I dont disagree but how many people are coming to bitcoin from a code perspective and can understand this rationale? Very few and those who are, likely are already bitcoiners.
Adoption requires consistency. Changing terminology on a fundamental level 16 years later just so laymen language better mirrors code language. Right when Bitcoin is being adopted on a governmental level forcing bitcoin to leach into the normie zeitgeist. Seems foolish at best.
- The term bitcoin will represent two different values. This is a disaster for automated systems and interoperability.
- Socially confusing and can cause disasters for individuals when making p2p transactions. Imagine how easy it would be to scam someone for the wrong bitcoin denomination.
- From educational standpoint how many books videos podcasts write-ups etc have to be clarified for a normie to further untangle? "Oh no this bitcoin is way more valuable than this bitcoin cause the book was written last year." ?!
At best its a bad "marketing" move.
All of this to achieve what? A little bit less confusing way to count it? Proof of work requires people to learn the language. Why are we changing the existing language to suit them?
In any case, the best tech does not always win. This is not something we need to max optimize. Let it be what it is. Imo we point our efforts elsewhere. There are bigger fish to fry.
Bit 🐳 Ish
npub13c…wkzpe
2025-05-17 03:19:48
in reply to nevent1q…gsde
Author Public Key
npub13cnlldwfhwxd6qf34hnwlfya2m2qrd2zfk0alxnrup6d2fasw9wqxwkzpePublished at
2025-05-17 03:19:48Event JSON
{
"id": "a1ba5c5401261c65c2a1970f9ae58d8f2e83acfc0e078d91410b8405793da644",
"pubkey": "8e27ffb5c9bb8cdd0131ade6efa49d56d401b5424d9fdf9a63e074d527b0715c",
"created_at": 1747451988,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"43e87a26e763f8f6a91a266589f8cd929a0a7117f9fd8844ffe791aa537b5bfd",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"633cd7b9e196f1e5f43e2344729a8226f2c18e509bba2cc7d492e02b051bb8c2"
],
[
"e",
"7808367f48ae650f1476807926030cc4592fd9009bacfb01af6c893f9c73aec4",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"8e27ffb5c9bb8cdd0131ade6efa49d56d401b5424d9fdf9a63e074d527b0715c"
],
[
"p",
"656a6efaa96d1d903ff56dc3c6a0fb80fce2ef5d68d4faa83ea58d12ec0bd10e"
]
],
"content": "I dont disagree but how many people are coming to bitcoin from a code perspective and can understand this rationale? Very few and those who are, likely are already bitcoiners. \n\nAdoption requires consistency. Changing terminology on a fundamental level 16 years later just so laymen language better mirrors code language. Right when Bitcoin is being adopted on a governmental level forcing bitcoin to leach into the normie zeitgeist. Seems foolish at best.\n\n- The term bitcoin will represent two different values. This is a disaster for automated systems and interoperability.\n- Socially confusing and can cause disasters for individuals when making p2p transactions. Imagine how easy it would be to scam someone for the wrong bitcoin denomination.\n- From educational standpoint how many books videos podcasts write-ups etc have to be clarified for a normie to further untangle? \"Oh no this bitcoin is way more valuable than this bitcoin cause the book was written last year.\" ?!\n\nAt best its a bad \"marketing\" move. \n\nAll of this to achieve what? A little bit less confusing way to count it? Proof of work requires people to learn the language. Why are we changing the existing language to suit them?\n\nIn any case, the best tech does not always win. This is not something we need to max optimize. Let it be what it is. Imo we point our efforts elsewhere. There are bigger fish to fry. ",
"sig": "626b84937774346f18ca84f65b7af84024d9a025479c4a437134ed673bf27d8db619f0a9895e2e7be18d02cc4274aa44802d1cb3e6dcebf2ca4e939e4652d7fe"
}