Just take BIP-177 and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. - TLDR the proposal makes ZERO sense.
1. Confusion and Fragmentation
Renaming "satoshis" to "bitcoins" flips established terminology, confusing both seasoned users and newcomers. The proposal undermines over a decade of education, tools, apps, and wallets built around the 1 BTC = 100,000,000 sats standard. Also, sats or bitcoins makes NO difference as 100,000,000 X still accounts to 1 BTC.
2. Massive Ecosystem Disruption
Wallets, exchanges, explorers, books, tutorials, and even codebases would require updates. Hard to justify such a disruptive change without an overwhelmingly strong rationale, which many believe BIP-177 lacks.
3. It Solves a Non-Issue
Decimal precision isn’t a real problem; users are already adapting through:
* UI design (displaying balances in sats)
* Community movements (e.g., “Stacking Sats” culture)
Bitcoin’s divisibility was intentionally designed this way by Satoshi to allow for long-term scalability.
4. Psychological Anchoring Matters
1 BTC is seen as a whole, valuable asset. Redefining sats as “bitcoins” may cheapen the perceived value, harming Bitcoin's brand and unit bias (the tendency to want whole numbers of things).
5. No Global Consensus
Bitcoin's decentralisation means big shifts require overwhelming social consensus. BIP-177 feels top-down and lacks broad grassroots support, especially among developers and long-time Bitcoiners.
6. Risk of Misinformation and Scams
Renaming units could open the door for malicious actors to confuse buyers or misrepresent prices ("1 bitcoin now costs $0.0002!").
Conclusion: Bull cycle noise.
TheGrinder
npub1de…0q0sd
2025-05-19 17:49:51
Author Public Key
npub1de6l09erjl9r990q7n9ql0rwh8x8n059ht7a267n0q3qe28wua8q20q0sdPublished at
2025-05-19 17:49:51Event JSON
{
"id": "00e2ee7da9ac81823a241bfd3bea244363e6eb2bf04d90d7a2b409de4a7558ab",
"pubkey": "6e75f7972397ca3295e0f4ca0fbc6eb9cc79be85bafdd56bd378220ca8eee74e",
"created_at": 1747676991,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"nonce",
"117",
"7"
]
],
"content": "Just take BIP-177 and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. - TLDR the proposal makes ZERO sense.\n\n1. Confusion and Fragmentation\nRenaming \"satoshis\" to \"bitcoins\" flips established terminology, confusing both seasoned users and newcomers. The proposal undermines over a decade of education, tools, apps, and wallets built around the 1 BTC = 100,000,000 sats standard. Also, sats or bitcoins makes NO difference as 100,000,000 X still accounts to 1 BTC.\n\n2. Massive Ecosystem Disruption\nWallets, exchanges, explorers, books, tutorials, and even codebases would require updates. Hard to justify such a disruptive change without an overwhelmingly strong rationale, which many believe BIP-177 lacks.\n\n3. It Solves a Non-Issue\nDecimal precision isn’t a real problem; users are already adapting through:\n\n* UI design (displaying balances in sats)\n* Community movements (e.g., “Stacking Sats” culture)\n\nBitcoin’s divisibility was intentionally designed this way by Satoshi to allow for long-term scalability.\n\n4. Psychological Anchoring Matters\n1 BTC is seen as a whole, valuable asset. Redefining sats as “bitcoins” may cheapen the perceived value, harming Bitcoin's brand and unit bias (the tendency to want whole numbers of things).\n\n5. No Global Consensus\nBitcoin's decentralisation means big shifts require overwhelming social consensus. BIP-177 feels top-down and lacks broad grassroots support, especially among developers and long-time Bitcoiners.\n\n6. Risk of Misinformation and Scams\nRenaming units could open the door for malicious actors to confuse buyers or misrepresent prices (\"1 bitcoin now costs $0.0002!\").\n\nConclusion: Bull cycle noise.",
"sig": "cd8079f3b88474d879e63c9a9209bf63bd1f3b159f0cc5faf2eb6cc9c1e168adbc1a5085f3191c0e5d4ecdaf096e523c799d54bb100f92590659302a403ee560"
}