From Bitcoin Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

"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

--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. 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? - Sgornick (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2012 (GMT)

  • The colours work just fine for that. Aleš Janda doesn't seem to do anything but vandalise. --Luke-jr (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2012 (GMT)


The tonal column contains many unprintable characters (Firefox on Ubuntu 12.10). What are they supposed to mean? --Goonie (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2013 (GMT)

  • They're high-bit tonal digits, so they require a tonal-compatible font. Here is one that I made to fix with the Luxi Mono font family. --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... --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 Wikipedia Bitcoin units as microcoin 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. --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. 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. --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)" - , and seeing as alts were removed from such pages as List of address prefixes (by Luke - ), these units that even fewer people care about should also be removed.

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. 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 Midnightmagic's contention that including this distracting information assists in user adoption. Chinawat (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree. I have looked into other systems (including Tonal) long before I had even heard of Bitcoin, and think that they're nice, but in the end, they simply don't belong here. Tonal Bitcoin is an idea that deserves its own page, but should be confined therein. Tonal will (unfortunately) probably never reach the stage of adoption that makes it notable enough to be listed here, with units that are actually used. (That said, I think we should also omit the almost entirely unused SI units (hecto-,mega-,etc.)) Taras (talk) 21:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Any updates? I'd like to keep tonal off the units page, as discussion/consensus here seems to imply, but I'm getting some pushback by User:Midnightmagic and User:Luke-jr. Thoughts? Thanks, Bitcoinomy (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It's odd that you dispute the contention without doing anything but saying you are disputing the contention. There is real-world evidence that Tonal assists children who are trying to learn hexadecimal; Tonal units in Bitcoin are supported by significant, and ongoing, well-maintained patchsets which are used in high-volume production environments (Eligius, in specific,) and it was one of the original transformational patchsets that existed for Bitcoin. Dispute the contention, or leave the section alone. It does no harm to leave it in. Midnightmagic (talk) 00:42, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Additionally, I'll point out that notability is not a requirement for this wiki so please do not attempt to apply Wikipedia standards and practices to this wiki. Midnightmagic (talk) 00:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC)