Because Zib Is Bitcoin, it'll only die if Bitcoin dies!

The problem is that 'bit' as binary-digit is an extremely meaningful, essential concept in what makes Bitcoin work. So important, in fact, that Satoshi named Bitcoin after the binary digit!

And, those bits are very different from a divisible-into-100 quantity. Binary digits are indivisible and work in a base-2 system. So, there are two conflicting senses right next to each other.

Then, you have the sense where 'bit' means a tiny, usually nonspecific quantity. You usually wouldn't give a precise count of 'bits' in this sense, and you certainly wouldn't say something like "45.99 bits" – because a strong connotation of the word 'bits' is 'approximate'. But in monetary amounts, precision to fractions matters... so 'bits' as a currency-value has to fight that dominant sense.

Then, you have the fact Bitcoin early adopters are already using 'bit' in places as an abbreviation for 'bitcoin' (as in 'millibits' or 'ubits'), and potential 'b'-abbreviations for 'bit' also overlap with existing 'bitcoin' abbreviations. So 'bit' is highly confusable inside this domain.

That's what 'zib' solves.


'Zib' and 'zebi' are not the same word, spelling, or sound. Also, zebibyte is a word outside of normal use, Bitcoin use, or normal scales. It's roughly equivalent to 'hextillion' (as compared to the far-more-common millions/billions/trillions).

The 'ZiB' abbreviation of zebibyte is similarly obscure/unused-in-practice, and the mixed-casing is important. If that's a problem for 'zib', then the problems for 'bit' are a hextillion times worse.


Right, these are the precedents for 'Ƶ' mentioned in the Zibcoin introductory essay and at "'zib': the friendlier name for µBTC" reference website.

They demonstrate people understand 'Ƶ' as a currency symbol, specifically a futuristic high-tech symbol, but that there are no conflicts with any real-world currency.


That's a research institute for applied mathematics and computer science, not a bank. And it's named after computing pioneer Konrad Zuse, who created the first programmable computer.

A Z.I.B. research institute is not going to be confused for a 'zib' currency unit. But a 'bit' binary-digit central to Bitcoin could be confused with a 'bit' currency unit central to Bitcoin.

I appreciate you sharing your confusion, though, as it offers a chance to clarify how 'zib' is much more distinctive (and within currency, unique) compared to 'bit'.

Help test zib-denominated tipping via ChangeTip at Reddit (or on Twitter with an @zibcoin mention):

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2502hc/who_wants_to_help_test_zib%C6%B6_tipping/

Help test zib-denominated tipping via ChangeTip at Reddit (or on Twitter with an @zibcoin mention):

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2502hc/who_wants_to_help_test_zib%C6%B6_tipping/

'zib' seems a bit weird because it's new; any made-up word faces that at first.

But made-up words also come with no meaning-collisions – they can mean precisely what is chosen – and become familiar after a few exposures.

'bit' is always going to create comprehension/abbreviation/search problems, as people try to move between the different senses. (And since the bit-as-binary-digit is the core of the Bitcoin system – the binary math that gives the currency its scarcity and security – everyone who ever tries to become a Bitcoin expert will face these clashing terms.)

A highlight from the other Zibcoin thread:

I'd also eliminate C. There's no one way to say it – it could be "yu bee tee cee", "myu bee tee cee", "yu bits", "myu bits" – and all are multisyllable mouthfuls. (Another alternative not shown, "mics", can need clarification that it's said "mikes" to avoid it being said like "micks", which can be read as a slur term for Irish.)

But there should also be an E, for the made-up synonym for µBTC 'zib', leaving the two options:


This is just as easy to say, has only one pronunciation, and avoids possible confusion from redefining 'bit'... which already has been used as an abbreviation for 'bitcoin', as in 'millibits', and has another important meaning as 'indivisible binary-digit' in the core crypto that generates/secures Bitcoin.

Zib also offers a better currency-character, 'Ƶ' (Z-with-stroke). Compare price labels:

ƀ50.00 (is that bitcoin or bits?)
Ƶ50.00

Small units (millionths) are a great idea. But the name doesn't have to be overloaded 'bits'.

Then why did you include your snowball's-chance-in-hell favorite choice, 'bitcoin redefined as 100 satoshi', but none of the others?

You're missing lots of options that have been proposed:

microbitcoin
microbits
micros
mics
µBTC
uBits
crobits
zib

It's not much use as a poll if you've already limited it to your two favorites, including one (renaming "bitcoin") that's nearly impossible to pull off without major confusion and risk of money-losing errors.

Thanks!


Sure, but they each derive from "bitcoin" through "microbitcoin"... and so while there's a logical path, they bring the issues with "micro" along with them. (Those issues being: that's a lesser-known, more-confusable SI prefix, because of the m/mu similarity, and implies something that's trifling/invisible.)

Ultimately if believing (like I do) that a handy new one-syllable 100-satoshi unit will help with broad adoptions, the choices are something that brings a lot of baggage through strong existing relationships (like 'microbit' or 'bit'), or a totally-contrived word (like 'zib') that can take on a new, precise meaning after overcoming the initial unfamiliarity.

'Zib' was the result of a search for a word that was as much like 'bit' (in size and sound) as possible... but unburdened with any prior English definition, and with distinctive abbreviation possibilities.

100 satoshis (no more than 2 digits after the decimal point) is the right unit size... but all variants of 'microbitcoin' are awkward names: "microbitcoin", "µBTC", "microbits", "crobits", "eubits", "mubits", "mics".

Unfortunately "bit" is also a problematic name. Some reasons are listed here:

http://zibcoin.org/faq#why-not-bits-to-mean-microbitcoins

The best bet would be to make-up another distinctive one-syllable word that doesn't have any conflicting meanings inside the Bitcoin system.

My proposal is 'zib', chosen to be very similar to 'bit' – usable in all the same places – with even-better options for abbreviation and no meaning-collisions. More info is at:

http://zibcoin.org

...and discussion thread....

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=529301

I really like the idea of bootstrapping other experiments off the bitcoin endowments.

I'd first considered endowment reuse in the context of a crypto-catastrophe (restarting a new currency, using an old checkpoint of endowments) or coin-civil-war (irreconcilable differences which lead to two long-lived incompatible chains, descending from some common parent). But of course the technique doesn't need to be limited to such crises; it can help other experiments bootstrap with a broad audience of proven cryptocurrency adepts.

Obviously the idea is generalizable to making a distribution that's any scaling, truncation (in time or values), partial-randomization, or other function of Bitcoin endowments, as others have mentioned.

However, I think there's another supercharged variant that's possible, that I haven't seen mentioned yet. It'll seem wacky at first, but give it some thought... it may help cement the spincoin into a certain beneficial relationship with the 'seed coin' (usually Bitcoin).  

The variant:

Rather than picking a magic checkpoint, at which the spincoin distribution (for a single genesis moment) copies the parent seedcoin, issue the spincoin as a continuing, perpetual dividend from seedcoin holdings across all time, including the past, and the future (as it arrives).  

As an example, let's call our theoretical spincoin Sumcoin, and the seedcoin Bitcoin.

Imagine that for every block-tick you've held bitcoin-satoshis, you would be entitled to an equal number of base sumcoin-units. You'd redeem them with a specific claim(bitcoin-txo, start-block, end-block) action in the spincoin chain. Did your key(s) control a 10,000 satoshi output for exactly 200 blocks? Sign your spinclaim for that holding period, get 2,000,000 sumcoin-units. (Of course, that same range of holdings can only be spinclaimed once.)

That is, the Sumcoin endowments are the integral of the mother-Bitcoin holdings. If you held Bitcoin in the past but sold it all, you can still claim some Sumcoin (as long as you've retained your keys). That is, the incentivized audience for Sumcoin is everyone who's ever held Bitcoin. And, as long as you continue to hold Bitcoin, you get a stream of Sumcoin, claimable on demand.

Of course, there's far more Sumcoin numerically, and indeed its total issuance is growing by the size of the total Bitcoin endowment every block. But that's all just a giant factor larger than Bitcoin, and completely constant/predictable in both its magnitude and to which actors it accrues.

Once all Bitcoin is issued, Sumcoin's inflation is similar to Dogecoin, a small constant amount each period. That is, unlike inflating fiat monies, it doesn't use unpredictability, or closeness to the monetary-authority, to achieve surprise redistribution.

If there is a benefit to a permanently-but-predictably inflating currency, as many have conjectured, Sumcoin might best capture that benefit in a manner complementary to Bitcoin – because it's a linked funhouse-mirror-twin of Bitcoin. (That is, it might fill this niche better than coins with demurriage or other forms of permanent inflation, and other arbitrary initial distributions.)

In the large, the relationship could fortify Bitcoin's role as the permanent, undilutable equity shares of the cryptoeconomy, with frothy Sumcoin used for lower-value/higher-velocity consumptive transactions.

Thanks! The space dog angle was pure luck, discovered after the first public posts. It kinda cries out for a "race to the moon" price graph, pitting ZIB vs a Shiba Inu, doesn't it?

 

Right, there's an extra initial explanation, but then it may become much easier in use. Though, for people further from math/finance/engineering worlds, the "micro-"/"mu" prefix is already pretty obscure... and if ever prices are mostly quoted in zib-sized units, the intervening "micro" and "millis" explanations may be skipped entirely.
 

Reddit, yes, though it hasn't triggered as much discussion as previous "we need to go to millis/micros" threads.

Other outlets, not yet, but want to, to trigger stories and discussion. Can you help with the pitch/approach? (The first floating of the zib idea, via the Medium essay, to begin collecting reactions and questions, was exactly one week ago.)

I don't expect it to be a slam-dunk, or even grab most people on first hearing. I instead expect as time goes on, and each person faces the mBTC/µBTC awkwardness repeatedly, the benefit of a unique new short name will grow on them... and 'zib' will be an available, well-documented, and unambiguous option.

I did a search of letters/sounds that meshed well with "bitcoin" and "bit" – being vaguely evocative but still different enough to avoid confusion – and "zib", "zibcoin", and the 'Ƶ' (Z-with-slash) stuck out of the bunch.

The search started with "tibcoin" - "bitcoin but with a differently-jumbled base unit" - but the sound and abbreviation are a bit too close for clarity in speech and writing. Still, having the internal 'b' was helpfully suggestive. Then, cycled through the alphabet for other leading letters for a "_ib" sound, and 'Z' stuck out as having a minimum number of spelling/meaning/speaking collisions with other English words, being symbolically distinctive and memorable, and offering the available Z-with-slash currency-like unicode character. The com/org domains were also available, so the reasoned case for the terms and examples could be placed in the easiest possible place to find and return to, for boosters to collect symbols/graphics/calculations.

As it turns out, though, alternate derivations can be chosen retroactively. A recursive backronym is one possibility:

"ZIB = ZIB Is Bitcoin" - emphasizing it's just another convenience denomination

Also, ZIB was the name given to a stray dog drafted by the Soviet space program in 1951 for a suborbital test flight. (Apparently ZIB made it back successfully.) Since many cryptocoin enthusiasts like the idea of dog mascots going to the moon, why not honor a common mutt that's been closer to the moon than any purebred?

My fellow promoter of the 'zibcoin' term, klabaki, has also suggested:


They all work to help cement the term's meaning in different ways...

Thanks!  "Most parasitic altcoin ever" – might work as a slogan for us.


That's a nice sound, too! I hadn't seen your suggestion last year, but someone had mentioned 'zub' from the same XUB currency-code reasoning on one of the recent zibcoin reddit threads. (Was that you?)


Sure, just give 'zib' a few fair trials to see if it resonates better than the "mikes"/"microbits"/"crobits"/"eubits"/etc... which of course all can be used interchangeably.

If you've spoken or written many fractional bitcoin values, you've noticed that all of the options – decimalized full bitcoin ("BTC0.0017"), millibitcoin ("1.7 mBTC"), and microbitcoin ("1,700 µBTC") – can be a little awkward.

They're logical, yes, but unlike how people usually think about money: as countable whole numbers, with a short fractional portion that's often so trifling is can be ignored.

We early adopters who have a natural enthusiasm and familiarity for math/finance details can manage with the scientific-measurement milli-/micro- units. But the next wave of potential Bitcoin users, who lean more on approximations and folk rules-of-thumb, will have more problems.

A focused solution could be to popularize a short and simple new term for the microbitcoin unit (100 satoshi), to allow everyday economic values to be expressed in whole numbers (or whole thousands), now and for the foreseeable future.

The term should be something that's easy to say and easy to abbreviate. Something that alludes to 'bitcoin' and 'bit' without overloading those terms. Something that's unambiguous-by-design, and resistant to likely causes of confusion from similarly spelled or said terms.

It should be something that can be incrementally adopted, as needed, alongside existing units - rather than requiring a big consensus or centralized decision, or a discontinuous definitional break with the past.

To meet those goals, last week I proposed a new unit name called a "zibcoin", or "zib", synonymous with microbitcoin/µBTC (100 satoshi).

In a nutshell, it gives:

  BTC1           = 1,000,000    zib = 100,000,000 satoshi
  BTC0.000001    =         1    zib =         100 satoshi           
  BTC0.00000001  =         0.01 zib =           1 satoshi

For reference at today's USD exchange rate ($575/BTC) and also adding dogecoin for comparison ($669/MegaDoge):

   $1 =   1,739.13 zib = BTC0.00173913 =   1,494.77 doge
  $10 =  17,391.30 zib = BTC0.0173913  =  14,947.68 doge 
 $100 = 173,913.04 zib = BTC0.17391304 = 149,476.83 doge

Of course, given usual practices rounding monetary values, those zib values would more likely be said as "1700 zib", "17k zib", and "173k zib".

A longer case for the term is made at:

Medium: Ƶibcoin: Your New Favorite Altcoin

Other supporting materials and Q&A/news can be found at:

http://zibcoin.org
Twitter: @zibcoin

A forum thread promoting zibcoin in the mock style of an altcoin – "The world's first altcoin that's 100% binary-compatible with Bitcoin!" - is at:

[ANN] [ZBC] Zibcoin: Bitcoin for everyone. Redeem your zibcoins now!

To get started, just try using "zib" when quoting small bitcoin values.

These threads and the zibcoin.org website will make it easy for people seeing the term/abbreviation to figure out its meaning.

It will either seem natural and better than millibitcoin/microbitcoin after a few tries, or not. Software and services will follow what people adopt.

There's no need for big up-front consensus or 'official' decision... this is an anarchic distributed project, stuff happens & thrives or withers via the sum over time of many individual decisions, and through slow-moving shared language/culture.

Somehow this thread has wound up in the "Alternate cryptocurrencies" sub-board again.

Yet, zibcoin is an alternative to the alternatives. It's the affirmative!

Embrace Bitcoin! But quote everyday small values in zib.

Not sure which prior post you're referring to, but all of these proposed changes are technically feasible (if critical mass of term-usage is achieved). No matter what units are chosen for human use, interfaces, and integration with other systems – the core protocol/system always works on integral satoshis. All of the following tallies are identical, and represented the same in the binary protocol and canonical data structures:

  21 million BTC
= 21 billion mBTC/"millibitcoin"
= 21 trillion µBTC/"microbitcoin"
= 210 trillion satoshis

Working up from a zib=µBTC unit instead, again all these can be used interchangably without really changing the atomic units of the system:

  210 trillion satoshis/cZBC/"centizib"/"cents"
= 21 trillion ZBC/"zib" (aka µBTC)
= 21 billion kZBC/kƵ/"kilozib" (aka mBTC)
= 21 million MZBC/MƵ/"megazib" (aka BTC)

For completeness, you can also think about units that exist but are so large they'd rarely be useful...

  210 trillion satoshis
= 21 thousand GZBC/GƵ/"gigazib" (aka kBTC/"kilobitcoin")
= 21 TZBC/TƵ/"terazib" (aka MBTC/"megabitcoin")

...as in, "Some estimate that Satoshi himself may own around 1 megabitcoin (1 MBTC)", or "Mt. Gox misplaced 850 kilobitcoin (850 kBTC)".

Since people easily understand large numbers, especially when rarely used, it's far more likely to emphasize the unique size of these numbers by using the smaller units:

"Some estimate that Satoshi himself may own around 1 million bitcoin" or "...1 trillion zib".

"MtGox misplaced 850 thousand bitcoin" or "... 850 billion zib".

A benefit of contriving a new term (like zibcoin/zib/ZBC/Ƶ) is that it can be used in parallel with other terms, giving time for the new term to gradually be understood and prove its worth, and always leaving the old terms understandable (in current work and archived content).

Big agreement up front isn't required, and there's no risky 'big bang' switchover date splitting software or historical records into two disjoint eras.

Instead, people just choose to use new terms incrementally more-and-more as they see the need – perhaps in reaction to either Bitcoin value-appreciation, or problems when spelling/saying other terms. Others gradually become familiar over repeated viewings, learning from context (or looking it up when first confronted).

While some have alleged this to be a fork of Bitcoin, the complete binary-protocol compatibility makes 'fork' a misnomer. It's more of a warm, loving spoon.

Come a little closer Bitcoin. We love you so much, we just wish there were a million times more of you.