Thread

Nice to meet you judge 😉🤝

False comparison.

You mean the other way around though

Drop the Angstroem. Just meter. It's cleaner. The feature size of the next gen chip goes from 1.4 Angstroem to 1.4 meters. Do you see how stupid that sounds?

Ratio wise, you do realise the difference between dollars and cents and. sats and bitcoin? In the whole wide financial world, do we have a word for 100 million of something for which there exists a common word for just1 of that something? Or even 10 million? Or even 1 million? There is a reason all such word pairs fall under a certain ratio. 1:100 is well within limit, 1:100,000,000 is absurd.

lol I just gave you the example with Angstroem and Meter. (Ratio of 1:10,000,000,000) You can call MegaSats, KiloSats, just like there is milliSats in lightning. And if you are worried by 8 zeroes instead of 9, go study eastern culture where they use Lakhs and Crores with even spaces (2 units). Stop shoving your naive take.

Basically the Sats-Bitcoin word pair is not a functional word pair in any sort of concrete retail sense. It's a theoretical word pair that will dissolve on contact with the real world. Sats will be all that's needed in a retail context, there is nothing the word Sats will need from the word Bitcoin. So not a pair.

Oh please, lakhs and crores are another obviously false comparison. These as slang for amounts exist under the umbrella of rupees (or whatever else is being counted). A dollar doesn't exist under the umbrella of something else.

all these big words, but what's your point? I clearly gave you a unit ratio comparison with word-pair that you say shouldn't exist in real world: Angstrom to meter. But you completely ignore it. Within the term rupees, I gave you examples of lakhs (10^5) and crores (10^7). So just like 10crores = 10,000,000 rupees, 1 bitcoin = 10,000,000 sats.

>So just like 10crores = 10,000,000 rupees, 1 bitcoin = 10,000,000 sats. But the name of the currency is "rupees", do you see the difference? It's named after the base unit. By your logic, 1 bitcoin = 100,000,000 Sats *and the currency is Sats*. Bitcoin happens to be but a slang denomination of a large amount of the currency we all know formally as Sats. It's all backwards you see? That said, that for me is fine. Rebrand the entire thing as Sats and I'm okay with that, at least it's clean.

No, you are again using one truth to guide towards false claims. The SI unit of length is meters, i.e., the base unit. Angstroem is 10^-10 of the base unit. 1 meter = 10,000,000,000 Angstrom doesn't mean base unit is Angstroem.

That's just another false comparison. For length, the quantum unit for everything is the planck length. Anything else is arbitrary. Calling 1 meter a "base unit" for this or that is just something someone decided one day. In currency, the base or quantum unit is the smallest indivisible unit in common circulation. For dollars, that's $0.01. There are no half-pennies in circulation. For Rupees it's one Rupee. If the currency is named after the quantum unit then you can get away with any slang for any higher amount, the whole ratio thing no longer applies because it’s not the same problem. If the currency is *not* named after the quantum unit, as is the case with dollars (cents being the quantum), then the ratio problem does indeed come into play. So you have to find an apples to apples comparison.

I like how how you brought quantum physics into discussion. In that case, let me bring the analogy of relativity, and compare bitcoin with speed of light, c. Bitcoin's global truth is 21 Million bitcoin. Anything else is arbitrary. And like I mentioned earlier, you cherry pick parts you like, and ignore what you don't. see below: > There were half-pennies in circulation in 1800s. Check Lyn Alden's Broken money. > Rupees have smaller units called paisa. 100 paisa = 1 rupees.

See "in common circulation". Neither the half-penny nor the paisa are in common circulation, neither physically nor digitally. Case closed. You are the one who brought physical length into the discussion, and we need physics for length. Both a meter and an angstrom can be expressed in terms of the Planck length. There is no other "base unit" for length. To say one meter is some kind of official global base unit for length is goofy. It's just a unit some people picked to compare to in some situations, and any other unit can also be compared to. Bitcoin's 21 million bitcoin is completely arbitrary, decided by humans. Last time I checked humans didn't have all that much into into the speed of light, but hey, I wasn't in the room.

> Half-penny and paisa were in common circulation until inflation wiped it out. cents and dimes will also go away as well given the rate of dollar inflation. > Try changing the 21Million cap and you will see that no nodes will accept it: no one wants to willingly dilute their worth. That is what I mean by Bitcoin's global truth. Bitcoin is a deflationary currency. What happens when we need units smaller than one sat? For instance, Lightning uses milli-sats. What happens to the base money then, just keep redefining the base unit? Your reductionist viewpoint doesn't bode well.

> Half-penny and paisa were in common circulation until inflation wiped it out. cents and dimes will also go away as well given the rate of dollar inflation. Which changes nothing. If half-penny were in common circulation then it would be the smallest individual unit in common circulation. There's always one (and only one) unit that ticks that box. > Try changing the 21Million cap and you will see that no nodes will accept it: no one wants to willingly dilute their worth. That is what I mean by Bitcoin's global truth. The cap cannot be changed. What can be changed is how the cap is expressed. I can be 1.90m or 190cm, doesn't change my height. >Lightning uses milli-sats. What happens to the base money then, just keep redefining the base unit? If the millisat becomes the smallest individual unit in common circulation the that's what happens. If the currency is called Sats it just becomes a case where Sats isn't the smallest. That's how dollars and penies work. Zooming out, the key point is what I call the grocery store test. If you can’t price things you'll find in the grocery store in Unit X—and have that pricing be easily parsable by the human brain—then Unit X should NOT be the name of the currency. The dollar, the pound and the rupee all pass the grocery store test. Therefore they are all workable names for a currency. Bitcion does not pass the grocery store test. You cannot price one can of soup at 0.00001 BTC and another can of soup at 0.0001 BTC and have the brain be able to see that second can is10 times more expensive. Brain isn't wired for such ratio parsing. You have to price everything in Sats and Sats alone. Every major currency in the world passes the grocery store test (because of how the brain works). Therefore if we use Sats for the grocery store then the word and symbol for Bitcoin will have no job in that context. They'll gets fired by Sats. Which, if that's what you want, then ok.

Whatever floats your boat man. You started by saying for a currency we need the smallest base unit that is not further divisible, and the likes of Jack and you want to call it "Bitcoin". As a counter example, I said L2 further divides the base unit, which I call "sats" into "millisats", so my question is, where you draw the line of redefining the base unit? As I said, Bitcoin is deflationary currency so, in 100 years, what happens when we need micro-sats in L2? I'll give you my main summary. My point is the base unit is Bitcoin, and there is 21 million of them. You can divide it to smaller units as you want (L2, L3, maybe even soft fork L1). You can call it sats, bits, micro-sats, micro-bits, etc. Giving your example, your height is 1.90m /190 cm. You can even call it 1,900mm or 1,900,00 um etc. What you cannot do is redefine the units and say your height is 190 m, and that is the crux of the matter. In regards to using as medium of exchange, it depends on the size of the transaction. For a house price, you'll say it costs 4 bitcoin, not 400,000,000 sats. And for a milk, you'll say its costs 400 sats not 0.00000400 btc. The human mind will adopt to the correct size designation, like we use for length scale (lightyears), mass scale (amu) and time scale measurements (millenia). At this point, I am done discussing this matter any further, as its clear we have agreed to disagree.

No, my argument is simply that the currency should pass the grocery store test. If we keep Sats as Sats and rename the whole currency as Sats, that's fine. (It's what'll happen anyway over time.) If we keep the currency as Bitcoin and rename sats as Bitcoin, that's fine too. Both options work. Take your pick.

Good day sir, enjoy Nostr.

Only if there's a consensus change to make the basic unit in the code even more divisible?

If Bitcoin is successful, that will have to happen eventually. There's only 300,000 sats per person in the world (less than that if we assume some BTC have been lost). People have already tried to address that perceived insufficiency through things like millisats. When we fix it at the consensus layer, which will practically require a hard fork, it would be nice to address the problem forever by allowing arbitrary precision, e.g. allowing output amounts to be defined as a fraction of MAX_MONEY. If that happens, the idea of base units goes away If you assume that we'll never add inflation to Bitcoin, then the monetary constant is the supply, not the fraction of it that we currently transact in.

Are any of these subunits 8 orders of magnitude different?

Yes, unit of length. All the way down to Angstroem. (1E-10)

Every single one of those units actually have infinite precision; so yes. There are many things in the world that are measured in fractions of a cent. While uncommon in day to day commerce, it exists, and markets don't get confused. When USD was strong, dollars were out of reach, and cents were used day to day. People didn't get confused. I am not sure coddling the public and treating them like toddlers is the path towards a sefl-sovereign society. I do understand the arguments, but like many others, it is suspicious that this "decision" is an elitist, top-down initiative. It feels contrived.