Thread

Replies (33)

I don't have a real opinion on this yet but, If we got rid of the word sats and now say that there are 2.1 quadrillion Bitcoin, _AND_ people hear that they can get 967 Bitcoin for a dollar, I'm pretty sure psychologically people would sense it as more of a bargain.??? Just an idea
↩ replying to npub1ug8c...d9ry
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.
I might agree but what a coincidence that in Sanskrit, the word "sat" (ΰ€Έΰ€€ΰ₯) is a foundational philosophical term. It carries meanings like: truth being existence reality what is eternal or unchanging It appears much in ancient Hindu scriptures like the Upanishads, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Rigveda. example: "Sat-chit-ananda" (ΰ€Έΰ€šΰ₯ΰ€šΰ€Ώΰ€€ΰ€Ύΰ€¨ΰ€¨ΰ₯ΰ€¦) is a famous triad meaning truth-consciousness-blissβ€”used to describe the nature of the divine or ultimate reality.
πŸ€” there are some generally good arguments for this, namely the perception of accessibility. I also have experienced the confusion from the uninitiated regarding bitcoin, and the perception that it is "out of reach" or "too late." A potential unintended consequence of this change however would be a devalued perception of bitcoin. "Strong" fungible currencies more often than not have subunits. Interestingly, the only fungible monetary instruments without subunits are highly inflated currencies where a singular unit is useless for economic use (VES, ZWL, LBP, TRY, ARS, IRR, SDG, SYP, AOA, ETB, HUF, DONG, etc) USD United States Dollar dollar cent EUR Euro euro cent GBP British Pound Sterling pound penny JPY Japanese Yen yen sen (obsolete, rarely used) CNY Chinese Yuan Renminbi yuan jiao/fen INR Indian Rupee rupee paise AUD Australian Dollar dollar cent CAD Canadian Dollar dollar cent CHF Swiss Franc franc rappen RUB Russian Ruble ruble kopeck BRL Brazilian Real real centavo MXN Mexican Peso peso centavo ZAR South African Rand rand cent NZD New Zealand Dollar dollar cent KRW South Korean Won won jeon (rare) SEK Swedish Krona krona ΓΆre NOK Norwegian Krone krone ΓΈre DKK Danish Krone krone ΓΈre TRY Turkish Lira lira kuruş THB Thai Baht baht satang SAR Saudi Riyal riyal halala AED UAE Dirham dirham fils PKR Pakistani Rupee rupee paisa EGP Egyptian Pound pound piastre NGN Nigerian Naira naira kobo The subunits have had no effect on the majority of the population's ability to understand the difference between units and subunits. Nuclear option probably not necessary.
↩ replying to npub1ug8c...d9ry
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.