If the above statement offends you, you probably haven't read Bitcoin's source code.
https://x.com/pete_rizzo_/
Of course, I'm sure you've heard that there are 21 million bitcoins – and this is true, the Bitcoin protocol allows only “21 million bitcoins” to be created, but these larger types can be divided into 100 million subunits each.
Call them whatever you want, there are only 2.1 quadruple silver units in the protocol.
This difference of dollars and cents has long been the subject of debate – in the time of Satoshi, the creator of Bitcoin, the norms were not double, Bitcoin which has both a large name, and a smaller unit , is a matter of great concern. There were questions about whether the software would work at all, and bitcoin they were so worthlessthe only reasonable option was to sell them.
This discussion is a repeat BIP 21Qa proposal for Bitcoin users written by John Carvalho, founder of Synonym, creator of the Pubky social media platformand a tenured person whose work dates back to the days of the victors Bitcoin-asset collection.
In short, the BIP proposes that network actors – the various wallets and exchanges – change the way Bitcoin names are presented, with the smallest unit of the protocol being renamed as “bitcoins ,” as opposed to “satoshis,” as they are commonly called.
Here are the details of the BIP:
Redefinition of the Unit:
- Internally, the smallest indivisible unit remains unchanged.
- Historically, 1 BTC = 100,000,000 coin units. Under this proposal, “1 bitcoin” is equal to that smallest unit.
- What was previously referred to as “1 BTC” now corresponds to 100 million bitcoins under the new definition.
Vocabulary:
- The informal terms “satoshi” or “sat” are not recommended.
- All references, interfaces, and documentation MUST refer to the underlying unit simply as “bitcoin.”
Display and layout:
- Submissions MUST display values as whole accounts without decimals.
- Example:
- Old show: 0.00010000 BTC
- New display: 10000 BTC (or ₿ 10000)
Unsurprisingly, the debate over the BIP has been hostile. For one, it is not a technical BIP, although this is not a requirement in the BIP process. Suffice it to say, it is probably the most extensive BIP proposed under the BIP process to date, as it mainly deals with market norms and onboarding user logic, not any changes on the software rules.
But, I have to say, I think the proposal is strong. No, Nik Hoffman, our News Editor prefers to stick with it market positive.
However, I think the proposal raises relevant questions: why should new users be forced to calculate their Bitcoin balances using only decades? This certainly has the negative effect of making trade difficult – it is simply unethical to how people think and act today.
Also, in terms of savings, at the price of $ 100,000 BTC, it is not very strong to think that you could spend a whole year earning 1 BTC, although it could be.
Indeed, there have been several debates for all sorts of units – mBTC, uBTC – that play around with the dollar and cent coin, but Carvalho here wisely jumps to the end, they prefer to just rip the band aid off. $1 bought 1,000 bitcoins under his proposal.
What is going to be liked here, and I argued during Lugano debate on the subject in 2023that it holds both the larger BTC type and the smaller unit, now bitcoins. They are both important, and serve different functions.
My argument then was that it is important to have a larger group like BTC (100 million bitcoins). If there was no such thing as a “BTC unit,” the press and financial media would think that “1 bitcoin” is still less than 1 cent.
How much coverage and mainstream interest do we think there would be? I would bet not much.
In this way, BIP 21Q is a best of both worlds approach.
The world of finance, the press and the media can continue to support the meteoric rise in the value of “BTC,” while everyday users can get rid of complex decimals and calculations, trading the same unit of Bitcoin a reality that is guaranteed to exist forever.
This article is a Take. The views expressed are entirely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.
