These are good suggestions; I'm glad that the Foundation recognizes common sub-units as a problem, and is making it a priority. There is a massive psychological

These are good suggestions; I'm glad that the Foundation recognizes common sub-units as a problem, and is making it a priority. There is a massive psychological barrier to buying "only" a single bitcoin for ~$400, and most laypeople wouldn't think to assume they are divisible (after all, it's a "coin", and real coins are never split). And for whatever reason, evaluating costs intuitively becomes incredibly difficult when the decimal is on the right side; I know the difference between $100 and $1000 much better than the difference between 0.01 BTC and 0.001 BTC. However: I've grown skeptical that the developed world will ever price things natively in Bitcoins, regardless of sub-units. Not because of volatility: over time, that will be addressed by shorts/hedges/etc, and a larger liquidity pool. Rather, the obstacle is social momentum and pricing psychology. While we all pay a slow and subtle inflation tax, we generally develop an intuitive sense of what a dollar is worth. As anyone who has travelled and used foreign currencies can tell you, having to constantly do conversion math means throwing that knowledge away, and constantly wondering if you're getting ripped off. Simply put, no one wants to abandon their lifetime of experience with gauging value and prices by switching to an arbitrary new unit. I'm still bullish on Bitcoin and crypto-assets in general, but as (a) a pure-tech, worldwide middleman between fiat and fiat, (b) a way to bootstrap financial infrastructure for the third world and the unbanked, and (c) a backbone for other applications and services, with colored coins and proof-of-existence being two prototypical examples. As for driving down the street and seeing 0.009 BTC (or even 0.9 Beans) for a gallon of gas, I'm not holding my breath.