Thread

They changed it because no one has heard of sats- so adding it back doesn’t fix anything

👍

I like this. The fractional unit symbol can be the BTC symbol but the fractional unit name can still be sats.

Agree. IMO it seems easier to understand than just the B alone. Normies watch all the normie financial news media displaying the bitcoin price all the time, so seeing thousands of bitcoins displayed only adds to the confusion. Many normies dont even know you can attain a small fraction of a bitcoin and dont need to buy a whole coin.

@miles @jack for the last several years we have been explaining sats to our fiat friends. Let’s make sure it says ‘sats’ somewhere during checkout since a lot of them have the basic understanding that sats are like cents of dollar. What is the point of confusing normies? I don’t want to have to explain to them every time that Square POS labeling is weird. The amount of human time we are going to waste on this is gong to be ridiculous. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

That was easy

Many people have heard of the US dollar, which has “cents,” and hardly anyone is confused—paying 50 cents won’t make anyone think it’s 50 dollars. Sats can serve a similar role as the “smallest currency unit.” The correct way to display it would be: “Pay 6,980 sats or 0.0000698 BTC,” which is better. This not only ensures transaction precision, but also preserves Bitcoin culture and makes small payments easier for ordinary users to understand. If you just display “Pay 6,980 BTC,” ordinary users might mistakenly think they are spending 6,980 BTC

Can't really compare to cents, there's only 100 of them and it's easy to display 0.50. Can't do this with bitcoin. I am not defending this position, but I am merely pointing out their logic for changing it. Plus, bitcoin does not come with a subunit, it has always been just bitcoin.

Agreed. Displaying it as B 9,526 gives a sense of artificially inflating Bitcoin.

My personal opinion is not fully made up. I kind of agree that most people have probably not heard of sats so there's no harm there. It's easier to write, easier to display, looks nicer (important to me), I'm also biased since I am used to sats.. but on the other hand <insert all coutnterarguments>. I guess I just want to wait and see how the dust settles. I could go either way on this.

I understand you. We all want open discussion and to let the users decide. I’m just sharing the conclusion I got from testing with a few friends around me. Explaining that 1 Bitcoin = 100 million sats is as simple as explaining 1 + 1 = 2 😂. They found my latest design draft very easy to understand. There’s no confusion or misunderstanding from the absence of the sats unit like before.

Bitcoin has had mBTC. And μBTC, more commonly known as bits, though both of these have somewhat fallen by the wayside as sats became valuable enough to be talked about themselves. I'm not going to worry about what people who've barely heard of Bitcoin haven't heard about within Bitcoin. Especially when the idea of telling them that Bitcoin is worth 0.09 cents is probably the most confusing thing you can say to them given that they thought it was worth over $100,000. And yes, I've had to have that discussion with someone who was dealing with an application that used this confusing notation, and it definitely added confusion to his onboarding.

All of our sample sizes are too small and likely biased.

I think someone will invent a relatable unit that they understand in their own context. For fun, I invented the unit ‘banana’ which equates to 100 sats. Right now a banana is actually about 175 sats, but soon people will be saying ‘that coffee will cost you 10 bananas’ (likely not, but it’s a fun thought experiment)

Show leading zeros as grey to understand amount of one full bitcoin imho

Like this B0.00009256sats

Big improvement for sure.

bip177 is an evolution to align the measurement with the currency

I agree, I think that's easy enough to understand for most people and removes confusion. Every currency I can think of at one point had the smallest unit named something different, so I don't see how it's hard for anyone to understand sats are the smallest unit.