Bitcoin Forum

While answering in another thread, this debate came up in my mind about Bitcoin and decimals.  Curious to know what the general user thinks.

Say inflation was so crazy 1 Satoshi became $1 and a Hard Fork took place through which we add more decimals to Bitcoin.  It currently has 8.  If we add 4 more decimals, is 1 Bitcoin still just as scarce or do you consider it artificial injection of supply?

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

Am not good at bitcoin technical discussion but the little i know and understand about Bitcoin is that it have a total circulating supply of 21 million, and since bitcoin launched way back 12 years ago, there ha e not been any changes to its total max supply and I don't think a forked coin is same as original forked Bitcoin can be like what we have with Bitcoin cash which is not same as Bitcoin in all sense of it. I may be wrong though and some other members with superior knowledge could have a different  view to what I stated and we can all learn from them as the discussion continue.

The addition of decimals won't increase the supply by any means, it's just giving the users an additional way of distributing their coins in a whole new way, i.e.; instead of having 8 decimals only, they now have 12 (or whatever number you choose) decimals that can be used as denomination to distribute their coins by being able to send them with such long decimals.
And if we speak about a fork, then please refer this:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5431497.msg61497776#msg61497776

of course it will be the same. the total amount of bitcoin will not change it's just another way to count the unit.
likewise 1 Ton is equal to 1000 Kg... this not change the initial amount it's just a bigger way to divide it.
better with pizza (yes I am Italian :P ). You can make 4 slices or 8 slices... the pizza will be always the same :)+

the real question to me is: I will be alive that day? ;D ::)

With decimals, 1.000 is still the same as 1.00000000000. One bitcoin is still one bitcoin. I think It doesn’t matter the numbers of zero attached after the decimal point. And I don’t see two decimals being in the same figures (eg. 1.231.907). 1.000 is the same as 1 with a million zeros after the decimal. It’s still 1.
There are 21 million bitcoin available in the world today and the addition of decimals, no matter how many, would not increase nor decrease the amount of bitcoin left.

Currently, the smallest unit is mSat or 0.001 satoshi but I think if the price of 1 sat will become $1 each then why not use sat with decimals like 1.4453 sats as an example or use mSat I believe that it would be enough. No more new units only mSat is the smallest one look at the chart below

https://i.imgur.com/w9AgRkE.png
Source: https://en.bitcoinwiki.org/wiki/Satoshi

its an increase of shareable units.
thus artificial supple increase

bitcoin as displayed for GUI is 1.00000000

however the actual hard code and data on the blockchain has no btc

its measured as the smallest unit 100,000,000 sats
yep a tx, a value in a block is all sat based

to break the rules of the smallest unit means it breaks many rules
for instance it increases how many halvenings would occur
it breaks how many shareable units there are

at code/data level it is not a rule of
50btc for first 210,000 blocks
instead its actually at code and real hard drive and relayed data:
its a rule of 5,000,000,000 units for 210,000 blocks
its a rule of 2,500,000,000 units for 210,000 blocks
its a rule of 1,250,000,000 units for 210,000 blocks
its a rule of 625,000,000 units for 210,000 blocks
and so on
by making it suddenly at the next halving
new rule of 312,500,000,000 units for 210,000 blocks
changes alot of things

changing smallest unit * 100,000,000= 1btc to
changing smallest unit * 100,000,000,000= 1btc

means instead of there being 20,999,999,9769,000 units by 2142
changign to 11 decimals in 2024 changes the results to
last halvening: 2176 (extra 9 halvenings)
total units created 133218749997060000

2008   5000000000   1050000000000000
2012   2500000000   525000000000000
2016   1250000000   262500000000000
2020   625000000   131250000000000
2024   312500000000   65625000000000000
2028   156250000000   32812500000000000
2032   78125000000   16406250000000000
2036   39062500000   8203125000000000
2040   19531250000   4101562500000000
2044   9765625000   2050781250000000
2048   4882812500   1025390625000000
2052   2441406250   512695312500000
2056   1220703125   256347656250000
2060   610351562   128173828020000
2064   305175781   64086914010000
2068   152587890   32043456900000
2072   76293945   16021728450000
2076   38146972   8010864120000
2080   19073486   4005432060000
2084   9536743   2002716030000
2088   4768371   1001357910000
2092   2384185   500678850000
2096   1192092   250339320000
2100   596046   125169660000
2104   298023   62584830000
2108   149011   31292310000
2112   74505   15646050000
2116   37252   7822920000
2120   18626   3911460000
2124   9313   1955730000
2128   4656   977760000
2132   2328   488880000
2136   1164   244440000
2140   582   122220000
2144   291   61110000
2148   145   30450000
2152   72   15120000
2156   36   7560000
2160   18   3780000
2164   9   1890000
2168   4   840000
2172   2   420000
2176   1   210000
2180      total   133218749997060000 units
yep by converting to 1000x units. dilutes already mined 19mill old btc of pre change to be only displayed as 19thousand "new bitcoin"

no it is not!!!
bitcoin does not understand msats!
do not even dare confuse the bitcoin network ruleset vs the LN crappy peg-set of crappy suggestive polciy of that crap network
bitcoin is not LN..
they are separate networks for separate utility using separate units of measure. do not dare confuse the two

I think this'll be how the most used exchange represents bitcoin in the future. If it's so big that it makes sense to use satoshi (to them) to quote figures, then it'll either be considered less scarce or (and I think this one is more likely) much more affordable. "a bitcoin is $10M i can't afford that, but a satoshi is 10 cents and I can get a lot of those" - hypothetical economics student 2050.


It understands it as well as whole bitcoins ;D. The ln system on that does feel broken though.

I think there's a chance we'll have 128 bit processors before the issue of what we break down sats into becomes a problem though (once the current computer clocks have done too much ticking). Sounds like a natural new gimmick for Intel.

There should be given name to that fraction of satoshi.  1 satoshi will still equal to 1 satoshi, and currently there is 2,100,000,000,000,000 satoshi (kindly check my zeros if it is correct).  Adding more 0 to the right does not increase the number of Bitcoin but the divisibility.  It even does not increase the number of satoshi but gives fraction to satoshi.  Bitcoin will still be as scarce as it is and satoshi will still be $1 (assuming the price of 1 satoshi is equal to $1) during that time. 

1.00000000 = 1.000000000000 just like what Iroh stated.

It sounds to me that this has already been discussed several times on the forum, and the answer is no. You have a gold coin with which you buy 4 loaves of bread and you divide it into 4, so instead of buying 4 loaves today, you go each day you buy 1 loaf. Is that inflation? No. It is a subdivision.

thinnest slice of bread is 0.5cm thick. and for all time there were X slices that represent a loaf of bread

trying to think of it as 4 loaves of bread with more thinner slices ignores the hard rules about the slices

by breaking the slices down further. breaks many rules where some conventional loaves appears as not fulll loaves anymore. or where it then confuses peoples concepts of how much bread they can share because now they have more slices to share.

Satoshi had no issue with further subdivision: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=44.msg267#msg267

When bitcoin was first launched, the term "satoshi" in reference to the smallest unit did not exist. Most people did not even know what the smallest unit was. The software at the time showed bitcoin as 1.00, and most people thought bitcoin was divisible by 100. At some point, we transitioned to bitcoin being divisible by 100,000,000. No one complained then that suddenly there were a million times more bitcoin, and the cap of 21 million had suddenly become 21 trillion because of 6 more places after the decimal point.

Further subdivision is obviously a far more complex issue given that a satoshi is the base unit as far as the software goes. But it seems Satoshi would not consider millisats to be an inflation in supply:


So if you had 1 sat before, it now shows as 1.000 sats. "Same amount of money", in the words of Satoshi.

MiliSatoshi?
Wow, I never heard about it and all I knew is Satoshi is the last division of bitcoin that we can trade. I don’t know but I never seen mSat getting traded on any faucet also which are popular for paying their user in Satoshi payment for small and quick payouts. If msat was so popular then I think it would have been the digit of interest to be paid out by such small paying / micro payment sites.

I was curious after reading this,
But msat is actually based on Lightening network? & not the bitcoin?

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

te subunits always existed as they are today.. just the NAME was not given for that unit

please please pelase go look at the transactions and coin rewards of 2009 in actual byte form data. (true data form) and realise that a coin reward was never 50.00
it was always 5,000,000,000 units. it was just the GUI front end graphic display for human eye interpreted as 50.00.. but that was not the actual hard code rule

as for the subdivision. he was not talking about changing beyond the 8 decimals EG
the true 5,000,000,000 units being displayed as 50.00 changing
to:  5,000,000,000,000 units being displayed as 50.00 by breaking the blockchain data rule

he was talking abot changing the GUI visual human display of
the true 5,000,000,000 units being displayed as 50.00 changing
to:        5,000,000,000 units being displayed as 50.00000000

do not be so duplicitous like your chums who are trying to break every rule of bitcoin
such as the likes of privacyG and you lot, that also want to break the blockchain accounting system of every coins route back to their origin creation of coinbase reward aka "remove the taint coz privacy"


i know deep down you an your chums do understand the importance of blockchains and things like:
the byzantine generals solution (abstinence/lack of mass consent does not equal consent)
the taint is accounting and proof of valid value creation
and limit of shareable units

so dont play dumb to think that bitcoin could and should break rules just to meet your chums malicious desires for harming bitcoin just to promote another crap sub network that has flaws and bugs and not truly compatible to bitcoin principles

dont keep trying to propose to break bitcoin to make your subnetwork look more appealing

On-chain transactions don't understand smaller units than satoshi. LN can do mSats too.
But imho it's all a convention. Right now people work with Bitcoins, mBTC and satoshis.

My math tells that no matter how many zeroes are after the decimal point, if they're all zero it's the same number.
But I will add that in order to indeed have this in bitcoin - ie on-chain - bitcoin core may need changes and that's imho not necessary now, as long as 1 sat worth less than 1 cent.

I don't think that's what Satoshi is aiming for, otherwise the Bitcoin supply would not be finite.

So why would we need a hardfork in order to get coins less than one satoshi? Locking mechanisms work perfectly, as we can lock 1 satoshi and get 1000 Msat, as these units can be traded and unlocked when we reach one satoshi.

If Bitcoin development to the point where 1 Satoshi equals 1 USD that means an increase in demand, which means that onChain network will not bear all transactions.

What I'm trying to say is that there will be no hardfork if we reach 1 satoshi = 1 dollar.

That's exactly what they said.  Please stop being illiterate, you overly sensitive little baby.  Read it again, psycho:

Public Notice: This topic contains several posts by user franky1 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=65837), who fallaciously argues that SegWit and Taproot compatible nodes do not follow consensus rules (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5429889.msg61468808#msg61468808).  Such a thing cannot happen, as nodes which don't follow consensus rules won't have a valid copy of the blockchain and would not be able to remain part of the network.  This disgusting individual also makes flippant comparisons between software activation methods and rape (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5380215.msg61489425#msg61489425).  They frequently exhibit behaviours consistent with those of a sociopath (https://www.healthguidance.org/entry/15850/1/Characteristics-of-a-Sociopath.html).  Do not engage directly with franky1 as they may be mentally ill and a danger to others.  Consider adding them to your ignore list.

I'm quite curious why you would think that any kind of subdivision would mean injection, this is just the pure definition of trailing zeros, why would that thought even come to mind? It would be a different thing if we would increase the amount of each balance by an order of magnitude and add zero before the dot, that's another story.

And, speaking what the "average" user thinks, well, thank you for giving our troll a month's supply of candy so he doesn't get hungry explaining to us how bitcoin is not bitcoin. Furthermore, didn't we all have some kind of gentlemen's agreement that all these non-sense debates with a certain person should be contained in one topic?
Not that I expect the said person to respect it, but at least keep to keep his nonsense under 500 words per page?

Doing that would require a total blockchain data rewrite, something blockchain was designed to prevent.
Let us assume for a moment that 1 sat is equal to 1$, that would be 21m*100m= 2 quadrillion one hundred trillion dollars, do we even have that amount of cash? What would be the worth of fiat currencies then? That means a total crash of the world economy.

I mean, as DooMAD has pointed out, I literally said that a satoshi has always been the base unit in the very post you quoted, but feel free to create more strawmen at which to direct your rage.

Absolutely. Take a meter. It does not matter if you divide that in to 100 centimeters, or 1,000 millimeters, or 1,000,000,000 nanometers. You will never have more than 1 meter.

If it were the case that dividing bitcoin in to millisats was effectively creating more bitcoin, then why is Lightning bitcoin the same value as on-chain bitcoin? It should be that Lightning bitcoin is 1/1000th the price of on-chain bitcoin, since there are 1000 times more units in the form of millisats. This is obviously not the case, because dividing a fixed supply in to smaller units is not the same as increasing the supply.

oeleo you also said

"Satoshi had no issue with further subdivision"
and
"No one complained then that suddenly there were a million times more bitcoin, and the cap of 21 million had suddenly become 21 trillion because of 6 more places after the decimal point."

where you were trying to make it sound like more subunits were created in the past and bitcoin had more shareable bitcoin due to a change in the past and no one cared.. yes you made it sound as if its not a problem to break the rules now to add more units...



i clarified that satoshi was not talking about the hard rule of subunits(sats)... he was just talking about the GUI display of representation outside of the rule.. where it does not even change the rules or subunits.
but just a lazy basket display

stop trying to use references about graphic display translations to think it infers acceptance to break hard code rules

As long as bitcoin has 100,000,000 satoshis there won't be any issues. It just shouldn't be created more decimal "satoshis" houses, so instead of the currently amount we would say bitcoin is composed by 1,000,000,000 satoshis or more. 1 btc must always equal to 100,000,000 satoshis. If people want to create decimal houses they should divide the satoshi unit in more parts, but never changing the currently structure.

If they want to transact 1,37158304 satoshi it's ok.

Side note, you don't need a hardfork to add (a few) extra decimal places. There is some parameter in Bitcoin Core which lets you configure the minimum transaction fee of tx's your node will relay (-minrelaytx?). It's default value is 1000 sats/kB (kilobyte). You can change this to as low as 1, and get 3 extra decimal places used, for a total of 11 decimals.

I also believe any decimal added on the right won't change the value of a whole number 1 is always equal to 1.000000000.  It can be proven mathematically unless one value on the decimal became 1  ;D.  Since the number of Bitcoin in circulation is not impacted or changed by adding several zeros on the decimal, I believe the scarcity and value will stay the same.  What changes is the divisibility since Bitcoin can have a smaller fraction than its current original state.

That's not how it works.

The value you are thinking of is the MIN_RELAY_TX_FEE (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/e9262ea32a6e1d364fb7974844fadc36f931f8c6/src/policy/policy.h#L57), which is indeed set at 1000 sats/kvB (which is equivalent to 1 sat/vB). However, this only applies to the fee paid for a transaction. Sure, you can change it to 1 sat/kvB if you want, meaning that a 250 vB transaction would only have to pay at least 2.5 sats in fees, which would in reality mean it had to pay a minimum of 3 sats. However, none of that allows you to send fractions of a satoshi as a fee or to create outputs which include fractions of a satoshi. It simply sets a lower limit for what your fee can be.

Because transactions are actually measured in weight units, we already have transactions which are fractions of a vbyte in size. For example, here is one I just pulled from my mempool: https://mempool.space/tx/5cf1d3b06cdb4dcd4513a42d6d3b19691558326af4ca11b961d852e39d9ed402. It has a virtual size of 172.25 vB, meaning the minimum fee required for this transaction would be 172.25 sats. But of course we cannot pay a fee of 172.25 sats, so the minimum fee would be 173 sats.

In that case, since the verification process does not explicitly check that amounts are within 8 decimals (its an implicit check, owing to the fact that every 8-decimal value can be represented in Core's custom integer type), a soft fork adding a second byte field for sub-fractional amounts (as garlonicon explained to me somewhere) should still work.

no we do not
stop playing user display cludgy math games to pretend proposals to break bitcoin code rules and data structures is a nothing burger..
look at actual bitcoin raw transaction data, there are no fractions
and no a hard drive does not see #'vbyte'
hard drives count data in actual bytes.

again you arw talking about human cludgy math, of the human GUI display of how bad math wants to calculate a fee based on data it ignores "for discount" or pretends is 4x bigger than actual bytes for legacy

try to stick to what actually exists in the real blockchain physical data, not what you see on a GUI display or in comments of code (comments are not rules, especially when the comments are badly worded to misrepresent what is actually happening in real world math terms
oh and take your own advice from another topic
so try it once in a while instead of setting yup your social ping pong games to try to make people think its ok to break bitcoin rules because a comment told them so


you are again trying to set up a narrative that we actually do have sub units of sats on bitcoin to pretend that breaking the actual blockchain data format and value of bitcoin is a nothingburger because in your view the GUI, comments of code and your misrepresentations of what satoshi said is a more important  decider (in your view) than actual code and data and actual satoshi quotes references


i know you then try to redeem yourself by then saying
but you had already entered the subtle implicit idea into peoples heads.. that bitcoin does have fractions of sats by what you said at the start of the paragraph

stop playing ping pong games to try to sway readers into thinking that breaking bitcoin is not a problem

---

its funny how your buddy group of malicious intent to break bitcoin. pretend that when someone proposes a new fee mechanism you lot say "there is no fee mechanism, miningpools can pick and choose what is a relevant fee to them, ignoring the reason someone paid X instead of y"

but as soon as it fits your narrative, you then say that there is a fee policy that the network treats as a rule "Because transactions are actually measured in weight units"

By the time that happens, $1 is worth nothing and 1 sat will still be small enough not to need smaller denominations.

Nothing changes.

Another excellent strawman. You should try arguing against things that are actually said, instead of just inventing points which weren't made to argue against.

Obviously there is no fraction of raw bytes, and I never claimed that there was. There is however, undeniably, fractions of virtual bytes. BIP 141 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki) is quite clear that transactions are measured in weight units, and that virtual bytes are equal to weight units divided by 4, which leaves us with fractions of virtual bytes, which are then rounded up to the nearest whole byte for the purpose of calculating the fee.

That's the exact opposite of what I said, when I pointed out that a minimum fee of 1000 sats/kvB obviously does not allow you to pay 172.25 sats for a transaction which weighs 689 weight units / 172.25 vbytes since fractions of a satoshi do not exist on the main chain, and so the minimum fee must be 173 sats.

Try actually pausing and reading what people are writing before launching in to another tirade.

Of course, such measures will not lead to a change in the essence of Bitcoin and will not have any effect on its price. 

The number of Bitcoins in the world will not increase, and its deflationary supply model will not suffer.

In addition, such a change in the Bitcoin code is largely meaningless, since this measure will still not allow the poor to buy 1 satoshi cheaply.  This is due to the fact that all Bitcoin transactions are made on a reimbursable basis. 

The income is received by miners.  At the same time, the commissions in the Bitcoin network are quite large.

Even ChatGPT knows the answer:


Question about Bitcoin. What will the impact be, when we add 4 zeros after the decimal, so that there will be 12 zeros instead of now 8 zeros?


#Adding four additional decimal places to the representation of Bitcoin would not change the value or underlying properties of the cryptocurrency. It would simply allow for greater precision in the representation of small amounts of Bitcoin.

For example, currently the smallest unit of Bitcoin that can be represented is 0.00000001 BTC, which is called a "satoshi" in honor of Bitcoin's creator, Satoshi Nakamoto. If four more decimal places were added, the smallest unit of Bitcoin that could be represented would be 0.000000000001 BTC.

It's important to note that this change would not affect the underlying value of Bitcoin or the amount of Bitcoin that exists. It would simply allow for the representation of smaller amounts of Bitcoin in a more precise way.

oeleo
i do read what you write and i have seen tactics many times, you are not new,..  you many times have subtle hints of mentioning thing in a way that has two meaning so that you can play ping pong games to irritate people and then recruit idiots to believe the other narrative you and your buddies try MANY times to push, while trying to play inocent about not pushing it by reciting other parts of the same paragraphs where you hint at the opposite. just so you can be wishy washy and hide from your narrative

you have many times been subtly pushing that satoshi and the community dont care about adding units because i know your buddies want to break bitcoin further to make it emulate LN. you have tried it before your crew of malcontents have also at times tried to change the meaning of what a full node is your crew have tried to say that pruning is safe to do and pretend it still protects the network and still distributes the ledger and all that crap, when pruning does not help distribute the ledger nor allow peers to seed from a pruned node for IBD, and other things.

your chums of malcontents do not understand consent and abstinence in regards to consensus. heck you lot are trying to redefine consensus to say that abstinence is consent, where you lot also think vetoing a feature is evil and not consenting is evil while thinking that ignoring non-consent and abstinence is something that should be allowed.. pretending both non consent and abstinence are equal to consent means performing an act on the community should still go forward even without majority readiness to even validate a new rule..

your crew love things that hinder bitcoin scaling and you hate people that want onchain scaling, pretending no one wants it bar one person is absolutely stupid narrative played.. you lot are soo narrow minded stuck in trying to break bitcoin just to populate your crummy sub network that you cant even see that bitcoiners want bitcoin to remain secure. you think everyone wants to break bitcoin and move to your crummy network so you continue these ping pong games of promoting that breaking bitcoin can happen without harm when it literally requires breaking bitcoin(harm) to do so.

you pretend sometimes your on the side of bitcoin by ending a paragraph to sound like your all for protecting bitcoin but you start paragraphs with you hinting that it can be broke easily without controversy.

oh and if you are going to now suggest that im wrong because [insert any excuse] to try distancing yourself from your chummy narrative of malcontents and say that you are not like them or you dont believe in their narrative.. atleast stop sounding like them first by avoiding copying their narrative, then maybe one day i wont keep mentioning you in the same regard as them


mnow i dare you to actually go and look at a raw transaction get the real binary data, and then see what that transaction value becomes if you changed a rule where the hard data subunit of a 50btc coin reward from 2009 was represented in your dream delusion of a LN emulating 11 decimal system

ill give you a hint 50 becomes 0.05
it also breaks the halving cycles ru;le where instead of finishing in 2142 it finishes in 2180 if it was imposed at the next halving to emulate LN digits
and he total coins mined so far (19m) will be diluted in representation to look like 190k bitcoin where the remaining new coin by 2180 will look like only 1.3m coins.
go try and look at data, code, rules, and do some math. and stop relying on comments you find as your source bases to break bitcoin. because no satoshi did not say he wanted to break bitcoins sub unit rule

Only in the delusional mind of franky1 could anyone other than himself be portrayed as the malcontent here.  I don't see anyone else disrupting every topic they can find to whine about "fake consensus" and the supposed perils of millisats.  Notice how it's only franky1 with the firework permanently lodged up their arse about such things.   ::)

For what must be the hundredth time, we've got what we want.  We're perfectly happy (aside from having an unhinged lunatic to contend with every time we say something, that part is definitely wearing thin).  We don't require a "narrative" to change things.  The change has already been made.  You are simply unable to come to terms with the change.  You are the one who despises everything and everyone.  This is very much a you problem.  You are the malcontent.

You had better days with your answers, really.

And no, 50 would not become 0.05. 50 would become 50.0000.
The question is about replacing 1 satoshi with 1.0000 satoshi, not with 0.0001 satoshi.
Your "math" would work only if such a change would be done by monkeys instead of programmers. And it's not the case.

I don't know why Core developers decided to invent a new size metric "vbytes", considering that only the scriptSig and some other fields are excluded from the byte calculation. IMO it would've been better to use the terms "transaction fee (legacy)" and "transaction fee (segwit)" and then keep the byte metric, but I guess it's much too late for that now.

the reason is simple.. dev politics

the scaling bitcoin was about increasing transaction count..
the debate then became named "blocksize" debate

one side wanted more transaction utility on the blockchain.
the other side wanted to make it look like the first side just wanted more data bloat without more transaction utility

hence throwing around useless names like "big blocker" rather than calling the desires what they were.. more transactions on chain

so core used the cludgy math of miscounting bytes to "break outside the 1mb blocksize" without actually truly giving any increase in transaction count potential.,
because in their view saying they are offering "4mb blocksize" aka bigger blocks.. which in their mind was what the community wanted.., same tx count but more "block size" even if it was not what is actually been requested.

yea they been saying "look blocks are now 4 instead of 1.. while the actual tx count is not 4x
.. all thats been done was multiply the legacy bytes by 4x

very shady manipulative crap was done to pretend they were offering what the community wanted but in the end not giving the community 4x tx capacity. and instead just some unfinished txformat that is just used as a gateway to other networks (its true intent) while faking legacy as being 4x to "give the community the 4x they wanted"


its the simple analogy of
"we have 1 wife of 120lb we would like 4 wives of 120lb"
and core devs decided lets give then 1 wife of 480lb as it sounds like what they want

Adding more zeros to bitcoin will not change anything, the total amount of bitcoin will be 21 million... And seeing 1 satoshi in $1 is an impossible scenario.

But is important to mention that some services already added more zeros on bitcoin for practical proposes. Here is a good example, go to coinmarketcap and look at the dogecoin prize, there you will see:


That's right, 9 digits after the dot... For trading and markets, this is a good option for better manipulation.

read some code. look at blockchain data..
look at how things need to change to get the "extra decimals"

dont just think from the prospective of the GUI

actually learn what is actual happening at the real rule and data level
breaking the rules to have more units at data level changes ALOT

it changes the number of halving events
it dilutes the 19m 'btc' to appear as 190k btc
meaning the "new btc" mined ends up as about 1.3m(1,332,187) btc at the end of all halvings in 2180

please do some maths and look at the data

check this post..
then read some code. check block data. and see how it actually changes..
.. surprise yourself by learning something

Yes. The 8 decimals isn't a strict protocol rule that affects monetary policy. Nobody ever promised there will be 8 forever. The only thing that's being said is that there won't be more than 21 million coins. Whether we have 8, 12 or infinite decimals, the 21 million rule is enforced. The fact that we'd have a few more coins in each decimal increase doesn't violate that rule.

Take a breath, calm down, sit and hear this: there is no halving cycle rule.

It could also mean USD has lost its value and with the way they are printing it, that's not going to be far :P
1 Satoshi is already about 1 GNF (Guinean Franc).

Not necessarily. It is just data interpretation which means we could keep the blockchain files and transaction structure intact up to the point of the fork and deserialize it as before, but introduce new deserialization rules for any new blocks that come along. Somewhat similar to how we implemented SegWit.

black hat

there is no 21m hard rule at the real protocol level, its a conversational thing of interpretation

there is hard rule but not what you think
much like the block time rule is not actually a 10min rule..
its actually a target of 2016blocks per fort night. which translates for human display/conversation as being a "10 minute rule"
do you get the difference between actual protocol vs human expression/display

and so the actual protocol is this:
5000000000 units starting from block1 for 210,000 blocks
which then halves
yep there is a half the number of units...

by which time in roughly the year 2140
there will be
2,099,999,997,690,000 units

where by then the units FOR human interpretation of visual aid/conversation
then calculates that to being units /100,000,000 =
1btc= 100,000,000 units where the human conversation/display becomes
"21m million btc rule"

how ever thats the human conversation. not the actual rule at data level

the unit * /100,000,000 is a peg that is something people for years deemed a hard rule and hard protocol thing that should not be broke because it changes too many things and devalues and breaks alot of things by changing it

i truly dare you to actually find a transaction anywhere on the blockchain where at true data level(not human visual manipulation.. but actual data level) where a block reward in 2009-2012 was just the number "50"

waste as much time as you like. or actually realise that things are not actually measured in bitcoins at rule/code/data level of the actual protocol

so dont confuse human display stuff of conversation with actual rules

breaking the peg of sat to btc.. is going to break alot of things

---

thinkig that changing the 100,000,000 beg rate of sat(smallest unit to btc) to different numbers is of no concern where you group of malicious malcontents think it harms no one but only 1 undividual is completely wrong too (yes im linking in the other network of same conversation to make a wider point)

if one group of users want it to remain 100,000,000 math and another group want 100,000,000,000
then when one side wants "1btc" for $16k from both sides

guess what they both send different amounts of sub units
or when one group sends out the same sub units to different groups thinking they are paying the same amount. guess what other wallets will see they received different amount of "btc" one being 1000x less than the other

You can check it on consensus/amount.h (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/consensus/amount.h) and see it yourself that one bitcoin is an actual unit of the system. You can also check yourself that the 21 million rule applies in line 26, wherein MAX_MONEY (which is used for sanity purposes only) is 21 million times COIN.

I know what's a satoshi, thanks for the kind clarification. I'm just saying that this line (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/65de8eeeca29e71378aa34602b287ab921b040e4/src/validation.cpp#L1466) doesn't stop us from expanding the decimals. The total satoshis can remain 2,099,999,997,690,000.

hard rule peg you forgot to include in your manipulate ignorance

now go check the blockchain data of 13 years of ACTUAL data!!!

i dare you to look at the data.. of actual decentralised immutable blockchain data.. and then change the peg and see the result of the value and the amount "COIN" that enters supply when you change the 100000000 peg

..
now once you realise it does change the halving events and total supply amounts by changing the peg..

then do yourself another learning experience favour
go read the blockchain data again.. and show me anywhere in raw tx form where "COIN" is shown on the blockchain

realise "COIN" is the human expression for human display at GUI level. its not actually a hard rule

the real hard rule is starting from 5000000000 units from genesis for 210,000 blocks then halves
and you will see this truth by looking at the actual blockchain data. not the bastardised visual aid math cludge of software developers playing mind games

stick to what real hard data shows and not some silly comment you read in some comment section mis representing the hard rules

last lesson. stop sounding like a doomad echo.. your not helping yourself or anyone.

---

dont even bother responding unless you can come back with answers about the raw data of bitcoin involving a 2009-2012 coinbase reward in either:
bin:100101010000001011111001000000000
hex:12A05F200
dec:5000000000

where you can actually articulate these answers in a way that changing the peg will not affect the answer nor change the conversational basket terms of "coin" "btc" form, nor change the number of halving events nor change the total supply of sharable units

and do not respond just to sound like the drama queen hysterical insults i usually hear you repeat from doomads selection of insults.. just so you can avoid doing the research

in short do the research and learn something and come back with proper researched and calculated response of actual data

You keep repeating this like it is a foregone conclusion, but it would be trivial to cap the number of halving events to ensure that the final supply is not changed. And even if this wasn't done, the difference from the rounding errors of 1 sat being the smallest unit compared to 1 millisat being the smallest unit are trivial. As things stand, the final number of bitcoin mined will be 20,999,999.97690000. If we converted to millisats before the first halving which it would matter (the 10th halving, which goes from 0.09765625 BTC to 0.04882812 BTC), then the final number of bitcoin mined will be 20,999,999.99997060. The "new bitcoin" as you put it would amount to around 0.02 BTC, and all your nonsense about 1.3 million new bitcoin is obviously just that - complete nonsense.

oeleo
you really need to try one day to apply math., logic. code and data..

your silly narrative always lacks this

so i set you the challenge too

go look at block data of say the 2009-2012 first 210k blocks

actually look at the coinbase value at data level
note:
bin:100101010000001011111001000000000
hex:12A05F200
dec:5000000000

now. try to change these so that you get your "extra decimals"
oh wait you cant. they are in a immutible blockchain..

now lets pretend at the 2024 halving code rules changed where the block reward was no longer
(GUI view) 3.1250000
but instead
(GUI view) 3.1250000000
which would result at data level of being
a change of
bin:10010101000000101111100100000
hex:12A05F20
dec:312500000
but instead
bin: 100100011000010011100111001010100000000
hex: 48C2739500
dec: 312500000000

and see the results when you play it forward of how many shareable units there and how it has diluted the 2009-2012 first 210k block value of 10.5m to being considered as 105,000 "new bitcoin" mined in 2009-2012

and then i want you to work out how many halvings are then occuring compared to the hard rules invented in 2009.

and then i want you to count up how many shareable units will be created in total,

..
yes im calling you out to apply some math, logic and understanding. to actually look outside your dream box of GUI displays of "it doesnt matter" and look at the real impact at code and data level of REAL data and shareable units and change of the infamous "21m supply"

goodluck

dont reply with ignorance arrogance, insults or just avoiding the concepts of the differences between

GUI: 50.00000000
bin:100101010000001011111001000000000
hex:12A05F200
dec:5000000000
vs
GUI: 50.00000000000
bin:1001000110000100111001110010101000000000000
hex:48C27395000
dec:5000000000000

which cannot be changed due to immutible blockchain

versus
GUI: 3.12500000
bin:10010101000000101111100100000
hex:12A05F20
dec:312500000
but instead
GUI: 3.12500000000
bin: 100100011000010011100111001010100000000
hex: 48C2739500
dec: 312500000000

which can be change..
where you have been implying "nothing breaks, its insignificant, blah crap, insult, ignore it"

while waiting for the idiots to finally read some code and run some scenarios in regard to changing the units of measure to fit their fantasy of "more decimals".. and realise that it does change things..

EG again
a change of
bin:10010101000000101111100100000
hex:12A05F20
dec:312500000
but instead
bin: 100100011000010011100111001010100000000
hex: 48C2739500
dec: 312500000000

lets just address another thing they dont know/understand

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/chainparams.cpp#L66

oh and by the way
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/e9262ea32a6e1d364fb7974844fadc36f931f8c6/src/chainparams.cpp#L18

the genesis block has 5000000000 as genesis reward as a real number thats hashed

if devs messed with the amount of units. to change the reward at unit level and thus changes the
"coin" from 100,000,000 to a larger number
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/e9262ea32a6e1d364fb7974844fadc36f931f8c6/src/chainparams.cpp#L435
that would result in a different hash, and so the hashes wont match thus its no longer the bitcoin genesis hash seed

so do the math.. it might help you see where all the changes will affect alot of things and need to have more cludgy code to work around such things like fake count a reward of real immutable historic units 5000000000 in one count but call it 5000000000000 elsewhere but also 5000000000 in another spot just to prevent bugs as also valid in another fake count as the larger number to not bug out the other place .. in short miscount hard amounts to avoid bugs but then causing bugs by the miscounting

What I meant is that there isn't a rule that limits the number of halvings to 32. Take that parameter, and go on validation.cpp#L1470 (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/validation.cpp#L1470). It says that if halvings are greater than 64, return 0. The halving that leaves us with 1 satoshi as subsidy is the 32nd. We can expand halvings without invalidating a rule.

Ever thought that a hard fork can occur and count after a specific block and not for the previous?

How is it possible that Bitcoin will get additional decimals, when the limit has been determined up to 1 Bitcoin equals 100 million Satoshis. If mining has reached the maximum supply limit, which is 21 million Bitcoins, of course we can calculate the total market capitalization at a price of $ 1 for 1 Satoshi.
If I'm not mistaken in my calculations or the reading of the text is:  21.000.000 BTC x  100.000.000 SATS = $2.100.000.000.000.000 USD (Two quardrillion one hundred trillion dollars).
If there is an additional of decimals, it is certainly worth asking about the legitimacy of the Bitcoin.
Maybe it's different with Bitcoin which is developed in the form of tokens from certain blockchains with a decimal number of 18. For example HBTC and BTCB. Although the decimal number is 18, the legal limit for transactions has been set at 8 digits set in the contract code.
Maybe this is what I understand in terms of Bitcoin decimals. Bitcoin developed by Satoshi Nakamoto cannot be tampered with by anyone, either in terms of adding decimals or increasing the amount of supply.