If you measure prices in sats, things become cheaper over time.

[Zoomic]

And when we overthink it, we end up not spending any sats at all lol.

Will you rather die out of hunger to hold bitcoin to $10 million? Of course not. Humans have a time preference that is always positive, and you would rather consume / get things now more than to have them in the future.

In my own part of the world, most people think more about the future. If they have the funds to buy a car, they'll rather not buy in order not to go broke in the future. They save their money in the bank and ends up dying poor. When they die, the bank workers make it near impossible for their loved ones to claim their funds and their money ends up with an unknown bank manager.

Yea, bitcoin is important.

And when we overthink it, we end up not spending any sats at all lol.

Just remember that just HODLING is not very good for Bitcoin.
Think what would have happened if Hal, Laszlo, Gavin, Sirius, and all the other OG's hadn't spent their satoshi and held instead. Bitcoin would be worthless.
Just remember to use Bitcoin.

What do you think would have happened if Satoshi spent all his bitcoins like Hal, Laszlo and co.?

[Zaguru12]

Just remember that just HODLING is not very good for Bitcoin.
Think what would have happened if Hal, Laszlo, Gavin, Sirius, and all the other OG's hadn't spent their satoshi and held instead. Bitcoin would be worthless.
Just remember to use Bitcoin.

What do you think would have happened if Satoshi spent all his bitcoins like Hal, Laszlo and co.?

This is simply taking us back to the debate of whether bitcoin is a store of value (asset) or a currency. But it is important to note that bitcoin isn’t one and not the other rather bitcoin is simply money which is, it’s either store of value and also a currency. The choice now holds on how one treats its bitcoin.

For the likes of Hal, Laszlo and co they wanted to use bitcoin as a means of currency for Satoshi, he wanted to hold his with a very great reason which I say is to protect the network and also shows his support for long term hold not that he frowns against using it as a currency. Because we don’t know maybe he sold some outside this know wallets

More so we do not know for sure that that’s Hal and Laszlo total bitcoin sold. They used it as a currency when they needed to and it’s what bitcoin was/is about

[Donneski]

If you measure prices in bitcoin sats instead of fiat , you start to see something interesting , prices go down over time. This is because Bitcoin has a fixed supply, while fiat  is constantly being printed and losing purchasing power. In a fiat system, prices rise over time. In a Bitcoin standard, measured in sats, goods and services become cheaper as productivity improves.

The first time I read about Laszlo's famous transaction, I concluded he made one of the worst mistakes in global finance because as a newbie I was more focused on making as much profit as possible so I was calculating how much he would've made by then. I proudly took my disappointment to someone who knew better to tell him about my disappointment in Laszlo but was shocked with his response. When he told me that that particular transaction was one of the reasons bitcoin became a successful project, I couldn't believe and decided to go research more about it before I understood that HODLing too much isn't a good practice for anyone who truly wants Bitcoin to be more globalised.

The truth is people like Laszlo and Hal understood something many of us are still struggling to understand and that is, Bitcoin wasn't primarily created to be digital gold that should be sitting in wallets untouched forever. The Bitcoin network gained the sort of practical value it has today because of the numerous transactions that's been confirmed in the Blockchain and that's why we should encourage using sats in our day to day transactions.

HODLing isn't a bad practice especially for long-term conviction but if we really want Bitcoin to remain alive, we must encourage circulation. The more we transact in sats in our daily buys the stronger the Bitcoin economy becomes.

[Smartvirus]

If you measure prices in bitcoin sats instead of fiat , you start to see something interesting , prices go down over time. This is because Bitcoin has a fixed supply, while fiat  is constantly being printed and losing purchasing power. In a fiat system, prices rise over time. In a Bitcoin standard, measured in sats, goods and services become cheaper as productivity improves.

A currency cannot actually value itself. That’s why you often find it being valued in contrast to another currency or even a product. It can also be done through the various situations that could degrade or improve the value of a currency and Bitcoin even in its base measure being the sat doesn’t really fit. It just don’t and I’m okay with that frankly because, it doesn’t affects its usage or the perception that Bitcoin investors has about the currency. Bitcoin is just Bitcoin and if we need to value it with the dollar, that’s fine.

[Vaskiy]

Just because we measure price in terms of sats, does not mean we are getting things in a cheaper price. What I understand, we're paying the same price equivalent to fiat. Only best part is the usage of cryptocurrency which is slowly getting used in everyday life. This usage will slowly make more people use cryptocurrency in real life than holding it long term. As in a previous post, a currency cannot value itself. Even now bitcoin is valued equivalent to different fiat. Unlike the price increase/decrease if products have fixed price in terms of sats, then this can be profiting the users.

[X-ray]

Just because we measure price in terms of sats, does not mean we are getting things in a cheaper price. What I understand, we're paying the same price equivalent to fiat. Only best part is the usage of cryptocurrency which is slowly getting used in everyday life. This usage will slowly make more people use cryptocurrency in real life than holding it long term. As in a previous post, a currency cannot value itself. Even now bitcoin is valued equivalent to different fiat. Unlike the price increase/decrease if products have fixed price in terms of sats, then this can be profiting the users.

What I take from OP is your asset increase in value so it looks cheaper even tho it's true in fiat the price isn't changing but that's kinda the whole point of bitcoin being deflationary.

Bitcoin is the good money and holding it brings more benefit like value increase, your money basically outperform the economical inflation and therefore your purchasing power also increase.

[m2017]

If you measure prices in bitcoin sats instead of fiat , you start to see something interesting , prices go down over time.

It would be useful to see the results of your research, rather than just simple conclusions.

I'd really like to see the results of such research. Perhaps some think tank has already done this?

This is because Bitcoin has a fixed supply, while fiat  is constantly being printed and losing purchasing power. In a fiat system, prices rise over time.

You're forgetting one "minor detail": will you be able to buy all the goods and services in the world with bitcoin? In any case, you'll have to buy them with printed fiat money, which is losing purchasing power.

In a Bitcoin standard, measured in sats, goods and services become cheaper as productivity improves.

Goods and services become cheaper and more expensive, but it all depends on the time of day, day of the week, month and year, or the mood on the market in general.

[FinneysTrueVision]

You aren’t revealing anything new. We already know that Bitcoin’s purchasing power increases over time and that of inflationary currencies decreases. Maybe that’s not the case in the past year, but that has been the trend historically. Bitcoin’s price growth might be smaller in the future as volatility declines, so things might not necessarily get cheaper in sats, but it is still going to be better than the U.S. dollar, where it is guaranteed that most things will get more expensive.

[DiMarxist]

Op you are trying to confuse issues here because I don't see the link between the limited supply of Bitcoin and the unlimited nature of fiat currencies to measuring Bitcoin in sats. We all know that Bitcoin is measured in small bites called sats but making someone to think about Bitcoin in Sats is out of the equation if you ask me. You can continue to accumulate your Bitcoin in your small way but it's not necessary that one must think in Sats.

[Strongkored]

In a Bitcoin standard, measured in sats, goods and services become cheaper as productivity improves.

It becomes cheaper due to the rising price of Bitcoin, but that's only if you buy it at a low price, as Bitcoin price increases take time, not buying today to immediately get profit because the price goes up today too.
Therefore, you must be a long-term holder to profit from Bitcoin, which makes items appear cheaper when viewed.

[Zoomic]

Just remember that just HODLING is not very good for Bitcoin.
Think what would have happened if Hal, Laszlo, Gavin, Sirius, and all the other OG's hadn't spent their satoshi and held instead. Bitcoin would be worthless.
Just remember to use Bitcoin.

What do you think would have happened if Satoshi spent all his bitcoins like Hal, Laszlo and co.?

This is simply taking us back to the debate of whether bitcoin is a store of value (asset) or a currency. But it is important to note that bitcoin isn’t one and not the other rather bitcoin is simply money which is, it’s either store of value and also a currency. The choice now holds on how one treats its bitcoin.

Many people thought that bitcoin was just designed to be a currency, that it is gradually transitioning to becoming an investment asset. On the peripheral, they seem to be wholly correct. But a deeper connection will make us realize that Satoshi himself saw bitcoin as an asset from when he created it.

Although, at a time, didn't know what bitcoin was actually developing to be. He said it could worth nothing and it could worth millions

[Zaguru12]

Many people thought that bitcoin was just designed to be a currency, that it is gradually transitioning to becoming an investment asset. On the peripheral, they seem to be wholly correct. But a deeper connection will make us realize that Satoshi himself saw bitcoin as an asset from when he created it.

Although, at a time, didn't know what bitcoin was actually developing to be. He said it could worth nothing and it could worth millions

I would agree with you that if one actually look into the whitepaper one might have seen that Satoshi inclined more to bitcoin been a store of value because it actually address it as a commodity. And even his statement about it actually worth millions in future and the fact that he held for long suggest he inclines more to this belief but in defense of been a currency Satoshi also made statements that actually makes bitcoin look more like a currency for example he called it “peer to peer electronic cash system” which is like currency,

But for me the idea is simply which is bitcoin is generally money.

[coinlary]

HODLing isn't a bad practice especially for long-term conviction but if we really want Bitcoin to remain alive, we must encourage circulation. The more we transact in sats in our daily buys the stronger the Bitcoin economy becomes.

If I have some Bitcoin and I’m hungry or in one or two situations where I need money, won’t I spend it?

The thing is, almost everyone investing in BTC is doing it for the profit, since the price isn’t stable and moves with high volatility, who wants to spend sats while they’re at a loss? That also contributes to hoarding.

To prove this, what usually happens after every bull run? Obviously, investors take profits, which means they’re spending.

Spending is good anyway and i know that there are some individuals who  uses BTC for payments , not necessarily for the profit . I’m just giving a picture to  one of the reasons people seem to hoard BTC. So buy coffee, go shopping, buy cars with those satoshis  .

The Bitcoin network gained the sort of practical value it has today because of the numerous transactions that's been confirmed in the Blockchain and that's why we should encourage using sats in our day to day transactions.

Does  consolidation counts .

[Donneski]

The Bitcoin network gained the sort of practical value it has today because of the numerous transactions that's been confirmed in the Blockchain and that's why we should encourage using sats in our day to day transactions.

Does  consolidation counts .

Technically, consolidation actually counts. Since every transaction are being confirmed on chain, consolidation contributes to the activity of the Bitcoin network. However, my opinion was more about Bitcoin being used as a medium of exchange. Laszlo's transaction is referred to be a historic one today because he proved Bitcoin could function in a real economic transaction not because he consolidated coins

[sunsilk]

If you measure prices in bitcoin sats instead of fiat , you start to see something interesting , prices go down over time. This is because Bitcoin has a fixed supply, while fiat  is constantly being printed and losing purchasing power. In a fiat system, prices rise over time. In a Bitcoin standard, measured in sats, goods and services become cheaper as productivity improves.

If someone keeps on valuing the sats they hold or the prices into fiat, that's because we've been used into this conversion.

And that's why if we continue to do that, there's nothing wrong with it because that has been part of the system that we're living from day to day.

We keep the prices through fiat because that's the standard that we're living and if looking at the sats/mbtc or whichever you prefer to say.

It can't be stopped if someone keeps on looking at both of its value and plays the conversion on their minds every time they see a price of a product or a service.