Replies (60)
💯 ⚡ 1 bitcoin = bitcoin
Sats are the standard
View quoted note →Some dumb counter example: "Yes, but it's hard the folks to do a bit of learning so engineers should go through all that hardship."
Well said!
Stop changing others, and start changing yourself.
Put efforts into valuable stuff! Dont try to create value out of thin air, and get yourself hustlin.
TheBitcoinBattery
In my view:
1 Bitcoin will always equal 1/21,000,000 of the total network.
1 Sat will always be the smallest unit of measure on the Bitcoin network.
However 1 Bitcoin will not always equal 100,000,000 SATs. As value per Bitcoin intensifies, 1 Bitcoin will be subdivided further and the new smaller units will then be considered SATs.
View quoted note →
💯 . To clarify, the BIP actually proposes to specifically NOT change the definition for 'BTC'; only 'bitcoin'. So, it's not even internal consistent with it's stated motivation of "[aligning] user perception with the protocol's true nature" by eliminating a required representation for "eight simulated decimal places".
FWIW, I believe the lightning network is already setting the standard 'millisat' (1/1000th sat) for when the need arises for smaller units. As the OP points out, changing a unit of account (even sats) would likely cause way more problems than it would purportedly solve.
That's exactly what's wrong with it. It assumes the internal representation as "truth" as opposed to what users know. Internal representations change all the time. They are never truth. What users see is truth.
nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqquxdpn0xlh4zqw9k3patfqml9nnndqkyd9e642sfxzlycj5279pqy88wumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmv9uq36amnwvaz7tmwdaehgu3wvf5hgcm0d9hx2u3wwdhkx6tpdshsqgr5a20n9tsw2s8sfpphq9awg22wm73uygz5c8tgv63egwtz52ne7ym0kt38
If 1 Sat every equals $1, or $10, or even more, then it'll be so obviously needed that the network will be updated. IMO this is just a matter of time.
1 BTC = 1 BTC
FOREVER!!!!
Here, this should get you through the next couple of cycles.
Instead of arguing sats vs bitcoin, we should be figuring out what to call these.
No 2. Is wrong. The idea is that BTC is the 100_000_000 thing and remains so.
All people are saying is call sats lower case bitcoins.
I don't care either way. But at least criticise the real suggestion.
Countless people are criticising the bip for what they think it says not what it actually says.
Again, I don't care either way, but if you follow that bip, then 1 BTC remains 1 BTC, you rename "sats" to "bitcoins"... if you have a problem with that, discuss that.
Sats are not anywhere near the status of BTC ... at all.
View quoted note →Absolutely agree. The protocol would be updated. Perhaps by scaling the base unit by 1000 so that there are 2.1 quintillion whole base units instead of 2.1 quadrillion. The protocol won't care what that base unit ends up being called by the ux software, though.
IMO, it would make a heck of a lot more sense for ux software to refer to that new base unit by a new name rather than try to redefine an already existing unit of account that currently represents 1/100,000,000 bitcoin.
The real suggestion is much worse. The BIP says that the internal represetation in core is Bitcoin. Every engineer knows that internal representations are never the truth. Internal representations are just encodings of what users want. And what users know is that we have 21M BTCs, not 2,1 quatrillion BTCs.
Your argument then is that BTC is synonymous with lower case bitcoins.
But a counter argument could be that BTC is distinct from bitcoins, and are usually pronounced bee tee cee.
The only reason this shit matters, if it does matter is that calling BTC bitcoins, instead of calling sats bitcoins, make bitcoin sound extremely unaffordable.
You can argue that normies are retarded for not knowing that BTC is millions of times bigger than what they can actually buy, but that won't help.
I hope people arguing against the bip at least engage with the unit bias argument instead of insisting that the 21 meme has anywhere near the same effect on the general population perception of Bitcoin
No, my argument is that our global "consensus" of 21 million bitcoins is bigger than any code anywhere.
But what I am saying is;
1. We don't have that consensus at all, we only have a consensus on the 21_00_000_000_000_000 units, regardless what they are called, sats or bitcoins.
2. To the extent that the "21 million" meme matters to anyone, it is regarding the token "BTC", not for the lower case bitcoins word.
3. That the negative effect of the unit bias, is way bigger than the positive effect of the 21 meme, even if you insist that the meme is "21M bitcoins" not "21M BTC"
If you disagree with that... fine, people will fight this one out in their app implementations, no one can force anyone to do anything.
Also if as a user you can't figure out what a sat is, you don't fucking deserve it
So you want to explain to the normies that Bitcoin’s price went from over 100k to 9 cents?
The normies will start laughing and say I’m not buying that shit it’s going to zero.
How was the initial BTC determined to be 100,000,000 sats? Wasn’t that kind of arbitrary to begin with?
No BTC price will stay the same.
You can tell the "normies" that BTC is a large denomination and that they can afford 1000 bitcoins.
If you think telling them they can afford sats instead... fine, but you have to engage with the fact that "sats" means absolutely fuck all to people.
1. No one even knows about the 21_00.. units. Only devs know how Bitcoin is represented in code. How can we have "consensus" on somebody nobody even knows it exists? That's not the consensus.
2. 21M is not a meme. It is on all books and all serious educational materials and software we use. Calling it a meme means you are discussing this in bad faith. You know better.
3. Unit bias is negative and will always be negative regardless of which decimal point you write "bitcoins" after. Multiple countries will have different unit biases. You can't solve this by moving the decimal.
My brain hurts
exactly
Most people have heard of Bitcoin and think they can’t afford it.
(That’s the whole point of making the decimal point disappear)
So when they see that Bitcoin is at 9 cents they will think Bitcoin has crashed all the way down from 100,000.00 to 0.09
This creates more confusion and doesn’t help anyone.
Again, you are just saying that BTC is interchangeable with "bitcoins".
I can accept that argument and the discussion ends after that because I disagree and it is too subjective to settle, and everyone can do what they want going forward.
But I disagree with the last point too, I don't think we will need to divide bitcoins further than the granularity in the code, even though I actually don't think "millisats" are fake, but I just don't think we will have that much economic activity on the Internet flowing through Bitcoin that one unit becomes too expensive.
Anyways, if only these were our biggest problems.
No one fuckin wants to change the decimal point for BTC man, the price charts will not change.
All what people say is just use "bitcoins" where you are currently using "sats".
Anyways, it doesn't matter really 😅
Let me know how many people will be pissed when they send 20000 bitcoins from your platform and the receiver only gets 0.0002 bitcoins in theirs.
Idk, at least a few media outlets would probably present it as Bitcoin crashing, and at least a few people would misunderstand the news and think it means Bitcoin is crashing even if it's presented right
Well, Bitkit already started, you let me know if the sky falls or if anyone gives a fuck at all.
What we are fighting is apathy. I know Turks bought gold instead of Bitcoins to escape inflation, even when they had to import more on containers after the local supply dried up... so let's not count are chicken before the hatch.
They can do that even if Bitcoin is at all times high, we are way past truth sir :)
Not me
I don't know anyone using Bitkit... But I just installed it and found it very confusing to generate an invoice in the right amount I wanted.
If we move to 9 decimal places in the future, it should be called a Hayek.
I'm a fan the BIP because it aligns the globally recognizable name with the base unit ("1 bitcoin" equals one base unit) and reduces the amount of things you have to explain to newcomers (what is a sat, why is it named that, etc.)
Are there proponents of BIP177 that are arguing we should continue renaming the smallest unit if/when we need ever smaller units in the future? At that point, I think using decimals are fine.
>Stock splits force updating the past since what was 1 BTC last year is now 100,000,000 BTC.
The BIP specifies maintaining 1 BTC as 1 BTC.
Yes. The other thing is that if Sats take off in a small retail context then it ties the value of Sats to agriculture, to production, to the Panama Canal, to the cost of reprinting a menu in glossy A4—to a zillion things that underpin small retail globally, and it will inevitably plateau, given that we aren't going to be adding all that much new fertile land or all that many new Panama canals.
Another way to say it is that if your money can all of a sudden buy twice as many omelettes but the number of chickens in the world hasn't changed then something's not right.
What you are basically saying is, "people are too stupid to understand a sat is a fraction of a bitcoin, but not too stupid to realise we just went from promising there will only be 21m bitcoin, to now saying there are 2.1 quadrillion"
Do you see how dumb this is?
The people I've onboarded didn't know bitcoin had an upper limit. To them, bitcoin is something they've heard about on the news whenever there are big swings up or down. I have to educate them on the rest.
Then educate them that sats are the base unit 😂
You are telling me you explained the rest and all the complexity, but the one thing we need to change is the base unit name to make it easier?
Did satoshi ever write about wanting to work with the government? 1btc is 1btc
Then why we suddenly have 2.1 quadrillion bitcoins?
Because in the BIP 1 BTC is 100 million Bitcoins. The BIP keeps the moniker "BTC" as a sort of tombstone for what is now called a Bitcoin.
Is this less confusing or is jack a deep state glowie using doublespeak?
Yes. As I said in my original post, BIP 177 is cool because it eliminates the number of thing you need to explain to onboard someone.
Them: "I think I'm ready to buy some bitcoin"
Me: "Cool, let me help you get set up"
Them: <Downloads wallet of choice>
Me: "Click the receive button, let me sent you some sats"
Them: "What's a sat?"
Me: "Well you see, the creator of Bitcoin used the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto and..."
It's cool history, but the average consumer doesn't care. They just want bitcoin :)
Less confusing to who is the question. There are maybe100,00 people in the world who know what a Sat is.
Even general Bitcoin knowledge is pretty sparse. I'd guess 80% of the world's people have no idea what 1 bitcoin is worth. Like literally if you told them it was worth 100,000 dollars they'd go "oh okay" and if you told them it was worth 1 dollar they'd also go "oh okay".
And anyone who does understand the history just wants ONE of the 21m bitcoin.
Look, this is very simple, people are not going to walk away because they now now a sat is a fraction of a bitcoin, are they?
Zero people have gotten all the way to pushing the buy button, and then decided to stay away because of the name sats.
It has never happened. Let's be honest about what this is - unit bias shitcoinery leaking into the minds of bitcoiners.
Don't you at least think that no one could ever mistake a 100Mx? As in if you saw 100,000 bitcoins on an invoice, is there a chance in hell you are going to confuse that for a 100,000BTC?
I don't know man, I just want bitcoins, I don't want sats it sounds shit.
But what I want the most is for Ark (or something) to work and scale so we can have this debate again when there are actual users.
I agree people aren't going to change their minds after hearing about SATS, but I still think it simplifies things for newcomers. Bitcoin has strong name recognition, let's build on that by not diluting it with "new" terms.
We're likely to never agree on this BIP and that's fine. Let's see where things shake out.
Wishing you a great week.
My view on simplicity - we are fighting huge Dollar network effects, taxation, slur campaigns from other shitcoins, a decade of being sneered at, a wave of scams every new bitcoin cycle, and on this long long list of things we need to overcome in order for bitcoin to be accepted and used as money, if I were to list them in priority of impact, the term sats wouldn't even be on the list.
Next time you reach the point when you say "I will now send you some bitcoin" just do it. No need to explain anything.
"You now have X bitcoin, otherwise known as Y sats"
My nan used to use Pounds, Shillings and Pence.
20 Shillings to a pound, and 12 pence to a Shilling. This was the global reserve currency at the time.
I promise you, it isn't the word 'sats' that is preventing bitcoin becoming the money lol.
Having said that, yes, enjoy the rest of the week, Austin.
nevent1qqs06ndsdxlqp4s64l8s8shf4spjn4752knsp8dgamfjza2rfvgd6fgpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgjmqqr0
Finneys
Great post
But why should we care? I can't help thinking this is a non event, or an attack to try to give some third party an ability to manipulate the math of Bitcoin as it is..
Vitor Pamplona
BIP 177 is terrible.
1. It will happen again: Multiple BTC "stock splits" will be needed over time. We will go much smaller than 1 sat. We can either create a new name for each of them or constantly change what "1 Bitcoin" means by adding or removing zeros like fiat does. To make matters worse, because it is an Ok move to make, each county can decide to redenominate BTC for their people. This is a can of worms we do not want to open.
2. Stock splits force updating the past since what was 1 BTC last year is now 100,000,000 BTC. All accounting records related to BTC must change. Since a lot of systems are stuck in time, it is likely that we will need to add date-and-timezone-dependent rules to adjust units when doing reports over old systems. This is equivalent to the current "daylight saving" problem, where each country has multiple historical tables to adjust time when doing reports.
3. The International System of Units never changes the unit of account. Users are supposed to add a prefix (nano, pico, etc) as things get small or (tera, peta) when they get too big. Keeping things historically sane significantly reduces the work of engineers. I don't need to remind anyone of the multiple mega bugs these types of conversion issues have caused over the years.
1 BTC = 1 BTC.
View quoted note →
How dare you think logically!!
