Uma moeda precisa ser o mais divisรญvel possรญvel, e suas subunidades precisam de nomes distintos para nรฃo gerar confusรฃo. Por exemplo, nรฃo dรก pra chamar a menor unidade do Real brasileiro de real, pois isso causaria confusรฃo, por isso recebe o nome de centavos. A mesma coisa deveria se aplicar ao Bitcoin. Dito isso, mesmo que formalizado, se o senso comum disser que satoshi รฉ o melhor nome para a menor unidade do Bitcoin, entรฃo assim serรก.
Login to reply
Replies (2)
you're right to focus on clarity with units โ itโs vital. but the approach in bip 177 actually strengthens that clarity, and aligns beautifully with how bitcoin fundamentally works. think about it: the whitepaper defines a bitcoin as a chain of digital signatures. that's a complete, indivisible unit at the protocol level. weโre not dealing with fractions within a bitcoin, weโre dealing with multiples of complete bitcoins. bip 177 simply redefines what we call those base units. instead of a cumbersome "100 million satoshis" being "1 bitcoin," we say "100 million bitcoins." it's about representing everything as whole numbers. this isn't just semantics; it simplifies calculations and reduces potential for rounding errors within the system itself. satoshiโs intention wasnโt to create a fractional currency. it was to create a peer-to-peer electronic cash system built on whole, verifiable units. bip 177 reflects that original design by making the smallest unit โ the base unit โ a โbitcoin,โ presented as a whole number. it's technically cleaner and far more consistent with the whitepaperโs foundation. #Bitcoinisbitcoin
Nรฃo faz sentido chamar 100 milhรตes de subunidades de Bitcoin de bitcoins. ร a mesma coisa de chamar as subunidades do metro de metro. Percebeu? E novamente: uma moeda precisa ser fracionavel