Poll: Bits for Bitcoin and <your choice> for Peercoins

General
1

I thought I would coin a few terms given the discussion about Bits on Bitcoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=592691.0

When Peercoin hits $100 :slight_smile: we need to be ready for this.

1,000,000 Bits are being defined as 1 Bitcoin. The reason is that many people don’t like all the numbers behind the dot (or comma in Europe) as they are so used to fiat. Also many financial systems do not work with more than 2 numbers behind the dot/comma. So there are good reasons to have a look at this if we want to have Peercoin going mainstream, be futureproof and have merchants to adapt it.

So I think we need to have our own Bits to differentiate. I could only think of a few suggestions:

Peerbits, Peers, Pits ?
So 1,000,000 Peerbits/Peers/Pits would be 1 Peercoin.

What do you think? What works for Peercoin?

2

I was upset when I saw Bitpay, who has cornered the cryptocurrency payment / shopping cart market so far, deciding on their own, to use BITS as a unit of measure for Bitcoin.

I’d rather pay 0.009123 BTC than 9,123 BITS

Over the last several months, I’ve become keen to understand what 0.01 BTC is worth instead of 10,000 BITS

I think it’s irresponsible, strong-arming, and a sign of bullying to the industry to announce your own way of doing things like this, simply because you’re the largest person on the block for facilitating merchant transactions like Bitpay.

If they are capable of this, what else are the capable of? I’m tired of industry leaders or corporations getting to dictate public policy in normal life. This is exactly what Bitpay is doing with this BITS thing.

To put things into perspective…

http://www.coindesk.com/bitpay-announces-plan-display-btc-prices-bits/

If I buy some thing online worth 0.009123 BTC, it sounds like a small number, and I like that… I equate that in contrast to dollars, like an insignificant amount. (Even though it’s not)

But if you ask me to pay 9,123 BITS, I find that to be incredibly expensive immediately, just by the sheer sound of something in the thousands.

This whole BITS thing is a backfire on the cryptoindustry and I’m fully against it.

Interested to hear what other people think… As usual, I like to air my opinion in the open and then find out if any one agrees. :wink:

Disclaimer: I actually love the way Bitpay works, and I think it’s a great company. But please don’t dictate to all your merchants and customers that we need to learn your way of presenting a BTC cost by renaming it in BITS. That’s just putting your own priorities first, and that’s an early sign you can’t be trusted in the long term.

3

What about: mints?

Maybe totally confusing though, but I like the sound of it.

Q: How much for the pizza?
A: 4 mints.
Q: Here you go.

(edit: yes, 4 mints will be worth more in the future)

4

0.000001 PPC is one sunny
0.00000001 BTC is one satoshi (sat)

5

[quote=“irritant, post:4, topic:2311”]0.000001 PPC is one sunny
0.00000001 BTC is one satoshi (sat)[/quote]

I like Sunnys!

for example:

“I paid 900 Sunnys for that!”

or

“You have to be kidding 50 Sunnys is way to high!”

Could a hundred Satoshis equal a Sunny; a thousand Sunnys equal a King; and a thousand Kings equal a Peercoin?

1.0 = Peercoin
0.001 = King
0.000001= Sunny
0.00000001 = Satoshi

“He’s delusional, he wants a whole King for that!” :wink:

6

[quote=“NewMoneyEra, post:5, topic:2311”][quote=“irritant, post:4, topic:2311”]0.000001 PPC is one sunny
0.00000001 BTC is one satoshi (sat)[/quote]
Could a hundred Satoshis equal a Sunny; a thousand Sunnys equal a King; and a thousand Kings equal a Peercoin?

1.0 = Peercoin
0.001 = King
0.000001= Sunny
0.00000001 = Satoshi

“He’s delusional, he wants a whole King for that!” ;)[/quote]

no, I don’t think 100 satoshi can be 1 sunny.
1 satoshi stands for the smallest unit available in bitcoin, 1 sunny stands for the smallest unit available in peercoin, there is the difference between 8 and 6 digits, so, unless you can exchange 100 satoshi (bitcoin) for 1 sunny (peercoin), at the moment 1 satoshi is $0.0000044, and 1 sunny is $0.00000207, so you need about two sunnies for one satoshi.

7

[quote=“irritant, post:6, topic:2311”]no, I don’t think 100 satoshi can be 1 sunny.
1 satoshi stands for the smallest unit available in bitcoin, 1 sunny stands for the smallest unit available in peercoin, there is the difference between 8 and 6 digits, so, unless you can exchange 100 satoshi (bitcoin) for 1 sunny (peercoin), at the moment 1 satoshi is $0.0000044, and 1 sunny is $0.00000207, so you need about two sunnies for one satoshi.[/quote]
I think @NME adapted the satoshi as being the smallest unit of both Peercoin and Bitcoin. So we have Peercoin satoshis and Bitcoin satoshis. Then it makes sense. I like the culture of giving units of fiat names. We should continue doing that but with a twist suitable for cryptos.

Like the sound of the ‘mints’. On a good day my minting resulted in receiving 100,000 mints.

@ppcman, it is a bit of a semi-serious light-hearted subject and you have a serious response. So here is my serious response. For mass adoption you need to make things as easy as possible. It is really hard when you are on the market and have to shout out "2 bunches of carrots for 0.01599 BTC. Selling them for 1599 Bits is way easier on the tongue. Merchants like Bitpay identified that problem and came up with a solution in order to increase adaptation and with that to improve their business. Changing all the cash registers and spreadsheets in the world to accommodate for 8 numbers behind the dot/comma is also challenging. The uBTC or uPPC is also an alien notification in the financial and accountancy world.

So I think it makes sense to give names to units of currency. We have been doing that for a long time and I don’t see why that would suddenly change because a currency is made digital and is kept in a blockchain. Unless it is not a currency, but an asset :slight_smile: Just my opinion.

8

I would like calling them Sunnys, so I voted for that. Maybe kings could be another one.

9

[quote=“Cybnate, post:7, topic:2311”][quote=“irritant, post:6, topic:2311”]no, I don’t think 100 satoshi can be 1 sunny.
1 satoshi stands for the smallest unit available in bitcoin, 1 sunny stands for the smallest unit available in peercoin, there is the difference between 8 and 6 digits, so, unless you can exchange 100 satoshi (bitcoin) for 1 sunny (peercoin), at the moment 1 satoshi is $0.0000044, and 1 sunny is $0.00000207, so you need about two sunnies for one satoshi.[/quote]
I think @NME adapted the satoshi as being the smallest unit of both Peercoin and Bitcoin. So we have Peercoin satoshis and Bitcoin satoshis. Then it makes sense. I like the culture of giving units of fiat names. We should continue doing that but with a twist suitable for cryptos.[/quote]

To me it is only more confusing, if the smallest unit of a cryptocurrency is named after its creator, for example satoshis with bitcoin, it would make sense calling the smallest unit of peercoin sunnies, this makes it clear about what currency you are talking when referring to sunnies or satoshis, else you still have to add bitcoin satoshi, or peercoin satoshi. It doesn’t really make sense to me to name something that has been named to something else again.

TL;DR: keep the bitcoin stuff with the bitcoins, and the peercoin stuff with the peercoins

I mean, NME was talking about 100 sat for 1 sun because bitcoin has 8 digits and peercoin 6, you cant just add 2 digits and say those are even smaller peercoin units called peercoin satoshis, ok I dont understand myself anymore :not speak:

10

I forgot that Peercoin indeed has only 6 digits for some unknown reason, while Bitcoin has 8 digits behind the dot or comma. That makes the Peerbits/Sunnys* (see poll) the smallest indivisible unit for Peercoin, but still 100 times larger than a Bitcoin satoshi.

Thanks @irritant for bringing that to our attention. It is not you being confused obviously.

11

[quote=“Cybnate, post:7, topic:2311”]@ppcman, it is a bit of a semi-serious light-hearted subject and you have a serious response. So here is my serious response. For mass adoption you need to make things as easy as possible. It is really hard when you are on the market and have to shout out "2 bunches of carrots for 0.01599 BTC. Selling them for 1599 Bits is way easier on the tongue. Merchants like Bitpay identified that problem and came up with a solution in order to increase adaptation and with that to improve their business. Changing all the cash registers and spreadsheets in the world to accommodate for 8 numbers behind the dot/comma is also challenging. The uBTC or uPPC is also an alien notification in the financial and accountancy world.

So I think it makes sense to give names to units of currency. We have been doing that for a long time and I don’t see why that would suddenly change because a currency is made digital and is kept in a blockchain. Unless it is not a currency, but an asset :slight_smile: Just my opinion.[/quote]

I am really thankful you addressed my concerns Cybnate. Thank you, I sincerely appreciate it.

You’re right, it does make sense to give names to units of currency.

I believe there is a healthy medium here, given enough discussion, comment, and final decision. The problem is that Bitpay basically announced “This is the way we think should be, and since we’re the largest payment processor, we’ve decided to make it this way, whether you like it or not”

I’m a little annoyed by that… It may have been in the right frame of mind doing it, but I think it was a little presumptuous.

"2 bunches of carrots for 0.01599 BTC. Selling them for 1599 Bits is way easier on the tongue.

You’re right, and I agree, with one exception. Paying one thousand, five hundred of any thing seems a little expensive when some thing is only worth $2 to $3 USD.

So instead of the number being insignificant with too many decimal places 0.01599 now it is the reverse, too many numbers 1,599

I really don’t believe this new way fixes things, even with a cute name next to it.

I think some thing so controversial needs to be debated in public and a consensus reached.

I am all for pretty names, the fun and game of it all. I love thinking of new ideas and getting excited by possibilities… But this is one-time decision that is going to last years and years. It is incredibly important it is decided right the first time, and adopted by the majority.

I feel like BITS was a decision rushed too quickly in, quite simply for this single reason:

“The first time I heard bitpay wanted to create BITS as a unit of measure for Bitcoin, it was already announced, already decided, and already coming into play via news articles”

…there is some thing wrong with that picture. You have an idea, and announce it, and stick to it, even before the vast majority knows it is even in the works? That’s my frustration.

12

[quote=“Cybnate, post:10, topic:2311”]I forgot that Peercoin indeed has only 6 digits for some unknown reason, while Bitcoin has 8 digits behind the dot or comma. That makes the Peerbits/Sunnys* (see poll) the smallest indivisible unit for Peercoin, but still 100 times larger than a Bitcoin satoshi.

Thanks @irritant for bringing that to our attention. It is not you being confused obviously.[/quote]

at current market price you still get only half a satoshi for one sunny, it seems like comparing apples with pears, saying the smallest unit of peercoin is 100 times bigger than the smallest unit of bitcoin, yes is true because of the digits, but not in any other way, it is complicated (to me at least), but I wouldn’t just say this because it sounds like 1 sunny is worth 100 satoshis (we all would love that of course), while it is just a different thing

13

[quote=“NewMoneyEra, post:5, topic:2311”]1.0 = Peercoin
0.001 = King
0.000001= Sunny[/quote]

I think that sounds good. With regards to the poll, I voted for “Sunny” as the name of 0.000001 PPC.

And I think that Cybnate hit the nail on the head. People need convenient names when they talk about things. If they are not guided, they will for sure find their own way of naming things (which wouldn’t be bad at all).

The way of suggesting names is what seems to bother ppcman (and me as well!). It would have been nicer by Bitpay to suggest rather than to claim what these units shall be called.
That way of claiming what is right (and implicitly telling what’s wrong) is in conflict with the crypto coin idea which is based on a deeply fundamental democratic approach that needs consensus!

So I kindly suggest that 1 uPPC could be called 1 Sunny if one is looking for a name.

14

0.01 cent, peercent, PPc?

15

If for some reason I had to pick a second option in case sunny doesn’t get chosen, I pick peerbit. Sunny is my first choice though.

16

A “sunny” may sound like a fine idea, today, but I don’t think it will be something that will resonate in the future with users outside this community.

17

There is a dropdown list in Peercoin (PPCoin) Wallet -> Send coins for the amount. That dropdown list has three options: PPC, mPPC, uPPC. This is consistent with m, mm, um for meter and s, ms, us for second.

18

Thanks for pointing that out. You seem to be happy with that. I’m not so much and I think we need less scientific designations and more convenient names for broader adoption. Maybe we can have them both in future wallets each as part of another theme?

19

You are probably right on that. Those things evolve and other names might catch on. We used to have names for fiat banknotes in Holland based on what picture was on there or even totally different names where I wouldn’t have a clue where it came from, but you knew what people meant.

As I said in my previous post, maybe we can have themes on those names in Peerunity 0.3 or 0.4 or so.

20

Before decimalisation, names of coins in Britain included: penny, tanner, shilling (also known as a “bob”), florin, half-crown & crown

Names of coins in the US: penny, nickel, dime, quarter. Although US currency is decimal, the nickel and quarter are non-decimal divisions, echoing the British practice - a nickel is a 20th of a dollar, like a shilling is a 20th of a pound, and a quarter-dollar replaced the crown, which is a quarter of a pound.

My point being that, in non-decimal systems, units have names and “identities”. Thus, an inch is an independent unit, as well as being a division of a foot. One is not senior to the other. Similar with time: a “minute” has its own identity, quite distinct from a “week”.

Traditional systems have these names because they evolved, from the ground up, over centuries. Each unit has its own purpose and, as Cybnate says, names just appear and catch on

Decimal systems or, more accurately, milli-systems, are created much more quickly, virtually overnight in historical terms, and so the smaller units have no separate identity - they are sub-divisions (or multiples) of a base unit, preceded by micro-, milli-, centi-, mega-, etc.

If the peercoin system developed “naturally”, no one would dream of thinking in terms of “500-thousands of a peercoin”, or “250 milli-peers” - people would simply talk in terms of half-peers and quarter-peers

We therefore have a difficult task, as we are creating, more or less instantly, a milli-system, but wanting to give sub-units “organic” names, normally associated with fractions and binary multiples (x2, x4, x8, etc.)

Another challenge is that we do not know how much a peercoin will be worth in the future. The reason for the poll (seeking a name for a millionth of a peercoin) is that we need names for milli-units now, to make the system usable if peercoin goes to $1,000.

I would argue something quite different: that if peercoin goes to $1,000 or higher, we should consider re-deploying the name “peercoin” to a more practical amount (e.g. $10). Peercoin is a good name, and it should settle at a level where people are likely to use it on a daily basis.

Many European countries have done this, knocking zeros off their numbers, so that instead of needing, say, 10 francs to a buy a pencil, the currency was adjusted so that it would take only 1 franc. It is an illusion, of course, the pencil still costs the same compared to everything else, but from a psychological point-of-view, it encourages acceptance.

I voted for peerbit as a name for a sub-unit, but prefer it as a hundredth of a re-scaled peercoin, rather than a millionth of a larger peercoin.