This is not what will happen though:
- Can you pay me in Bitcoin?
- Sure, how much?
- 2k sats, here's an invoice
- sure, here you go
This is what will *actually* happen:
- Can you pay me in Sats?
- Sure, how much?
- 2k, here's an invoice
- sure, here you go
The reason is that 90% of the world will "Come to Bitcoin" by seeing a price-tag in Sats. A breakfast menu with scrambled eggs showing as 3,000 Sat (maybe the world spelled out, since we'll never agree on a symbol). So they won't come to Bitcoin, they'll come to Sats. Sats will be all they'll ever know.
Bitcoin people find it hard to see this because they can't imagine what it's like to be that person who first encounters Bitcoin in any sense from scrambled eggs. They think the fact that Sats are Bitcoin is self-evident (it's not at all).
In this future world of Sats, the word "Bitcoin" has no semantic value. It doesn't describe anything of everyday relevance. It adds no value that the word Sats doesn't already convey. It's pure baggage, and it'll disappear. This is how language always evolves.
And that would be a sad waste and slow down adoption by several years.
I don't see a problem. If dollars are called dollar-cents, it's ok. We have even nice shorter word - sats.
Totally fine.
BTW: I have used this trick during the 2017 craze. I met a guy who said that $20k for one Bitcoin is too much. I laughed and I told him I have a much better deal for him then, it's called Sats, it's fresh and cheap, he should buy.
I still see this as a non-issue and even your worst case is much better than confusing people by redefining a word with an existing definition.
You're missing the point about Dollars and Cents both being denominations you can price everyday goods in. They are both words with everyday relevance. That is not true of Bitcoin and Sats.
In the case of Bitcoin and Sats, it's only the word Sats that will have everyday relevance. The word Bitcoin won't, because it's an irrelevant denomination to people's lives.
Words just evolve that way. We used to say “pound sterling”. There was a reason. Sterling silver has 93% or more real silver so it weighs a certain amount. (Less pure silver weighs differently.) And pounds had to weigh one troy pound of sterling silver. So not all “pounds” were of the sterling type. But now the word "Sterling" no longer has semantic value in everyday life. So we've dropped it and now just say pounds—it's been relegated to the Financial Times.
That will be the fate of the word Bitcoin because it will go from having some everyday relevance (when it was small enough to) to having none. Sats will suffice for 99% of people.
Basically you're advocating for relegating the word Bitcoin to the Financial Times.
That's natural progression of the word. Not what you are proposing, that's centrally planned redifinition of word. That won't work.
Plenty of examples of where such things have worked. And this one will too. That is to say if enough teams get onboard with it, specifically teams working to approach the 99%, then it will work and 1 Bitcoin will be understood globally as the smallest individual unit—and also the daily transacting unit—as it should be.
Fortunately I would be very surprised if people went through with it.
So let's leave it as a discussion with 🍿, agree to disagree and see what happens.
Agreed 🍿🍿🍿
Good chat, good sir.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
