Replying to Avatar 🟠 isolabellart

The 21 million cap remains untouched only the unit of account changes, just like cents to dollars or satoshis to bitcoin.

This isn’t “economic sabotage,” it’s user-friendly clarity.

Pricing goods in sats instead of whole bitcoins makes Bitcoin more accessible and psychologically relatable, especially for newcomers.

We don’t say gold is $2,300 per ounce because it's rare we say it because that's the standard unit.

Scarcity isn’t diluted by how you count it; perception aligns better when people can grasp affordability, not when it feels forever out of reach.
Avatar
ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 7mo ago

inches are inches

millimetres are millimeters

nanoseconds are nanoseconds

litres are litres

gallons are gallons

what do all of these things have in common? they are constants, so why would you change the definition of them?

same with bitcoin, the underlying agenda with this story is to weaken people's concept of the certainty of what bitcoin is

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
🟠 isolabellart 7mo ago

This is precisely the underlying problem.

The single unit has always been Bitcoin, it was in 2010/2011 when Satoshi Nakamoto disappeared that the digits after the decimal point were called satoshi or sats.

"One hundred millionth of a Bitcoin" is the most correct and sensible definition of sats.

To facilitate the adoption of Bitcoin, it is much more attractive when with $100 you receive 95000₿ versus 0.00095₿

I am not saying I am in the right, I am just trying to put myself in the shoes of those who know nothing about Bitcoin and unfortunately I know a lot of them.