Yeah, no. Things worked fine as they are for the last 16 years. John isn't the first to make this notion and he wont be the last. Let's not waste time and energy on things we don't have to change. There is only 21 million Bitcoin and 2.1 quadrillion sats. Call them bits if you please or magic sprinkel dinkel but the supply and denomination is not to be changed no matter what smart money, influencers or wall street thinks about that.
Unit bias is an issue with Bitcoin. Newcomers often buy Dogecoin or other altcoins simply because they can own "a lot" of them, while the idea of ever owning a whole Bitcoin feels impossible. One proposed solution by nostr:npub13ndpm2hm9hud4azsq5euhf5mv3d05r90wymwxsd7rdn29609hhvqp60svh is to shift the language from 21 million bitcoins to 2.1 quadrillion bitcoins. Bitcoin is a great brand name and using satoshis or sats can be confusing. This would fix that too.
However, I feel this proposal would create confusion too, especially for those new to Bitcoin and for the media—because for 16 years, people have heard there are only 21 million bitcoins. Explaining that the total supply hasn’t changed, only the denomination, would be exhausting. Personally, I think calling them “sats” isn’t very intuitive, they should’ve been called “bits”, but at this point, I don’t really care.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Discussion
It's definitely not the unit name that's stopping people from buying or using Bitcoin. It takes 10 seconds to learn what a Sat is vs a Bitcoin. When you can't get people to understand that, there's something else holding them back that pure logic won't reveal to you.
So the push for renaming says a lot more about John than the naming conventions.
At least everyone is talking about this. It's called engagement farming.