Bit or Sat or Nah? What would Satoshi Nakamoto choose if he returned?

[dendehomie]

The UI Illusion: The Tragedy of Sats and Bits
Let us give the "Sats Standard" the most perfect, rounded mathematical scenario possible. Assume Bitcoin absorbs the $100 Trillion global M2 supply.

• Calculation: $100,000,000,000,000 / 21,000,000 BTC = ~$4,761,904 per BTC. * For simplicity, let's round to exactly $4.8 Million per BTC.

• Value of 1 Sat (1/100,000,000th of a BTC) = $0.048 (4.8 cents).

Now, imagine an average American buying a standard $4.80 cup of coffee.

• In Sats: It costs exactly 100 Sats.
• In Bits: 1 Bit = 100 Sats = $4.80.

The math looks perfectly clean today. So why does it fail?

1. The Macro-Educational Cost: The massive cognitive friction isn't just about using Sats; it is the chaotic confusion of developers pushing a fractured ecosystem of "BTC vs. mBTC vs. Bits vs. Sats." You are asking 330 million Americans to re-educate their ingrained numerical intuition and navigate a confusing maze of shifting wallet labels just to buy groceries.

2. The Deflation Trap: Hard money is deflationary. When US productivity doubles, that coffee drops to 50 Sats. If the wallet UI is set to Bits, that coffee now costs 0.5 Bits. Suddenly, you have thrown the American public right back into the fractional, 0.x decimal hell that makes daily accounting a nightmare.

The Immutable Solution: 85.3 Trillion Nah
Nah does not eliminate the educational cost of transitioning away from fiat; it minimizes it to the absolute floor. You cannot force a nation to change its psychological baseline with wallet UI updates. You must build a Layer 2 accounting protocol that perfectly accommodates existing human habits while preserving the mathematical purity of the base layer.

Etched permanently on the Bitcoin timechain via Runes, Nah introduces a mathematically locked, non-dilutable supply of 85,300,000,000,000 (85.3 Trillion).

Run the exact same $100 Trillion M2 transition scenario:
• Total Nah Supply: 85.3 Trillion.
• Value of 1 Nah: $100,000,000,000,000 / 85,300,000,000,000 = ~$1.17 per Nah.

Now, let's price that same American coffee:
• Calculation: $4.80 USD / $1.17 = ~4.1 Nah.

The transition is mathematically seamless. That $4.80 coffee elegantly rounds to exactly 4 Nah.

By perfectly mirroring the single-digit psychology of the US Dollar, Nah acts as the ultimate Temporal Runway. It gives the American public the necessary decades to safely cross over from fiat to hard money without being crushed by decimal confusion or hyperinflation illusions.

What we propose is a beautifully simple, dual-asset paradigm: Sat and Nah.

Digital Gold and Digital Diamond. No confusing Bits, no mBTC. Just two distinct, mathematically sound assets to guide humanity through the transition.

The Origin and The Merit
Nah is not a token; it is a macroeconomic bridge. It is the culmination of 6 years of relentless R&D by Bemp Research Corporation (BRC), the pioneering entity behind Lithium-Sulfur (Li-S) technology. We spent the best years of our lives building the definitive accounting interface for this transition. We did not break the 21 Million rule; we provided the missing half of the puzzle to make it usable for the masses.

Nah Sovereign Diamond — The World's Hardest Asset — is currently live as a Top Rune on the Satflow exchange.

• For the full architectural thesis, read the BRC Blackpaper on our Bemp Research Facebook page.

• For instructions on how to acquire Nah on Satflow, visit bempresearch.com.

Ask yourself this: If Satoshi Nakamoto returned today to witness the transition from fiat to hard money, do you think he would prefer the patched-up, confusing "Sat & Bit" UI illusion, or the mathematically complete, dual-protocol elegance of the "Sat & Nah" system?

Mods please don't delete this as we think it is very important to Satoshi Nakamoto's original vision: giving the world an electronic cash system that actually works well enough to replace fiat.

Glory to Satoshi Nakamoto.

[PrivacyG]

Run the exact same $100 Trillion M2 transition scenario:
• Total Nah Supply: 85.3 Trillion.
• Value of 1 Nah: $100,000,000,000,000 / 85,300,000,000,000 = ~$1.17 per Nah.

Now, let's price that same American coffee:
• Calculation: $4.80 USD / $1.17 = ~4.1 Nah.

The transition is mathematically seamless. That $4.80 coffee elegantly rounds to exactly 4 Nah.

Why do you complicate things so much?

The 'seamless' math only works in nit picking situations like a 4.80 Dollar coffee.  And even in this situation, a '4 Nah' instead of 4.1 Nah means the seller receives about 2.5 percent less than the Fiat cost of the same product.  Sell 100 coffees and you already 'gave away' about three coffees or 12 Dollars.

But.  Consider a less 'perfect' price such as 84,99 Dollars.  For your price calculation you have 72.64 Nah or 1771 Satoshis rounded up.  You can now choose an 'in between' for the Nah as in 72.50 or round it up to 73 Nah.  But why?  1771 Satoshis rounded up is the same thing.

Not to mention Bitcoin is a GLOBAL Currency.  This means even if it works 'seamless' in Dollars it will not work the same way in other Fiat Currencies.

I only see a proposal for another Shit Coin.  Building a 'Layer 2' that makes it possible to split Satoshis in smaller parts is the same thing as making Bitcoin have more units.  But only more unnecessarily complicated.

[dendehomie]

Run the exact same $100 Trillion M2 transition scenario:
• Total Nah Supply: 85.3 Trillion.
• Value of 1 Nah: $100,000,000,000,000 / 85,300,000,000,000 = ~$1.17 per Nah.

Now, let's price that same American coffee:
• Calculation: $4.80 USD / $1.17 = ~4.1 Nah.

The transition is mathematically seamless. That $4.80 coffee elegantly rounds to exactly 4 Nah.

Why do you complicate things so much?

The 'seamless' math only works in nit picking situations like a 4.80 Dollar coffee.  And even in this situation, a '4 Nah' instead of 4.1 Nah means the seller receives about 2.5 percent less than the Fiat cost of the same product.  Sell 100 coffees and you already 'gave away' about three coffees or 12 Dollars.

But.  Consider a less 'perfect' price such as 84,99 Dollars.  For your price calculation you have 72.64 Nah or 1771 Satoshis rounded up.  You can now choose an 'in between' for the Nah as in 72.50 or round it up to 73 Nah.  But why?  1771 Satoshis rounded up is the same thing.

Not to mention Bitcoin is a GLOBAL Currency.  This means even if it works 'seamless' in Dollars it will not work the same way in other Fiat Currencies.

I only see a proposal for another Shit Coin.  Building a 'Layer 2' that makes it possible to split Satoshis in smaller parts is the same thing as making Bitcoin have more units.  But only more unnecessarily complicated.

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.

The math of Nah works in every situation.

[PrivacyG]

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.

[mcdouglasx]

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.

[dendehomie]

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.

[Ambatman]

So In a nutshell your problem is decimal point?
How do the US calculate yuan? A yuan is 0.15 Dollar
And a Naira Is around 0.00072 dollar and even in cents it would still be in decimal.
Except movies are lying
I have seen price tag that has decimals on them.
I really can't see the problem you trying to dig up
You making it complicated
400Sats is 400Sats
You choosing to convert it is on you.

Bit or Sat or Nah? What would Satoshi Nakamoto choose if he returned?

Does it matter?
What matter is consensus.

[dendehomie]

So In a nutshell your problem is decimal point?
How do the US calculate yuan? A yuan is 0.15 Dollar
And a Naira Is around 0.00072 dollar and even in cents it would still be in decimal.
Except movies are lying
I have seen price tag that has decimals on them.
I really can't see the problem you trying to dig up
You making it complicated
400Sats is 400Sats
You choosing to convert it is on you.

Bit or Sat or Nah? What would Satoshi Nakamoto choose if he returned?

Does it matter?
What matter is consensus.

My problem is how to ensure the smoothest transition from fiat to hard money. We have only one chance to do it right before the dollar collapses.

Why would US citizens need to calculate Yuan? We are talking about people within the same jurisdiction going on about their daily business activities. People in the US would appreciate it if they don't have to suddenly deal with 0.0000xx or 100s of Sats to buy coffee or lunch. Same thing for other currencies.

Since the global money supply is at around $100 trillion, it makes sense to have a hard money system with max circulating supply near 100 trillion to reduce friction as people switch to a new unit of account. Think about thousands of businesses switching their entire menus and accounting books from a fiat currency to a newer, harder money. Going from single digits to a bunch of hundreds or a bunch of 0 in front adds a lot of confusion and friction.

Since global population is near 8.53 billion, 85.3 trillion / 8.53 billion = 10k Nah/person. If the target to build wealth becomes easier to remember, people will save more and lower their time preference.

Last but not least, 853 is a prime number formed by a fibonacci sequence. 21 is also part of the fibonacci sequence but it's not a prime number.

Why do we want to have a prime number to represent the system? Prime numbers cannot be divided by 2 or 3 or any other number apart from 1 and itself. Psychologically, it makes people want to save at least 853 Nah. Think of how some bitcoiners would celebrate as they reach 0.07 or 0.14 or 0.21 BTC or 21 million Sats. And the fibonacci sequence simply makes it pleasing to people's eyes.

If you can't see the problem, it might mean that you are exceptionally rational in your dealings with numbers and can calculate numbers in your head much faster than an average person. But most other people are not like you. People like whole numbers and nice numbers that are pleasing to their eyes. It's a blessing from
Satoshi Nakamoto that we have 21 as the number that represents Bitcoin. It would have been a lot harder to communicate the idea of Bitcoin if its max supply is, for example, 91,822,000 Bitcoins.

21 million Bitcoins have been great as a store of value and will likely continue to be so. But since the hard money revolution requires a number to represent world's medium of exchange and unit of account, we are going to have to choose between Sat & Nah. The math is clear that Nah will ensure a smoother transition. And in the Bitcoin world, I hope math still dictates consensus.

[SeriouslyGiveaway]

The UI Illusion: The Tragedy of Sats and Bits
Let us give the "Sats Standard" the most perfect, rounded mathematical scenario possible. Assume Bitcoin absorbs the $100 Trillion global M2 supply.

• Calculation: $100,000,000,000,000 / 21,000,000 BTC = ~$4,761,904 per BTC. * For simplicity, let's round to exactly $4.8 Million per BTC.

• Value of 1 Sat (1/100,000,000th of a BTC) = $0.048 (4.8 cents).

There are many Bitcoin units, not only satoshi.
[Did you know] Bitcoin table of units.

In this article, Why is Bitcoin's supply limit set to 21 million? you will be able to discover more about some emails, posts from Satoshi Nakamoto, and some conspiracy theories why Bitcoin total supply was chosen as 21M.

According to an email purportedly shared between Nakamoto and Bitcoin Core contributor Mike Hearn, Satoshi reasoned that if 21 million coins were to be used by some fraction of the world economy, 0.001 BTC (1 mBTC) could be worth around €1. This prediction came true back in 2013, when Bitcoin first broke through the €1,000 price point; today, each mBTC is currently worth closer to €8.25.

Although Satoshi compares the price of Bitcoin to the Euro in his email, some simple mathematics indicates he may have had a much grander vision for Bitcoin—better explaining why the 21 million maximum figure was chosen.

At the time of Bitcoin's creation, the entire world's money supply stood at approximately $21 trillion. This figure, known as the M1 money supply, is made up of the total value of all the physical money in the world, including cash, coins, travelers' checks, and more.

If Bitcoin were to grow to become the single world currency—replacing all those that the M1 figure is comprised of—then each BTC would be worth $1 million. Because there are 100 million satoshi in each Bitcoin, this would place the value of each satoshi at $0.01.

[dendehomie]

The UI Illusion: The Tragedy of Sats and Bits
Let us give the "Sats Standard" the most perfect, rounded mathematical scenario possible. Assume Bitcoin absorbs the $100 Trillion global M2 supply.

• Calculation: $100,000,000,000,000 / 21,000,000 BTC = ~$4,761,904 per BTC. * For simplicity, let's round to exactly $4.8 Million per BTC.

• Value of 1 Sat (1/100,000,000th of a BTC) = $0.048 (4.8 cents).

There are many Bitcoin units, not only satoshi.
[Did you know] Bitcoin table of units.

In this article, Why is Bitcoin's supply limit set to 21 million? you will be able to discover more about some emails, posts from Satoshi Nakamoto, and some conspiracy theories why Bitcoin total supply was chosen as 21M.

According to an email purportedly shared between Nakamoto and Bitcoin Core contributor Mike Hearn, Satoshi reasoned that if 21 million coins were to be used by some fraction of the world economy, 0.001 BTC (1 mBTC) could be worth around €1. This prediction came true back in 2013, when Bitcoin first broke through the €1,000 price point; today, each mBTC is currently worth closer to €8.25.

Although Satoshi compares the price of Bitcoin to the Euro in his email, some simple mathematics indicates he may have had a much grander vision for Bitcoin—better explaining why the 21 million maximum figure was chosen.

At the time of Bitcoin's creation, the entire world's money supply stood at approximately $21 trillion. This figure, known as the M1 money supply, is made up of the total value of all the physical money in the world, including cash, coins, travelers' checks, and more.

If Bitcoin were to grow to become the single world currency—replacing all those that the M1 figure is comprised of—then each BTC would be worth $1 million. Because there are 100 million satoshi in each Bitcoin, this would place the value of each satoshi at $0.01.

So far one of the biggest arguments against Nah has been  "21 million is smaller than 85.3 trillion, you are inflating the supply of Bitcoin!"

But when it comes to Bitcoin being a unit of account, we have to count in Sat. When comparing Sat vs Nah, one can easily see that 2.1 quadrillion is much bigger than 85.3 trillion and by switching from Sat to Nah we are deflating the hard money supply to better match with global M2.

Additionally, here are some rough estimates of annual inflation rates of some monetary assets for the next 10 years:

• USD ~10%
• Gold ~ 2%
• Sat/Bit/Bitcoin ~ 0.4%
• Nah = 0% forever

The lower the inflation rate, the harder the monetary asset. Nah is provably scarcer and harder than any other major assets including Sat. Since Nah is a Rune on the Bitcoin timechain, it also inherits Bitcoin's network of miners to process its transactions (the miners are still paid in Sat). Transactions of Nah will still take around 10 mins to confirm, so Sat still has the advantage of fast transactions (thanks to LN). But I think the hardness of its monetary supply and its suitability to become the main unit of account will make Nah outperform Sat in the long run.

[BlackHatCoiner]

"Nah" is one of the worst labels for bitcoin. Because Nah means No and it's super confusing. There is literally nothing wrong with sats. All developers have acknowledged this problem, and bitcoin is displayed in sats, if it isn't a great enough amount (to be displayed in BTC). When you buy two pizzas, it's "30k sats" instead of "30 dollars".

There are more important problems in Bitcoin than denominations. I thought we left this insanely moronic idea of displaying the bitcoin symbol instead of 'sats' behind.

[dendehomie]

"Nah" is one of the worst labels for bitcoin. Because Nah means No and it's super confusing. There is literally nothing wrong with sats. All developers have acknowledged this problem, and bitcoin is displayed in sats, if it isn't a great enough amount (to be displayed in BTC). When you buy two pizzas, it's "30k sats" instead of "30 dollars".

There are more important problems in Bitcoin than denominations. I thought we left this insanely moronic idea of displaying the bitcoin symbol instead of 'sats' behind.

Following your logic I can say Sat sounds like Sad and is also not a great label for Bitcoin.

If Sat stands for Satoshi, then Nah stands for Nakamoto. Na makes it look like we are going back to using salt as money. Nak is hard to pronounce. So I went ahead and chose Nah. NAH can also stand for "Nothing As Hard". If you want it to mean "No", then it could be our way of saying "No" to fiat.

There are 3 most important functions of money: store of value, medium of exchange, and unit of account. And the latter two go together. You cannot have something being a medium of exchange without it also being the unit of account. If Satoshi Nakamoto's original vision is to create a system of electronic cash to replace fiat, we have to solve the unit bias problem and Nah is a much better solution than Sat, as explained in previous comments and original post.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Following your logic I can say Sat sounds like Sad and is also not a great label for Bitcoin.

Sat does not sound like sad, just as "sit" does not sound like "seed".

If Sat stands for Satoshi, then Nah stands for Nakamoto.

Nah is terrible name for another reason: there is no plural. "Cent" has plural "cents". "Sat" has plural "sats". Nah cannot become "Nahs", it simply sounds worse and is just confusing.

I am not only against "Nah" as the name for the unit of account. I am in general against creating another denomination when it is not needed. You're late 17 years for that purpose.

[mcdouglasx]

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.

Your argument is based on a false premise: that the user is forced to use a single, fixed unit forever. This isn't the case. Electrum and other reputable wallets allow you to change the base unit. Does a coffee cost 0.00000123 BTC? The wallet displays it as 1.23 bits or 123 sats, depending on the user's preference.

If the user is comfortable with decimals, it uses bits; if they're referring to whole numbers, it switches to sats. What you're describing is exactly a secondary token that uses Bitcoin as a transport layer. It's no different from any Rune or BRC-20. It's not "the missing half." It's another asset, so don't pretend it's "Satoshi's vision" or a "Bitcoin necessity."

Bitcoin already has enough units. We just need to use them; we don't need a new asset of 85.3 trillion units to solve an interface problem that's already been solved.

I get the impression that you just have an irrational fear of decimals, which, by the way, various fiat currencies have always used historically.

[dendehomie]

Following your logic I can say Sat sounds like Sad and is also not a great label for Bitcoin.

Sat does not sound like sad, just as "sit" does not sound like "seed".

If Sat stands for Satoshi, then Nah stands for Nakamoto.

Nah is terrible name for another reason: there is no plural. "Cent" has plural "cents". "Sat" has plural "sats". Nah cannot become "Nahs", it simply sounds worse and is just confusing.

I am not only against "Nah" as the name for the unit of account. I am in general against creating another denomination when it is not needed. You're late 17 years for that purpose.

Why can't Nah become Nahs? It can be pronounced as "Nas" since the h is silent.

Bitcoin is going mainstream right now and we are going to have to deal with unit bias. $100 trillion global M2 can be converted into 85.3 trillion Nahs a lot easier than into 2.1 quadrillion Sats.

 

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.

Your argument is based on a false premise: that the user is forced to use a single, fixed unit forever. This isn't the case. Electrum and other reputable wallets allow you to change the base unit. Does a coffee cost 0.00000123 BTC? The wallet displays it as 1.23 bits or 123 sats, depending on the user's preference.

If the user is comfortable with decimals, it uses bits; if they're referring to whole numbers, it switches to sats. What you're describing is exactly a secondary token that uses Bitcoin as a transport layer. It's no different from any Rune or BRC-20. It's not "the missing half." It's another asset, so don't pretend it's "Satoshi's vision" or a "Bitcoin necessity."

Bitcoin already has enough units. We just need to use them; we don't need a new asset of 85.3 trillion units to solve an interface problem that's already been solved.

I get the impression that you just have an irrational fear of decimals, which, by the way, various fiat currencies have always used historically.

"The massive cognitive friction isn't just about using Sats; it is the chaotic confusion of developers pushing a fractured ecosystem of "BTC vs. mBTC vs. Bits vs. Sats." You are asking 330 million Americans to re-educate their ingrained numerical intuition and navigate a confusing maze of shifting wallet labels just to buy groceries."

That was what we wrote in the original post. The problem is actually larger if you consider how 8.53 billion people will have to switch from fiat to btc to sat to bit etc... All the shops will have to deal with changing the pricing on their menus from single digits of fiat to hundreds of sats or 0.0000xxx btc.

Nah could be the ultimate unit of account as people transition from fiat to hard money and Sats will be used to move Nahs on chain. Sat stands for Satoshi and Nah stands for Nakamoto. Easy to remember and not as confusing as btc vs bit vs sat. You are right that Nah is another asset but it's different from other Runes and assets since it is well designed enough to make the math work for 8.53 billion people out there.

[mcdouglasx]

"The massive cognitive friction isn't just about using Sats; it is the chaotic confusion of developers pushing a fractured ecosystem of "BTC vs. mBTC vs. Bits vs. Sats." You are asking 330 million Americans to re-educate their ingrained numerical intuition and navigate a confusing maze of shifting wallet labels just to buy groceries."

That was what we wrote in the original post. The problem is actually larger if you consider how 8.53 billion people will have to switch from fiat to btc to sat to bit etc... All the shops will have to deal with changing the pricing on their menus from single digits of fiat to hundreds of sats or 0.0000xxx btc.

Nah could be the ultimate unit of account as people transition from fiat to hard money and Sats will be used to move Nahs on chain. Sat stands for Satoshi and Nah stands for Nakamoto. Easy to remember and not as confusing as btc vs bit vs sat. You are right that Nah is another asset but it's different from other Runes and assets since it is well designed enough to make the math work for 8.53 billion people out there.

You're using a textbook sales tactic: "selling the problem to sell the solution." You're trying to portray the change in app labels as a global humanitarian catastrophe so your token seems like a lifeline.

Ironically, you complain about decimals, but on your website: "Investors can now buy 50 million NAH for a price of 0.0005 BTC (~$38.91 USD)."

You say the supply is limited and it takes time to list them for sale, but that's just an illusion of scarcity. In reality, Runes are issued on the Bitcoin blockchain all at once according to the protocol's rules. If "it takes time to list them," it's because you control the issued supply (they're in your wallets) and release them little by little, creating a slow-run or liquidity drip to artificially maintain the price or create a false sense of high demand (FOMO).

[dendehomie]

"The massive cognitive friction isn't just about using Sats; it is the chaotic confusion of developers pushing a fractured ecosystem of "BTC vs. mBTC vs. Bits vs. Sats." You are asking 330 million Americans to re-educate their ingrained numerical intuition and navigate a confusing maze of shifting wallet labels just to buy groceries."

That was what we wrote in the original post. The problem is actually larger if you consider how 8.53 billion people will have to switch from fiat to btc to sat to bit etc... All the shops will have to deal with changing the pricing on their menus from single digits of fiat to hundreds of sats or 0.0000xxx btc.

Nah could be the ultimate unit of account as people transition from fiat to hard money and Sats will be used to move Nahs on chain. Sat stands for Satoshi and Nah stands for Nakamoto. Easy to remember and not as confusing as btc vs bit vs sat. You are right that Nah is another asset but it's different from other Runes and assets since it is well designed enough to make the math work for 8.53 billion people out there.

You're using a textbook sales tactic: "selling the problem to sell the solution." You're trying to portray the change in app labels as a global humanitarian catastrophe so your token seems like a lifeline.

Ironically, you complain about decimals, but on your website: "Investors can now buy 50 million NAH for a price of 0.0005 TC (~$38.91 USD)."

You say the supply is limited and it takes time to list them for sale, but that's just an illusion of scarcity. In reality, Runes are issued on the Bitcoin blockchain all at once according to the protocol's rules. If "it takes time to list them," it's because you control the issued supply (they're in your wallets) and release them little by little, creating a slow-run or liquidity drip to artificially maintain the price or create a false sense of high demand (FOMO).

I'm not "selling the problem". The problem exists whether you like it or not.

Most of our financial backers are used to BTC so we display prices in BTC. In fact Nah is one of the few assets out there that is priced exclusively in Bitcoin.

Yes, I control some of the supply but it is true that it takes time and money for me to list them. Every time I list Nah for sale I have to first send those Nahs to my own wallet as a way to split them from the first block of Nahs. Imagine I found a big Nah diamond but I have to spend Sats and at least 10 mins of my time to split a small part of that diamond and list it for sale.

On top of that, Nah was founded by some diamond handed Bitcoin hodlers. We don't really want to sell at these low prices but we also need money to fund our Lithium-Sulfur R&D projects. Low cost batteries can make Bitcoin mining more decentralized and improve the security of the entire Bitcoin ecosystem. You can view the list of Nah hodlers here: https://uniscan.cc/runes/detail/NAH%E2%80%A2SOVEREIGN%E2%80%A2DIAMOND

It will take time for bitcoiners to learn about Nah and that's alright. Verify, don't trust.

[mcdouglasx]

It will take time for bitcoiners to learn about Nah and that's alright. Verify, don't trust.

Good luck selling the tokens. I hope the users who decide to buy them aren't blown away by having to use decimals to acquire your token.

What I understand from your statement is: "Hey, there's a problem with decimals, it's a nightmare for the user. I have the solution, but to get that solution, you have to make the effort to use the decimal nightmare to buy my tokens."

When the reality is, the world has never had a problem using decimals and never will.