Replying to Avatar TheBitcoinBattery

In my view:

1 Bitcoin will always equal 1/21,000,000 of the total network.

1 Sat will always be the smallest unit of measure on the Bitcoin network.

However 1 Bitcoin will not always equal 100,000,000 SATs. As value per Bitcoin intensifies, 1 Bitcoin will be subdivided further and the new smaller units will then be considered SATs.
Avatar
TheBitcoinBattery 7mo ago

nostr:nevent1qqst6dc88520q8l792s6xamr60xqt96gxhstdj0zfjt6qmjynvx789gpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsyg9hel289lusx3q7cmx4tw6sd7t5ggg6de5w2ff96sjy295mmgpltgpsgqqqqqqsq0r5xl

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
Judge Hardcase 7mo ago

FWIW, I believe the lightning network is already setting the standard 'millisat' (1/1000th sat) for when the need arises for smaller units. As the OP points out, changing a unit of account (even sats) would likely cause way more problems than it would purportedly solve.

Avatar
TheBitcoinBattery 7mo ago

If 1 Sat every equals $1, or $10, or even more, then it'll be so obviously needed that the network will be updated. IMO this is just a matter of time.

Avatar
Judge Hardcase 7mo ago

Absolutely agree. The protocol would be updated. Perhaps by scaling the base unit by 1000 so that there are 2.1 quintillion whole base units instead of 2.1 quadrillion. The protocol won't care what that base unit ends up being called by the ux software, though.

IMO, it would make a heck of a lot more sense for ux software to refer to that new base unit by a new name rather than try to redefine an already existing unit of account that currently represents 1/100,000,000 bitcoin.