In addition to Bitcoin (BTC) and Satoshi (Sat) I like to propose Nakamoto (Nak)

[ethereumhunter]

Don't make things too complicated. If you prefer to use Nak, you can do that. And if there are people who prefer to use Sat, mBit or whatever, they will choose to use it. Let people choose what they want while you can introduce or tell your idea of what term you want to use to call BITCOIN. It's more about how good we feel using it. I prefer to use 0.00000001 BTC

But common people will not think about that. They will have their own choice how what terms they will say about BITCOIN.

[davis196]

Calling different amounts of Bitcoin with different names would only confuse the noobs.
I would rather change the name of the Satoshi into Bitcoin. This way most Bitcoiners won't be HODLing several hundreds thousands of satohis. They would be HODLing hundreds of thousands of Bitcoins and the price of something won't be 0.00001 BTC. It will be 100,000 Bitcoins.
The amount of Bitcoin millionaires in the crypto world would increase and everyone would be bragging about having lots of BTC.
Why don't you name parts of Bitcoin to Gavin Andresen. He has a contribution to Bitcoin. We should honor him in some way.
I propose the amount of 1 million Bitcoins to be called one Gavin.

[nullama]

Calling different amounts of Bitcoin with different names would only confuse the noobs.
I would rather change the name of the Satoshi into Bitcoin. This way most Bitcoiners won't be HODLing several hundreds thousands of satohis. They would be HODLing hundreds of thousands of Bitcoins and the price of something won't be 0.00001 BTC. It will be 100,000 Bitcoins.
The amount of Bitcoin millionaires in the crypto world would increase and everyone would be bragging about having lots of BTC.
Why don't you name parts of Bitcoin to Gavin Andresen. He has a contribution to Bitcoin. We should honor him in some way.
I propose the amount of 1 million Bitcoins to be called one Gavin.

To be honest, I'm pretty sure the terms Bitcoin and Satoshi(sats) are already set in stone.

There were multiple attempts to try different names, and only those two persist until today.

At least I'm happy it's named Bitcoin and not Netcoin...

https://www.financialexpress.com/blockchain/bitcoin-would-have-been-named-as-netcoin-sources-say/2689658/

[kryptqnick]

As others have mentioned, there are already many units in use, so there doesn't seem to be a need for another one. Also, IMO, the more we have, the trickier it gets in conversations with people and online. I focus on BTC and am comfortable with numbers like 0.02, 0.005, 0.0003. I just count the zeros after the dot and before the number. I'm also okay with mBTC, more or less. But when someone says an amount in thousands or tens of thousands of Satoshis, I don't have an immediate idea how much that is. And that's talking about the most famous units, while there are others as well.

[nullama]

As others have mentioned, there are already many units in use, so there doesn't seem to be a need for another one. Also, IMO, the more we have, the trickier it gets in conversations with people and online. I focus on BTC and am comfortable with numbers like 0.02, 0.005, 0.0003. I just count the zeros after the dot and before the number. I'm also okay with mBTC, more or less. But when someone says an amount in thousands or tens of thousands of Satoshis, I don't have an immediate idea how much that is. And that's talking about the most famous units, while there are others as well.

It does get confusing to use BTC when you're talking about a few sats, say 0.00000023 BTC, whereas 23 sats is so much simpler.

Using those two units is reasonable because their relationship is not covered in any other standard prefix like k, m, g, etc.

BTC, sats, and standard prefixes are all we need in my opinion.