Yes, this is virtually identical to Carvalho’s proposal, except I believe better mainly due to:
* easier route to adoption for both developers and users due to the relatively pristine ‘bits’ moniker
* no need to spend time refuting BIP176 as this obviously supersedes that proposal
* though we can’t predict the names that users will actually use, IMO ‘bits’ seems more likely to be what’s adopted in real world use than ‘bitcoin’
Fair. Does the current "Bitcoin" denomination have any concrete logical underpinning?
Otherwise explicitly renaming the base unit to Bitcoin seems kind of relevant to me.
I think the name Bitcoin itself is useful, from a marketing perspective for the network.
But otherwise it’s about as technically relevant as the poker code that was in the early implementation. Similar to “Sterling” for GBP - useful as a context setter but beyond that, not needed.
