Bitcoin Wiki - User contributions [en]

User:Chinawat

2015-03-05T17:40:43Z

Chinawat: chinawat User Page

Bitcoin enthusiast and Reddit user /u/chinawat

Talk:Units

2015-03-05T17:37:02Z

Chinawat: /* Remove Tonal Bitcoins */

=="only a proposal"==
"Please note that the contents of this page is only a proposal, and in no way an official standard; at the time of writing it's not even all that popular."
* Units are an objective measure; the cyan units are defined by SI, and the green by Tonal
* As far as application to BitCoin, there is no such thing as "official", as it is an authorityless system
--[[User:Luke-jr|Luke-jr]] 01:03, 8 March 2011 (GMT)

Until tonal system is not widely used (at least it will be used by more than 1 person), it is rather confusing than useful to mention such units (even as proposal). So I simplify page to only units that is used.
[[User:Aleš Janda|Aleš Janda]] ([[User talk:Aleš Janda|talk]]) 23:59, 26 August 2012 (GMT)

Perhaps two pages are necessary, a Units_SI and a Units_Tonal and then a Units disambiguation page? - [[User:Sgornick|Sgornick]] ([[User talk:Sgornick|talk]]) 04:36, 13 November 2012 (GMT)
* The colours work just fine for that. [[User:Aleš Janda|Aleš Janda]] doesn't seem to do anything but vandalise. --[[User:Luke-jr|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr|talk]]) 02:24, 25 November 2012 (GMT)

== Bugs ==

The tonal column contains many unprintable characters (Firefox on Ubuntu 12.10). What are they supposed to mean? --[[User:Goonie|Goonie]] ([[User talk:Goonie|talk]]) 16:37, 5 April 2013 (GMT)
* They're high-bit tonal digits, so they require a tonal-compatible font. [http://luke.dashjr.org/education/tonal/glyphs/fonts/Luxi/LuxiTonal.ttf Here is one] that I made to fix with the Luxi Mono font family. --[[User:Luke-jr|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr|talk]]) 16:43, 5 April 2013 (GMT)

== User friendly subunit ==
We need a user friendly bitcoin subunit. The users usually use currencies with two decimal positions, so the proposal is to use the 1e6 subunit to have this two decimal positions.
The proposal for the name of this unit is microcoin where 1 bitcoin = 1,000,000.00 microcoins. We need also a currency symbol for this subunit, the proposal is to use the existing symbol
whith unicode \u289 and html code ʉ
You can also read the [[Bitcoin_symbol]] discussion
What do you think about?

* I think you mean micro-bitcoin, which already exists... --[[User:Luke-jr|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr|talk]]) 02:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
* @Luke-jr I'm thinking about microcoin, is shorter than microbitcoin and in my opinion more user friendly because of the fact that microbitcoin seems
as a micro part of bitcoin and psychologically the user wants to have a whole not a part of a coin, so bitcoin is the unit and equivalent to 1,000,000.00 of microcoins.
You can read the [http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin Wikipedia Bitcoin units] as microcoin [[User:Igarciaes|Igarciaes]] ([[User talk:Igarciaes|talk]]) 07:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

** "micro-" is a well-defined SI prefix. If you want to give it a custom name, I suggest you may be more successful with something unique. Removing the "bit" from "bitcoin" doesn't psychologically remove "micro-" anyway. Wikipedia is a medium of propaganda, not a relevant source. --[[User:Luke-jr|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr|talk]]) 11:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
*** Thank you @Luke-jr

== Split that page into Standard (or "Commonly Accepted") and Tonal sections ==

I think this table would be much less confusing if we split the tonal units to a separate table. Very few people use the tonal system, so it makes sense to differentiate it from the commonly accepted units. [[User:Aceat64|Aceat64]] ([[User talk:Aceat64|talk]]) 22:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Hm, there's only 3 more commonly used units (BTC, mBTC/bits, and satoshis) - maybe it would be better to just have a dedicated text about those three above the table? Another possibility is some icon by them in the table. --[[User:Luke-jr|Luke-jr]] ([[User talk:Luke-jr|talk]]) 06:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

== Remove Tonal Bitcoins ==

I think any mentions of Tonal Bitcoins should be removed from this page as this wiki is for Bitcoin, not altcoins. The creator of Tonal Bitcoins calls it "First (and best) altcoin ever: Tonal Bitcoin (TBC)" - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=218388.0 , and seeing as alts were removed from such pages as [[List of address prefixes]] (by Luke - https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=List_of_address_prefixes&diff=48686&oldid=24158 ), these units that even fewer people care about should also be removed.

[[User:ThePiachu|ThePiachu]] ([[User talk:ThePiachu|talk]]) 01:52, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
: NAK. There is significant code that exists for Tonal Bitcoin, it has a strong educational and adoption-assist component, and it is actively maintained and used by Luke and the most significant centrally-managed Bitcoin pool. [[User:Midnightmagic|Midnightmagic]] ([[User talk:Midnightmagic|talk]]) 22:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I fully support the removal of Tonal Bitcoin information from this page. When present, the irrelevant and extremely esoteric Tonal content commingles with pertinent Bitcoin information resulting in unnecessary confusion. I strongly dispute [[User:Midnightmagic|Midnightmagic]]'s contention that including this distracting information assists in user adoption. [[User:Chinawat|Chinawat]] ([[User talk:Chinawat|talk]]) 17:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Units

2015-03-05T15:04:41Z

Chinawat: Undo revision 54896 by Luke-jr (talk)

While units in Bitcoin usually follow the Standard Metric Notation system, this page lists the most commonly-used units. These can be expressed in any number of ways, from using some form of the prefix to an abbreviation of both the prefix and adding Bitcoin. Bitcoin as a unit of account is sometimes written without capitalization, but since it is not a genericized term yet and refers to one specific type of crypto-currency, capitalization is left as an exercise for the reader.

{| class="wikitable sortable"
|-
! Unit !! Abbreviation !! Decimal (BTC) !! Alternate names !! Info
|-
| Algorithmic Max || - || 20,999,999.9769<ref>[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28sum%28210000*floor%285000000000%2F2^i%29%29%2C+i%3D0+to+32%29%2F10000000 Wolfram Alpha Calculation]</ref> || - || Current Max Possible: 20999839.77085749<ref>Current actually possible must take into account duplicate coinbases, destroyed fees, and provably destroyed coin outputs including the unspendable Genesis block. Some of this can be derived from 'bitcoin-cli gettxoutsetinfo' and subtracting that value from the then-current theoretically-possible maximum. As of this writing, it is 160.20604251 of unspendable BTC.</ref>
|-
| megaBitcoin || MBTC || 1,000,000 || - || Rarely used in context
|-
| kiloBitcoin || kBTC || 1,000 || - || Rarely used in context
|-
| Original Block Reward || - || 50 || block || Until [[Halving day 2012|block 210000]]
|-
| Current Block Reward || - || 25 || block || As of [[Halving day 2012|block 210000]]
|-
| decaBitcoin || daBTC || 10 || - || Rarely used in context
|-
| Bitcoin || BTC || 1 || coin || Base unit (100 million [[satoshi (unit)|satoshis]])
|-
| deciBitcoin || dBTC || 0.1 || - || Rarely used in context
|-
| centiBitcoin || cBTC || 0.01 || bitcent || Frequently used until the [[November 2013 bubble]]
|-
| [[millibit|milliBitcoin]] || mBTC || 0.001 || millibit, millicoin, millie || Thousandth of a Bitcoin, frequently used subdivision
|-
| [[bit (unit)|microBitcoin]] || μBTC || 0.000001 || bit || Millionth of a Bitcoin, frequently used subdivision
|-
| Finney<ref>[http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2ewp3z/i_propose_we_rename_00000001_btc_as_the_finney/ After Hal Finney, Bitcoin Pioneer]</ref> || - || 0.0000001 || Finney || 10 millionth, 1e-7
|-
| [[Satoshi (unit)|satoshi]] || - || 0.00000001 || ''none'' || 100 millionth, 1e-8, smallest possible unit
|}

==See also==
*[[Tonal Bitcoin]]
*[[Satoshi (unit)]]

==References==
<references />

[[de:Einheiten]]

Talk:Paper Wallet (Single Key)

2015-02-27T12:41:23Z

Chinawat: /* Why rename Paper Wallets to "Paper ECDSA private keys"? */

== Running paper wallets off of live websites ==

Let's never recommend this to users. It is ALWAYS a bad idea to run HTML/JS off of a live website. It does not matter whether you disconnect from the Internet after loading up the HTML -- the code you have loaded may already have been tampered with. At the moment, virtually all HTML/JS based wallet generators allow downloading from github with easy checksumming, so let's always recommend downloading the ZIP file and running entirely offline after verifying signatures.

[[User:Canton|Canton]] ([[User talk:Canton|talk]]) 22:51, 20 January 2014 (GMT)

== Self Promotion ==

As bitcoinpaperwallet.com guy, I admit to it! :) But I also think there should be some good guidelines considering the most recent edits to this page:

1) When listing services, let's alphabetize them, or put them in chronological order (oldest and most venerable to newest). Bitaddress.org shouldn't get pushed to the end of the list just because pointbiz doesn't actively monitor this page.

2) When discussing general topics (like entropy) it's inappropriate to link out to a particular websites. The only time you should link to an external website is from the references section, or when the link clearly indicates you're going to be sent to an external website.

[[User:Canton|Canton]] ([[User talk:Canton|talk]]) 22:51, 20 January 2014 (GMT)

== Paper wallets a bad idea - why? ==

Recently the article was changed to add a 'why' tag to the idea that 'storing Bitcoin' on a paper wallet is a generally perceived to be a bad idea. I have to agree with that tag. I actually find the opposite when reading about the best way to store one's private keys. Perhaps it should be expanded instead to a Pros / Cons section? The 'Printer Security' section would then be merged into the Cons section. [[User:TheRealSteve|TheRealSteve]] ([[User talk:TheRealSteve|talk]]) 14:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
:I don't know why this is so discouraged either. If anything, I think this page should be shortened and merged into the [[paper wallet]] page under a new section to prevent confusion. New users may not know what an ECDSA private key is, even if they have theirs on paper. [[User:Taras|Taras]] ([[User talk:Taras|talk]]) 14:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
::I added that tag, because I think it's poor form (in general) to say: "This is a bad thing to do" and not offer any explanation. People who have the knowlegde to say that, also should be able to explain it.

::Judging from the history the two were separated to differentiate between HD paper wallets (although I would call those "Paper backups" and Single key "paper wallets". One reason given is that a single key on a paper is not a wallet. I think it's debatable if a HD seed printed on paper makes that paper a wallet. For proper wallet functionality you'll need some way to sign and send a tx, so anything "paper" is not a proper wallet, IMHO. But of course nobody thinks of a wallet that can sign txs etc., if they say "paper wallet" to begin with.

::I support merging this with paper wallet and also a pro/con section. [[User:Newar|Newar]] ([[User talk:Newar|talk]]) 15:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

:::I support merging and having a pro/con section as well. I think this page should be renamed back to "Paper Wallet". It's fine to have a section on other forms of paper backups (e.g. HD mnemonic paper backups) but I don't like at all how HD mnemonic paper backups are now the default destination for "Paper Wallet" since this will certainly confuse anyone who has read about paper wallets in books, articles, forums, etc.
:::[[User:Canton|Canton]] ([[User talk:Canton|talk]]) 22:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Canton

== Paper wallets vs cold storage ==

The term 'paper wallets' also seems to be used at times for objects made out of metal, plastic, etc. To avoid that mixup further, should the article instead be renamed 'Cold storage' or even 'Storage methods', listing the various methods (be that an offline computer which doesn't need more than 1 paragraph, or literal paper wallets, physical coins (e.g. Casascius), insert-your-method-here? [[User:TheRealSteve|TheRealSteve]] ([[User talk:TheRealSteve|talk]]) 14:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
:I think since "Paper wallet" is such an ubiquitous and well known term, it should have its own page. An overview over different "Cold storage methods" would then link to that page. Or make a category "Cold storage methods" and have a page for each, but most can be summarised in a single paragraph, so I'd lean to the overview solution. [[User:Newar|Newar]] ([[User talk:Newar|talk]]) 15:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

== Why rename Paper Wallets to "Paper ECDSA private keys"? ==

Why has "Paper Wallet" -- a well understood term in the bitcoin community -- been renamed to "Paper ECDSA private keys"?

It seems to me that if someone is searching for information about paper wallets, they should get information about those things everyone calls paper wallets.

While paper wallet may be a misnomer (they're not always made of paper, and they're not wallets in the truest sense) it's the commonly understood term for what you get when you carry around a ECDSA private key on a non-digital artifact (paper, wood, metal, etc.)

Renaming this page to "Paper ECDSA private keys" would be like going to wikipedia and renaming the entry for "Koala Bear" to "Koala Marsupial" since it's not truly a bear.

[[User:Canton|Canton]] ([[User talk:Canton|talk]]) 22:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Canton
:I fully support reverting back to the term "Paper Wallet". I think the change to "Paper ECDSA private keys" is so ridiculously unsupported that it should be considered vandalism.
:[[User:Chinawat|Chinawat]] ([[User talk:Chinawat|talk]]) 12:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

== Is there a good reason to omit bitcoinpaperwallet.com from this page? ==

LukeJr has repeatedly removed the link to [[BitcoinPaperWallet]] with the explanation "BitcoinPaperWallet was removed because it is a website for generating private keys".

By that logic, every single service for generating paper wallets (e.g. bitaddress.org) should be removed.

I'm not clear as to what the intent here is, and I'm not eager to get into a revision battle. Can someone explain why BitcoinPaperWallet shouldn't be linked?

[[User:Canton|Canton]] ([[User talk:Canton|talk]]) 22:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Canton

Talk:Paper Wallet (Single Key)

2015-02-27T12:40:58Z

Chinawat: /* Why rename Paper Wallets to "Paper ECDSA private keys"? */

== Running paper wallets off of live websites ==

Let's never recommend this to users. It is ALWAYS a bad idea to run HTML/JS off of a live website. It does not matter whether you disconnect from the Internet after loading up the HTML -- the code you have loaded may already have been tampered with. At the moment, virtually all HTML/JS based wallet generators allow downloading from github with easy checksumming, so let's always recommend downloading the ZIP file and running entirely offline after verifying signatures.

[[User:Canton|Canton]] ([[User talk:Canton|talk]]) 22:51, 20 January 2014 (GMT)

== Self Promotion ==

As bitcoinpaperwallet.com guy, I admit to it! :) But I also think there should be some good guidelines considering the most recent edits to this page:

1) When listing services, let's alphabetize them, or put them in chronological order (oldest and most venerable to newest). Bitaddress.org shouldn't get pushed to the end of the list just because pointbiz doesn't actively monitor this page.

2) When discussing general topics (like entropy) it's inappropriate to link out to a particular websites. The only time you should link to an external website is from the references section, or when the link clearly indicates you're going to be sent to an external website.

[[User:Canton|Canton]] ([[User talk:Canton|talk]]) 22:51, 20 January 2014 (GMT)

== Paper wallets a bad idea - why? ==

Recently the article was changed to add a 'why' tag to the idea that 'storing Bitcoin' on a paper wallet is a generally perceived to be a bad idea. I have to agree with that tag. I actually find the opposite when reading about the best way to store one's private keys. Perhaps it should be expanded instead to a Pros / Cons section? The 'Printer Security' section would then be merged into the Cons section. [[User:TheRealSteve|TheRealSteve]] ([[User talk:TheRealSteve|talk]]) 14:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
:I don't know why this is so discouraged either. If anything, I think this page should be shortened and merged into the [[paper wallet]] page under a new section to prevent confusion. New users may not know what an ECDSA private key is, even if they have theirs on paper. [[User:Taras|Taras]] ([[User talk:Taras|talk]]) 14:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
::I added that tag, because I think it's poor form (in general) to say: "This is a bad thing to do" and not offer any explanation. People who have the knowlegde to say that, also should be able to explain it.

::Judging from the history the two were separated to differentiate between HD paper wallets (although I would call those "Paper backups" and Single key "paper wallets". One reason given is that a single key on a paper is not a wallet. I think it's debatable if a HD seed printed on paper makes that paper a wallet. For proper wallet functionality you'll need some way to sign and send a tx, so anything "paper" is not a proper wallet, IMHO. But of course nobody thinks of a wallet that can sign txs etc., if they say "paper wallet" to begin with.

::I support merging this with paper wallet and also a pro/con section. [[User:Newar|Newar]] ([[User talk:Newar|talk]]) 15:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

:::I support merging and having a pro/con section as well. I think this page should be renamed back to "Paper Wallet". It's fine to have a section on other forms of paper backups (e.g. HD mnemonic paper backups) but I don't like at all how HD mnemonic paper backups are now the default destination for "Paper Wallet" since this will certainly confuse anyone who has read about paper wallets in books, articles, forums, etc.
:::[[User:Canton|Canton]] ([[User talk:Canton|talk]]) 22:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Canton

== Paper wallets vs cold storage ==

The term 'paper wallets' also seems to be used at times for objects made out of metal, plastic, etc. To avoid that mixup further, should the article instead be renamed 'Cold storage' or even 'Storage methods', listing the various methods (be that an offline computer which doesn't need more than 1 paragraph, or literal paper wallets, physical coins (e.g. Casascius), insert-your-method-here? [[User:TheRealSteve|TheRealSteve]] ([[User talk:TheRealSteve|talk]]) 14:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
:I think since "Paper wallet" is such an ubiquitous and well known term, it should have its own page. An overview over different "Cold storage methods" would then link to that page. Or make a category "Cold storage methods" and have a page for each, but most can be summarised in a single paragraph, so I'd lean to the overview solution. [[User:Newar|Newar]] ([[User talk:Newar|talk]]) 15:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

== Why rename Paper Wallets to "Paper ECDSA private keys"? ==

Why has "Paper Wallet" -- a well understood term in the bitcoin community -- been renamed to "Paper ECDSA private keys"?

It seems to me that if someone is searching for information about paper wallets, they should get information about those things everyone calls paper wallets.

While paper wallet may be a misnomer (they're not always made of paper, and they're not wallets in the truest sense) it's the commonly understood term for what you get when you carry around a ECDSA private key on a non-digital artifact (paper, wood, metal, etc.)

Renaming this page to "Paper ECDSA private keys" would be like going to wikipedia and renaming the entry for "Koala Bear" to "Koala Marsupial" since it's not truly a bear.

[[User:Canton|Canton]] ([[User talk:Canton|talk]]) 22:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Canton
:I fully support reverting back to the term "Paper Wallet". I think the change to "Paper ECDSA private keys" is so ridiculously unsupported that it should be considered vandalism.
[[User:Chinawat|Chinawat]] ([[User talk:Chinawat|talk]]) 12:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

== Is there a good reason to omit bitcoinpaperwallet.com from this page? ==

LukeJr has repeatedly removed the link to [[BitcoinPaperWallet]] with the explanation "BitcoinPaperWallet was removed because it is a website for generating private keys".

By that logic, every single service for generating paper wallets (e.g. bitaddress.org) should be removed.

I'm not clear as to what the intent here is, and I'm not eager to get into a revision battle. Can someone explain why BitcoinPaperWallet shouldn't be linked?

[[User:Canton|Canton]] ([[User talk:Canton|talk]]) 22:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Canton