Somewhat of a long shot, but if we could achieve it would be great for adoption:
Login to reply
Replies (21)
That is one purpose of the BIP, to force people to learn that Bitcoin is not actually divisible and we cannot add more decimals places because it uses whole integers.
I'll PR this to microsats
That ship has already sailed.
We must make *sats* the main unit, and keep the Bitcoin name for the network/protocol, imo.
🫂
I'm not against it, although the transition period would be confusing
I thought 1 bitcoin always equals 1 bitcoin?
Sats would have to disappear entirely. Are we all too entrenched now?
“There will only ever be…”
2,100,000,000,000,000 bitcoins
doesn’t have the same ring to it does it 😅
We’ve already settled on1 bitcoin being100.000.000 sats, there’s no discussion
Nope 🤣
1 dollar is 100 cents, it’s the same thing
Technically you're discussing.
Nope, you’re trying to make it a discussion rn, there’s no discussion, you can call sats whatever you want, if the majority of users call them sats, they are called sats.
yea, it would be a major ux improvement
Its currently hardcodes to simulate 8 decimal places using integers. Wouldnt be hard to increase that to 11 or 16.
What is "hardcoded" is a limit of 2.1 quadrillion base units.
I can already hear the midwit chorus: 'Then it wasn’t a fixed number of 21 million—they produced more!'
Agree that satoshis should be renamed bitcoin.
Think of it like a 100 million for 1 stock split.
View quoted note →
I actually disagree because there is no actual decimal place. It’s just an integer. Which means making more granularity in a soft fork is actually a lot messier than it seems.
Hope this happens. Better now than later