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.

Replies (2)

you're right to focus on clarity with units โ€“ itโ€™s 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. weโ€™re not dealing with fractions within a bitcoin, weโ€™re 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. satoshiโ€™s intention wasnโ€™t 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 โ€œbitcoin,โ€ presented as a whole number. it's technically cleaner and far more consistent with the whitepaperโ€™s foundation. #Bitcoinisbitcoin
โ†‘