Bitcoin decimals. Is 1.00000000 Bitcoin the same as 1.000000000000 Bitcoin?

[PrivacyG]

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

[Wiwo]

  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.

[Stedsm]

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

[bitbollo]

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 ). 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?

[Iroh]

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.

[BitMaxz]

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


Source: https://en.bitcoinwiki.org/wiki/Satoshi

[franky1]

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"

[franky1]

Currently, the smallest unit is mSat or 0.001 satoshi

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

[jackg]

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.

bitcoin does not understand msats!

It understands it as well as whole bitcoins . 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.

[BitDane]

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

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.

[Poker Player]

If we add 4 more decimals, is 1 Bitcoin still just as scarce or do you consider it artificial injection of supply?

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

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.

[franky1]

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.

[o_e_l_e_o]

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:

Same amount of money, just different convention for where the ","'s and "."'s go.  e.g. moving the decimal place 3 places would mean if you had 1.00000 before, now it shows it as 1,000.00.

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

[so98nn]

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?

[franky1]

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.

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

[NeuroticFish]

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

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.

[Husires]

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

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.

[DooMAD]

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.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

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

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

the term (...) did not exist

Public Notice: This topic contains several posts by user franky1, who fallaciously argues that SegWit and Taproot compatible nodes do not follow consensus rules.  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.  They frequently exhibit behaviours consistent with those of a sociopath.  Do not engage directly with franky1 as they may be mentally ill and a danger to others.  Consider adding them to your ignore list.

[stompix]

Curious to know what the general user thinks.

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?

[digaran]

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.