Sometimes you just need to embrace the âż
Discussion
Thatâs sexy
Seriously?! Not you guys too. Horrible idea that is just going to cause confusion.
I was on a verge/mixed feelings for a long time.
What convinced me is nostr:npub1spralxq6jlw5rdy0249vqr5sh43rfrlx2wzv3rhjjqedw559w9psrs8s72 blogpost: https://spiralbtc.substack.com/p/bringing-to-the-world
This still wasn't decided but will most likely come at some point, but I don't see a reason not to leave "sats" displayed in the options
Itâs a weird article. First, it calls it âbitcoinsâ as in 4532 bitcoins for a coffee. But then calls it base units. Base units of what? Bitcoin? âYes, thatâll be 4532 bitcoin base units of bitcoinâ đ¤Śââď¸
What do we call the base unit? Bitcoin? We have a name for it already and itâs sats.
If the reverse becomes true and âbitcoinsâ becomes the base unit of âbitcoinâ then this is super confusing. I see that the author of the article decided to call it âBTCâ but this is just a trading symbol for bitcoin. Itâs bitcoin a peer to peer cash .. not BTC, a peer to peer âŚ
But I do get the feeling that most product designers will inevitably shift to the symbol as base unit since they donât need permission.
This all feels very half baked.
Sats shouldnât be called bitcoins. Itâs just another way of confusing everyone. Weâve spent years telling people that bitcoins are divisible and now we have to tell them thatâs not true anymore?
You still can call them sats. No one forces you to call it in anyway. You just see âż, you dont see âbitcoinsâ or âsatsâ on text. You see âbitcoinâ as for general meaning of this currency, but not unit
The paragraph on spoken language made me realise this
Satoshi would probably agree with symbol usage without units. As far as I recall he never used the plural version. And at one point even suggested moving the decimal point if and when it was needed.
Both units cannot be called bitcoins. I have a feeling bits will replace sats though I will always be a hardcore sats guys. But calling sats bitcoins is legitimately retarded.
âItâs bitcoin a peer to peer cash .. not BTC, a peer to peerâ
You know that in the whitepaper thereâs no mention on limited supply, so any units were not even formalized
How I see it you separate speech from written symbol. You can see âż and think âsatsâ, and some gen z sees exactly the same UI and thinks âbitcoinsâ.
You kinda let people use whatever name they like, while we all see the same, powerful symbol âż all around us, then it should organically develop through natural language and social usage and eventually ossify. Sounds counterintuitive but it has happened numerous times in history, also with money eg until 70s or so in the US, it was quite common to write prices in cents in many places, either without any currency symbol eg â50â or afaik also with $ symbol, even when meant for cents. I donât think people were confused what was cent or dollar was otherwise they wouldnât use that format
But see how both of those evolutions of how wiring units for both Bitcoin and dollar looked like relate heavily on changes in value. For Bitcoin this whole discussion is because of rapid growth, dollar did the same but over decades and in opposite direction.
I am still using sats mentally, but see using it with âż visually feels natural
Cents are still used verbally but are mostly irrelevant since you mentally wound up to dollars anyway. 6.99 becomes 6 bucks or 7 bucks depending on who you are.
With bitcoin you have to shift away from 21m to the base unit so 21m is gone - 120k per bitcoin is gone. If you accept that, thatâs fine.
Its not gone. It will probably be used differently depending on a context and its fine. Let the spoken language dictate this - and I think sats will win and ossify
Spoken language in absence of verbal units defaults to bitcoin so youâd be buying 4738 bitcoins just as you donât exchange 3634 dollar but dollar(s).
Regarding the limited supply: 
I would like to acknowledge your great commitment to the Bitcoin cause and all the effort and the level of your engagement, nostr:npub1m0sxqk5uwvtjhtt4yw3j0v3k6402fd35aq8832gp8kmer78atvkq9vgcru.
Wherever I will have a choice, I expect myself to distinguish between bitcoins (âż) and sats (whatever the sign).
An additional issue I see here is that we get biased, because the âż sign has been already implemented to the Unicode set by some centralised body and no sat sign has been decided on yet. I think we are just impatient.
Thank you Maciek!
I think you will always be able to distinguish, especially if fiat value is displayed along the way (what we try to do in Alby Hub).
Highly regarded
recurring??? yall moving zap planner connections under there?
That's the plan eventually!
No.
Me no likely
Yes!