Nostr Web Client

Yeah it’s an interesting problem. Most currencies have a subunit, Bitcoin is quite extreme having such a large single unit and such a small subunit. Over time the single unit would become more and more abstract for most people - for instance if it’s 10 million dollars for one BTC.

In essence there’s only 1 bitcoin, I think that’s the real understanding, 21m is just an arbitrary number.

Maybe another means would be to base the value assignment around utility. Like peg it for initial assignment to a fiat currency value. Like 1btc = 1-5usd something in that range for example, then it would have a similar user experience to most currencies. Although, that would have to be recalibrated from time to time to account for deflation.

code monkey 7mo ago 💬 1

Yeah, I am all for trying to get the base units to be standard, I just don't think you can rename it "bitcoin". You don't have to use sats as the name. We tried mBTC and intermediary units that never caught on. If branding is the problem then call it something with the name "bitcoin" in it. microbitcoin and macrobitcoin...idk, I prefer sats but I guess that's too much to ask.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

KD9to 7mo ago

Yeah I guess it would be unusual. It would be like renaming cents as dollars and that being the only denomination. I think there’s definitely utility in having at least two denominations, it helps in accounting, pricing and speech.

Perhaps we could peg the price of one bitcoin to the price of a cup of coffee in the developed world and make a sat 100th of that and a microSat a further 100th for micro transactions.