No, it isn't. Satoshi himself described this in the whitepaper. Jack and this guy are on ego trips and think they have the authority to dictate what the entire bitcoin community should call sats. It's okay, though. No one seems to care about either of their opinions anymore. Sats are sats; the vast majority of the community has come to a consensus on this. This guy is just trying to stir up drama and grab attention.
Discussion
Who is this other guy? Jack I feel is quite good at course correcting. I am pretty sure his design is about discovering what does not work. He's an experimenter and a learner through trial and error for the collective good, and with his high profile he is in the spotlight with lots of opportunity to be judged for any of his failures. And of course he'll have those. How else do you learn?
This Farooq guy. Jack hasn't proved to be good at course correcting when it comes to bitcoin. He still stands by spreading misinformation about the naming of the smallest unit of a bitcoin, which is something the vast majority of the global bitcoin community have come to a clear consensus on: sats NOT bitcoins. Bitcoin and it's community are all about consensus. If we lose that quality, then bitcoin just becomes more confusing to the general public. Satoshi said there are only 21 million coins in the whitepaper. Jack and all other BIP-177 supporters are trying to convince everyone that there are now 2.1 quadrillion bitcoins... which isn't true. He may be an experimenter, but there's nothing to experiment with when it comes to this matter, especially when the vast majority of a decentralized currency have come to an overall agreement that it is sats not bitcoins.
Got it. This Farooq right here in my comments section? 👆🏻👇🏻He published the bip177?
From my understanding, yes. And it's already undergone a great amount of public scrutiny, even from bitcoin supporters outside of nostr.
From what I've observed, BIP-177 has also contributed to an increasing level of mistrust for BitKey, as well. Let's be honest, the security measures for BitKey pose some significant red flags to begin with: trusting Block Inc. with one of your keys and a lack of a seed phrase. This is NOT a good way to educate the public on independent financial responsibility.
Thank you, for sharing. I think it's important to voice what you believe in and are passionate about defending. It's good feedback for the entire field. It seems like it depends which projects and products you are looking at coming from block the target demographic determines what education is focused on (potentially).
Ok, but what is your opinion on this?
Can you reiterate what part Satoshi described in the white paper?
You could just read the whitepaper. It's not long.
Those "sats should be called bitcoins" nonsense will make more sense if you do. 🫡😎
I have read it. Never hurts to do again. But you could also clarify what you were referring to 😌😊
That there are only 21 million bitcoin that will ever exist that can be subdivided into smaller units. Not 2.1 quadrillion. I'm a little confused, now. Can you elaborate a bit on what part confuses you?