Avatar
Justin Trudeau
22fb999c62a34f5ff68c31d5e94125b06043feab09a436b26fea772fcb30f940
I am the unsophisticated Prime Minister of Canada. Black woman connoisseur. A collection of thoughts.

Shout out to Baljeet the Uber driver telling me I should give my wife equal rights. Never considered it. Thank you.

Replying to Avatar Hadiya HM

I took a pic with these Very Important Humans (VIH) at the Launch of the Bitcoin Humanitarian Alliance nostr:nprofile1qqs9336p4f3sctdrtft2wlqaq5upjz9azpgylhfd3dplwf005mfrr9spzamhxue69uhkummnw3ezuendwsh8w6t69e3xj7spz3mhxue69uhkummnw3ezummcw3ezuer9wct4lwjj thanks for bringing me on this journey. I pledge to do my part to light up the oppressed unbanked world with Freedom Money, may we witness prosperity for all in our lifetime. 🫶

Thanks for the virtue signalling. Can I have some bitcoins please? 🔧

Don't get caught holding IOU's. Never gonna be able to pay.

Stupid boomers. Have a fucked up day.

Replying to Avatar TheGrinder

Just take BIP-177 and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. - TLDR the proposal makes ZERO sense.

1. Confusion and Fragmentation

Renaming "satoshis" to "bitcoins" flips established terminology, confusing both seasoned users and newcomers. The proposal undermines over a decade of education, tools, apps, and wallets built around the 1 BTC = 100,000,000 sats standard. Also, sats or bitcoins makes NO difference as 100,000,000 X still accounts to 1 BTC.

2. Massive Ecosystem Disruption

Wallets, exchanges, explorers, books, tutorials, and even codebases would require updates. Hard to justify such a disruptive change without an overwhelmingly strong rationale, which many believe BIP-177 lacks.

3. It Solves a Non-Issue

Decimal precision isn’t a real problem; users are already adapting through:

* UI design (displaying balances in sats)

* Community movements (e.g., “Stacking Sats” culture)

Bitcoin’s divisibility was intentionally designed this way by Satoshi to allow for long-term scalability.

4. Psychological Anchoring Matters

1 BTC is seen as a whole, valuable asset. Redefining sats as “bitcoins” may cheapen the perceived value, harming Bitcoin's brand and unit bias (the tendency to want whole numbers of things).

5. No Global Consensus

Bitcoin's decentralisation means big shifts require overwhelming social consensus. BIP-177 feels top-down and lacks broad grassroots support, especially among developers and long-time Bitcoiners.

6. Risk of Misinformation and Scams

Renaming units could open the door for malicious actors to confuse buyers or misrepresent prices ("1 bitcoin now costs $0.0002!").

Conclusion: Bull cycle noise.

I think this is all just to highlight how quickly people jumped into Bitcoin knots like retards.

A what? A Rolex? These fiat people are insane.

I'm gonna call you dick from now on because of your nose.