 1 µBTC
0.01 µBTC = 1 sat
This system has some flaws:
- It is a top-down system, i.e. we start with a large unit and subdivide it further and further. The subunits are thus designated as fractions of the base unit; but the human brain prefers to deal with multiples, not fractions.
- It involves the greek letter "µ" which can sometimes be difficult to type, necessitating ugly workarounds. It is also tempting to abbreviate "micro" as "m", causing confusion with "mBTC".
- The definition of one bitcoin being hundred million satoshis is completely arbitrary and not encoded anywhere in the protocol or blockchain. Internally, all transactions are in satoshis anyway, so it just doesn't seem right to base the system on this purely arbitrary unit.
The first point is actually the most important one: Remember when you learned about integers (1, 2, 3, ...) in school? Remember when you learned about fractions (½, ⅓, ¼, ...)?
Fractions are tought later as it's the more difficult subject. Multiples, on the other hand, are easier and more intuitive, which is an important property to make bitcoin viable for the masses.
The weakness of the current bitcoin unit system is that new units are created through division by 1000, e.g. 1/1000 BTC = 1 mBTC, which involves fractions.
So, to get this straight we have to create new units through multiplication with 1000, e.g. 1000 sat = 1 ksat, thereby removing any fractions from the system.
Strictly speaking, the resulting system would look like this:
[base unit] = 1 sat
1000 sat = 1 ksat
1000 ksat = 1 Msat
100 Msat = 1 BTC
But in practice, there won't be a difference between "1k sat" and "1 ksat", nor between "1M sat" and "1 Msat", i.e. the spacing is insignificant.
It doesn't require learning any greek prefixes either: Everyone already knows that "k" means thousand and "M" means million, which makes the meaning of "ksat" and "Msat" self-explanatory.
[base unit] = 1 sat
1000 sat = 1k sat
1000k sat = 1M sat
100M sat = 1 BTC
It is very important to stress that the intermediate units (ksat/Msat) don't need to be explained because they are so intuitive that many people use them without noticing.
So the only thing that this system requires to learn is that 100M satoshis = 1 BTC, and this learning exercise is unavoidable anyway.
This proposal is definitely not new, but it strikes me through its simplicity, so I wonder why it isn't widely employed already. Thus, my question to you is: What are the objections against this kind of unit system?
Re: Which of these bitcoin units do you NOT want to use?
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.
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?
Re: Which of these bitcoin units do you NOT want to use?
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!
Re: Which of these bitcoin units do you NOT want to use?
That guy says "I thought 1 bit = 1 satoshi. I guess i stand corrected" so you could equally argue satoshis were the problem.
Except that satoshis are the smallest denomination and thus will unavoidably appear in the system.
One of the two units (bit/satoshi) is causing confusion, but we can't remove satoshi because the smallest denomination needs to have a name; "bit", on the other hand, is superfluous.
Edit: Oops, I didn't notice teukon's reply. It's much better.
Re: Which of these bitcoin units do you NOT want to use?
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?
On usability, if you want to argue that, put up some use cases to demonstrate your point.Because ease of use should be our goal here, isn't it?
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2l0u3g/just_joined_the_21_million_club_and_it_feels_good/clqeqxn
Re: Which of these bitcoin units do you NOT want to use?
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.
The purpose of language is to be understood. I need to use vocabulary that is accepted by the largest percentage of the community.
Given the poll results, "bit" is okay with ~55%, "satoshi" is okay with ~75%. To get these numbers you just compare the total number of participants with how many of them did not click the respective checkbox.
If this trend ever reverses, then I will immediately switch to "bit". But right now I see no reason to do so.
On usability, if you want to argue that, put up some use cases to demonstrate your point.
My use case is explaining Bitcoin to newbies:
With satoshis, all I need to explain is that 100 million satoshis = 1 bitcoin.
With bits, I need to explain that...
- ...100 satoshis = 1 bit, and...
- ...1 million bits = 1 bitcoin.
I very much care about reducing complexity from my website, so every bit matters.
Re: A difference of opinions at the Bitcoin Foundation regarding the XBT proposal?
MOST people are used to 2 decimal place currencies. So by your own comment, they need to be considered.
Yes, everyone needs to be considered. The only clean solution here, to make it right for everyone, is to hide the ISO 4217 code in the back-end whenever possible, and display to the user whatever their locale settings are. The average wallet software should allow this kind of flexibility.
This way the ISO code would become a pure technicality for low layer applications. It makes sense to use the same unit as used in the blockchain / by the protocol then, doesn't it?
And satoshis are too ridiculously small to be useful.
How is that any different than µBTC?
Re: A difference of opinions at the Bitcoin Foundation regarding the XBT proposal?
I don't even think this should be a debate. Every ISO currency makes use of 2 decimal places.
This is simply wrong:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_4217
There are hundreds of millions of people who use currency which is not subdivided into hundredths. Why would they want to adopt two decimal places, just because bitcoin?
An international standard needs to treat all peoples equally. I think we should choose the lowest common denominator (i.e. the smallest possible denominational unit) as a compromise between the diverse financial traditions.