I dont disagree but how many people are coming to bitcoin from a code perspective and can understand this rationale? Very few and those who are, likely are already bitcoiners. Adoption requires consistency. Changing terminology on a fundamental level 16 years later just so laymen language better mirrors code language. Right when Bitcoin is being adopted on a governmental level forcing bitcoin to leach into the normie zeitgeist. Seems foolish at best. - The term bitcoin will represent two different values. This is a disaster for automated systems and interoperability. - Socially confusing and can cause disasters for individuals when making p2p transactions. Imagine how easy it would be to scam someone for the wrong bitcoin denomination. - From educational standpoint how many books videos podcasts write-ups etc have to be clarified for a normie to further untangle? "Oh no this bitcoin is way more valuable than this bitcoin cause the book was written last year." ?! At best its a bad "marketing" move. All of this to achieve what? A little bit less confusing way to count it? Proof of work requires people to learn the language. Why are we changing the existing language to suit them? In any case, the best tech does not always win. This is not something we need to max optimize. Let it be what it is. Imo we point our efforts elsewhere. There are bigger fish to fry.

Replies (5)

By far, youโ€™ve just laid out the best argument Iโ€™ve seen for sats. Iโ€™ll have to chew on this for a bit. All I know right now is that 8 decimal points sucks.
Iโ€™m on team Quadrillion, but this is a very solid argument for why ditching sats is not beneficial nevent1qqs2rwju2sqjv8r9c2sewru6ukxc7t5r4n7qupudj9qshpq90y76v3qpyfmhxue69uhkummnw3ez6an9wf5kv6t9vsh8wetvd3hhyer9wghxuet5kjp4fu nevent1qqs2rwju2sqjv8r9c2sewru6ukxc7t5r4n7qupudj9qshpq90y76v3qpyfmhxue69uhkummnw3ez6an9wf5kv6t9vsh8wetvd3hhyer9wghxuet5kjp4fu
nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqquxdpn0xlh4zqw9k3patfqml9nnndqkyd9e642sfxzlycj5279pqy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnyv9kh2uewd9hj7qghwaehxw309aex2mrp0yh8qunfd4skctnwv46z7qpq2h0sstzrc7acfjk47xgpvx3v2yuhqz0w55ruqv2fxs0jevksnr8q69urpp
I agree 0.00001453 BTC is annoying and difficult to understand. 1,453 sats is not. Using sats does not fundamentally change the value of a "bitcoin". Changing sats to bitcoin fundamentally changes the value of a "bitcoin" and that's assuming there is consensus on the change. And even with consensus, that doesn't change the existing body of work. There are significant knock on effects. Changing sats to bitcoin is missing the forest for the trees. See this note View quoted note โ†’
โ†‘