Replying to Avatar Derek Ross

Unit bias is an issue with Bitcoin. Newcomers often buy Dogecoin or other altcoins simply because they can own "a lot" of them, while the idea of ever owning a whole Bitcoin feels impossible. One proposed solution by nostr:nprofile1qqsgeksa4tajm7x673gq2v7t56dkgkh6pjhhzdhrgxlpke4za8jmmkqpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgqgjwaehxw309ac82unsd3jhqct89ejhxqgkwaehxw309aex2mrp0yhxummnw3ezucnpdejqetk0p4 is to shift the language from 21 million bitcoins to 2.1 quadrillion bitcoins. Bitcoin is a great brand name and using satoshis or sats can be confusing. This would fix that too.

However, I feel this proposal would create confusion too, especially for those new to Bitcoin and for the media—because for 16 years, people have heard there are only 21 million bitcoins. Explaining that the total supply hasn’t changed, only the denomination, would be exhausting. Personally, I think calling them “sats” isn’t very intuitive, they should’ve been called “bits”, but at this point, I don’t really care.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I believe that eventually people will come to realization that 1 whole Bitcoin is too much, but the ubiquitous unit used will be satoshis.

Going to the grocery store "that will be 585 sats please" will sound a lot easier to use than "that will be 0.00000585 btc please".

As an individual satoshi becomes more valuable, people will gravitate towards the units of sats instead of bitcoins.

I attribute this to the assumption that people would once use gold bars as the unit until it got too valuable and thus was reduced to coins and then eventually individual ounces became a unit for accounting for gold.

It could be a shift in narrative and people aren't used to a deflationary currency and the need to change the units of measurements on money that gets more valuable over time, however in some places they do have to change the units in the other direction, especially during periods of hyper-inflation.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.