He seemed to claim that if bitcoin was globally adopted he wanted a smoother unit bias transition for people escaping fiat denominations although he admitted he didn’t know how bad fiat inflation could get before/as bitcoin scaled:

“My choice for the number of coins and distribution schedule was an educated guess. It was a difficult choice, because once the network is going it’s locked in and we’re stuck with it. I wanted to pick something that would make prices similar to existing currencies, but without knowing the future, that’s very hard. I ended up picking something in the middle. If Bitcoin remains a small niche, it’ll be worth less per unit than existing currencies. If you imagine it being used for some fraction of world commerce, then there’s only going to be 21 million coins for the whole world, so it would be worth much more per unit. Values are 64-bit integers with 8 decimal places, so 1 coin is represented internally as 100000000. There’s plenty of granularity if typical prices become small. For example, if 0.001 is worth 1 Euro, then it might be easier to change where the decimal point is displayed, so if you had 1 Bitcoin it’s now displayed as 1000, and 0.001 is displayed as 1.”

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Very interesting comment!! Thanks for posting. Zapped.

Satoshi wasn't bullish enough

Yea, he didn’t forecast the coming social consensus of “1 btc = 1 btc” and that any fraction would need a new denomination: potentially bits, sats, millisats, etc.

… or maybe he did but knew that would have been too unbelievable for others to grasp at the time?

The price appreciation we've scene is at an unreasonable scale when compared to starting out. Unsurprising, but cool to see

Satoshi wasn't bullish enough

#Bitcoin

#[1]