I donāt think this is being overblown at all. Iāve said it before and Iāll say it againāthis is an attack on Bitcoin, and a serious one. Itās not about UI, decimals, or helping users. Itās about fundamentally altering the way Bitcoin is perceivedāpsychologically, economically, and memetically.
If we rename satoshis as ābitcoin,ā weāre not simplifyingāweāre redefining. We go from 21 million bitcoin to 2.1 quadrillion. And suddenly the price goes from $105,000 to $0.00105.
Now imagine explaining that to the world. Imagine trying to sell the idea of digital scarcity and hard money, while Bitcoin appears to have a higher supply than most memecoins. Thatās not just confusionāitās narrative collapse.
And the irony? Many of the loudest voices pushing this change claim to be maximalists. They fight memecoins by turning Bitcoin into oneāon paper. A cheap, inflated, ultra-high-supply token indistinguishable from what weāve spent years trying to distance ourselves from.
You say itāll be a nothingburger in a week.
I say it will permanently fracture the mental model of the greatest monetary meme ever created.
21 million is not cosmetic. Itās the core.
You donāt throw that away just to sell the illusion that Bitcoin is still cheap.
This isnāt just bad economics.
Itās psyop-level narrative warfare.
Thatās fineābut just to be clear:
BIP-177 redefines the unit and inflates the perceived supply of Bitcoin from 21 million to 2.1 quadrillion.
Thatās more than every memecoin, shitcoin, and altcoin in existence.
Whatever the intention, the result is clear:
It shatters the scarcity meme, breaks the price psychology, and turns Bitcoināon paperāinto dust.
Disagree if you must, but please be honest about what this proposal actually does.
Yes it does impact the scarcity meme, no argument there. And Iām not even arguing that it would be insignificant- I donāt know for sure but suspect it would be less impact than you claim. Majority of the world has no idea what sats are.
Iām more in the āif it aināt broke donāt fix itā camp and see this discussion as irrelevant because itās the app designers who can make the change without any BIPs
I get your stance, and I respect it. But this isnāt just about a scarcity memeāitās about the signal we, as a community, send. Wallet developers take cues from culture. If we stand firmāāif it aināt broke, donāt fix itāāthis wonāt gain traction. But if voices like Jack Dorsey and others with massive followings normalize this shift, devs will start experimenting.
Then weāll end up with fractured UXāwallets showing different numbers, people unsure how much bitcoin they actually hold, confusion rippling through new users and media. Thatās not a UI improvement. Thatās chaos.
And whatās most alarming is that this doesnāt feel organicāit feels like an organized psyop. Weāve all seen how topics are engineered to go viral. This isnāt a joke or a harmless debate. Itās coordinated. Itās serious. And itās dangerous.
One of the loudest voices pushing this has over 6 million followers on X, and owns a company building Bitcoin wallets/ Bitkey/āhardware, mobile, and recovery tools. So yesāhe can push this into production. And if we stay silent, others will follow.
We stop it nowāor we sort through the confusion later. At scale.
It doesnāt feel engineered at all. This has been an ongoing discussion for some time. Satoshi thought about it way back then too. Iām tired of everything being seen as an attack just because one doesnāt approve it. Itās an open source ecosystem and if an app changes units thatās fine - itās their choice. The market will decide. I donāt see anything wrong with experimenting with this. In fact, I plan on doing just so with my own projects.
I donāt think any of the issues you are concerned about have as grave of consequences as you feel they do. But, I respect your opinion and remain cautiously in the donāt touch the thing that works camp for now. I fully agree itāll be confusing. When we made Banco Libre we had bitcoin as the unit instead of sats (not by design) and that was confusing to me. But I have to be aware that people like me are few in the grand scheme of things and Iād rather get feedback from normies and not rely on my personal opinion and what Iām accustomed to already.
Iāll be honestāI donāt understand why youād want to experiment with something you already admit will be confusing. At a time when the window for everyday people to access Bitcoin is rapidly closing, the last thing we need is more confusion.
And as for whether itās engineered or notāIāve been on social media long enough to recognize how viral agendas are seeded and amplified. Before Jack Dorsey picked this up, it was just another fringe idea from John Carvalho. Now itās suddenly everywhere. Thatās not organic. Thatās coordinated momentum.
Itās distraction. And it comes at the worst possible time.
Let's leave it at that.
I thought I made it clear already - people who would find it confusing are few, and people who might benefit are many.
Might benefit. I donāt know if they will.
Ultimately bitcoin requires several run ins to start getting it and learning about sats is not a huge barrier imo.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Also, I could be wrong. And Iād rather not find out.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
