I was on a verge/mixed feelings for a long time.
What convinced me is nostr:nprofile1qyxhwumn8ghj7mn0wvhxcmmvqywhwumn8ghj7mn0wd68yttsw43zuam9d3kx7unyv4ezumn9wsqzpqz8m7vp497agx6g7422cq8fp0tzxj87v5uyez809ypj6afg2u2ru5xv7m blogpost: https://spiralbtc.substack.com/p/bringing-to-the-world
This still wasn't decided but will most likely come at some point, but I don't see a reason not to leave "sats" displayed in the options
It’s a weird article. First, it calls it “bitcoins” as in 4532 bitcoins for a coffee. But then calls it base units. Base units of what? Bitcoin? “Yes, that’ll be 4532 bitcoin base units of bitcoin” 🤦‍♂️
What do we call the base unit? Bitcoin? We have a name for it already and it’s sats.
If the reverse becomes true and “bitcoins” becomes the base unit of “bitcoin” then this is super confusing. I see that the author of the article decided to call it “BTC” but this is just a trading symbol for bitcoin. It’s bitcoin a peer to peer cash .. not BTC, a peer to peer …
But I do get the feeling that most product designers will inevitably shift to the symbol as base unit since they don’t need permission.
This all feels very half baked.
Sats shouldn’t be called bitcoins. It’s just another way of confusing everyone. We’ve spent years telling people that bitcoins are divisible and now we have to tell them that’s not true anymore?
You still can call them sats. No one forces you to call it in anyway. You just see ₿, you dont see „bitcoins” or „sats” on text. You see „bitcoin” as for general meaning of this currency, but not unit
The paragraph on spoken language made me realise this
Satoshi would probably agree with symbol usage without units. As far as I recall he never used the plural version. And at one point even suggested moving the decimal point if and when it was needed.
Both units cannot be called bitcoins. I have a feeling bits will replace sats though I will always be a hardcore sats guys. But calling sats bitcoins is legitimately retarded.
„It’s bitcoin a peer to peer cash .. not BTC, a peer to peer”
You know that in the whitepaper there’s no mention on limited supply, so any units were not even formalized
How I see it you separate speech from written symbol. You can see ₿ and think „sats”, and some gen z sees exactly the same UI and thinks „bitcoins”.
You kinda let people use whatever name they like, while we all see the same, powerful symbol ₿ all around us, then it should organically develop through natural language and social usage and eventually ossify. Sounds counterintuitive but it has happened numerous times in history, also with money eg until 70s or so in the US, it was quite common to write prices in cents in many places, either without any currency symbol eg „50” or afaik also with $ symbol, even when meant for cents. I don’t think people were confused what was cent or dollar was otherwise they wouldn’t use that format
But see how both of those evolutions of how wiring units for both Bitcoin and dollar looked like relate heavily on changes in value. For Bitcoin this whole discussion is because of rapid growth, dollar did the same but over decades and in opposite direction.
I am still using sats mentally, but see using it with â‚ż visually feels natural
Cents are still used verbally but are mostly irrelevant since you mentally wound up to dollars anyway. 6.99 becomes 6 bucks or 7 bucks depending on who you are.
With bitcoin you have to shift away from 21m to the base unit so 21m is gone - 120k per bitcoin is gone. If you accept that, that’s fine.
Its not gone. It will probably be used differently depending on a context and its fine. Let the spoken language dictate this - and I think sats will win and ossify
Spoken language in absence of verbal units defaults to bitcoin so you’d be buying 4738 bitcoins just as you don’t exchange 3634 dollar but dollar(s).
Regarding the limited supply: 
I would like to acknowledge your great commitment to the Bitcoin cause and all the effort and the level of your engagement, nostr:nprofile1qqsdhcrqt2w8x9et446j8ge8kgmd2h4ykc6wsrnc4yqnmdu3lr74ktqpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejsz9rhwden5te0wfjkccte9ejxzmt4wvhxjmcpzemhxue69uhkzarvv9ejumn0wd68ytnvv9hxglxw8ez.
Wherever I will have a choice, I expect myself to distinguish between bitcoins (â‚ż) and sats (whatever the sign).
An additional issue I see here is that we get biased, because the â‚ż sign has been already implemented to the Unicode set by some centralised body and no sat sign has been decided on yet. I think we are just impatient.
Thank you Maciek!
I think you will always be able to distinguish, especially if fiat value is displayed along the way (what we try to do in Alby Hub).
