I actually agreeâSatoshi himself likely wouldnât have cared what we called the smallest unit. He didnât seek attention or legacy in that way. But thatâs precisely what makes naming sats in his honor so meaningful.
It wasnât about branding. It wasnât a decision made by him.
It was a decision made by usâthose who chose to adopt, build, and believe in Bitcoin.
Calling them sats isnât vanity. Itâs collective memory.
Itâs how decentralized cultures anchor their history: not with signatures, but with symbols.
And over time, âsatsâ became part of Bitcoinâs memetic gravityâa unit, a story, a tribute.
Thatâs not worship. Thatâs history.

Of course I also call sats the "cents" of Bitcoin, but I assure you that when I first heard about them I thought they were another shitcoin.
It's just habit, it's a tribute to a person who didn't want tributes.
He was sure aware of the memetic power of what he was creating.
The Genesis Block message alone proves that - it wasnât code, it was narrative.
He didnât brand himself, he vanished. Thatâs myth-making.
Bitcoin isnât just software - itâs an idea built to spread.
Thatâs memetic design, whether he called it that or not.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed