Replying to Avatar BITwise 🐳 >>= RIGHTish

Its already too late. We have ~16 years worth of literature and media using sats terminology and attributing a specific value to the term "bitcoin".

Changing that at this stage will significantly hamper current adoption. And drastically increase confusion and risk.

There is no future adoption if there is no present adoption.
Avatar
High Heel King 7mo ago

Fair point. I think the unit bias problem can be pretty easily solved by more services adopting the sats standard.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
BITwise 🐳 >>= RIGHTish 7mo ago

I agree 0.00001453 BTC is annoying and difficult to understand.

1,453 sats is not.

Using sats does not fundamentally change the value of a "bitcoin". Changing sats to bitcoin fundamentally changes the value of a "bitcoin" and that's assuming there is consensus on the change. And even with consensus, that doesn't change the existing body of work. There are significant knock on effects.

Changing sats to bitcoin is missing the forest for the trees.

See this note

nostr:nevent1qqs2rwju2sqjv8r9c2sewru6ukxc7t5r4n7qupudj9qshpq90y76v3qpz3mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfdupzpr38l76unwuvm5qnrt0xa7jf64k5qx65ynvlm7dx8cr565nmqu2uqvzqqqqqqyha6aek