GLACA on Nostr: I actually agree—Satoshi himself likely wouldn’t have cared what we called the ...

I actually agree—Satoshi himself likely wouldn’t have cared what we called the smallest unit. He didn’t seek attention or legacy in that way. But that’s precisely what makes naming sats in his honor so meaningful.

It wasn’t about branding. It wasn’t a decision made by him.
It was a decision made by us—those who chose to adopt, build, and believe in Bitcoin.

Calling them sats isn’t vanity. It’s collective memory.
It’s how decentralized cultures anchor their history: not with signatures, but with symbols.

And over time, “sats” became part of Bitcoin’s memetic gravity—a unit, a story, a tribute.
That’s not worship. That’s history.