It's more about the transition from fiat to hard money. We promote hard money as an anti-inflation tool, and that means people should be dealing with relatively smaller numbers. 1771 is a lot bigger than 84.99. 73 is slightly smaller than 84.99 and would give people that anti-inflation "feel" as they transition from fiat to hard money.
We are already dealing with relatively smaller numbers. Significantly for the most part in fact.
A 4.80 Dollars coffee was 24,000 Satoshis years ago when Bitcoin was 20,000 Dollars per piece. It cost 480,000 Satoshis when Bitcoin was 1,000 Dollars.
This is the equivalent of the 4.80 Dollars coffee costing 1300 Dollars about one decade ago. Is this not 'anti inflation' enough?
Anyway. The 'anti inflation feel' is not necessary. It is dubious that to have the transition you think there is a need of some semi misleading by making others 'feel' the effect of anti inflation and to do this your solution is creating a Second Layer or a 'Bridge' that pretty much 'inflates' Bitcoin by moving from a scarce millions in supply to TRILLIONS.
Realistically, what you are portraying will never happen. If you are thinking that Bitcoin will replace Dollars, think again.
How can you convince people to switch to hard money if doing so requires them to deal with much larger numbers that they are not used to? Unit bias is very real. Sat cannot replace dollars and become the unit of account simply because the math is off. Nah was created to solve this problem. You can pick any fiat currency and run the conversions math and the math of Nah will always look better than the math of Sat.
The dollar and other fiat currencies will die eventually and it will happen within the next 10 years. People will have to transition to hard money whether they want to or not and we want the transition to be as frictionless as possible. If you don't think it will happen, then I'd have to ask, are you on team Satoshi Nakamoto or on team Fed (ie you are lying to yourself and to other people)?
If Satoshi Nakamoto were to return, he would probably prefer to improve the user interface of satoshis, e.g., displaying prices in millisatoshis for micropayments, rather than adding a second, non-native parallel asset, since your proposal seems more like a commercial project disguised as a macroeconomic solution than a real need for Bitcoin.
If in 50 years a coffee costs 0.00000123 BTC, wallets will automatically display 1.23 bits or 123 sats.
Nothing more is needed; no new assets are required for this. You don't need a new token to round prices. Half-cent units were used more than 50 years ago; with economic growth and inflation, we simply adapted, and it became obsolete. In an extreme case, it would simply be enough to add more zeros to the eight we already have, and this is without even considering that LN uses millisatoshis, which are 11 decimal places.
Kindly read my post again as I have explained why 1 Bit or 100 Sat (or 1.23 Bits or 123 Sats) does not work. 1.23 Bits is too small and with the deflationary nature of hard money it will drop to 0.xxx too soon. 123 Sats is too big and will give people a more complicated accounting/pricing system as soon as they switch from fiat to hard money.
Nah is not "non-native". Nah is built on top of the Bitcoin timechain and Bitcoin will still rise in value since people will need Sats to move their Nah.
