The Bitcoin Standard: Why Sat (Satoshi) can't win without Nah (Nakamoto)

[dendehomie]

I previously had a leghthy discussion with some legendary members here on Bitcointalk. It seems like we have figured out a way to really transition from the fiat standard to The Bitcoin Standard.

Before we continue, I would like to remind readers about the 3 basic functions of money: store of value, medium of exchange, and unit of account. For society to adopt The Bitcoin Standard, Bitcoin has to be able to do all of these 3 functions better than fiat can. And among these 3, the most important one is "unit of account". Buyers and sellers rely on price as the signal for supply and demand, and that is how the free market self-regulates. Societies that don't have a good unit of account will always fall apart, as seen in the case of communist Soviet, documented by economist Saifedean Ammous in his famous book "The Bitcoin Standard".

Bitcoin has been doing really well as a store of value. As countries plan to adopt The Bitcoin Standard, there has been a lot of talks about The Lightning Network and how to use Bitcoin as digital cash. But what Bitcoin OGs are focusing on the most right now is pushing The Sat Standard to solve the unit bias problem for 90% of world's population who are still "nocoiners".

This is where it gets really interesting because without a good unit of account, we can't have Bitcoin as a medium of exchange. It might stay as digital gold forever and can never absorb the entire $100 trillion global money supply (M2).

This was where we came in with a proposal. You might have to read my previous post to understand all the detailed maths and examples and analogies that were discussed, but below is a tldr summary:

The Problem: New users suffer from unit bias—the desire to own a whole unit of an asset. Because one full Bitcoin costs tens of thousands of dollars, they think it is unaffordable and buy cheap, risky alternative coins instead.

The Code Reality: In the actual Bitcoin source code, fractional decimals do not exist. The network only tracks a single whole base unit. Instead of 21 million Bitcoins, the code is hardcoded to issue a maximum supply of 2.1 quadrillion total base units.

The Current Solution: OGs push the term "Sat" (the community name for these 2.1 quadrillion units) so users realize they can buy thousands of whole programmed units with just a few dollars, satisfying their psychological need for whole numbers.

The New Problem: Global M2 is at only $100 trillion (100 trillion units of dollars). If everyone converts to The Sat Standard (2.1 quadrillion units of Sats), the numbers displayed as prices for every product and service out there will look inflated and create confusion and friction (a $4.8 USD coffee becomes a 100 Sats coffee). Please read my previous post and the coffee example again for more detailed maths.

Our Solution: We created a rune on the Bitcoin timechain and named it Nah. It has a max circulating supply of 85.3 trillion units. It inherits all the security and decentralization of the Bitcoin timechain and is a native asset on chain, just like Sat. To move Nahs from one Bitcoin address to another, people still have to pay Sats to Bitcoin miners. 85.3 trillion is just slightly smaller than 100 trillion, and if everyone converts to The Nah Standard, the numbers displayed as prices for every product and service out there will look slightly deflated ($4.8 USD becomes 4.1 Nahs). This is obviously less problematic for businesses and consumers as they change the pricing on physical menus and online websites (ask menu designers and website designers), and the numbers in their accounting books. In shorter words, if you want people to quit buying shitcoins built on shit blockchains and truly transition from the fiat standard to The Bitcoin Standard, adopt Nah.

What we propose is a dual asset paradigm for The Bitcoin Standard. Sat & Nah. Digital gold & digital diamond.

Why Nah is engineered to outperformed both Sat and fiat?

We cannot risk a delay in the transition from fiat to hard money. All fiat currencies are doomed to fail, as their units of account keep losing value faster than the increase in the value of the goods that their societies can create to make up for the loss, ie inflation. The irregular fluctuations of Global M2 make it extremely inefficient and difficult for businesses to calculate supply and demand, resulting in cycles of economic depressions, and each one always gets worse than the previous. If you want to understand more details about the importance of a good unit of account and how it helps businesses calculate supply and demand, please read The Bitcoin Standard by Saifedean Ammous. The key point is, if we don't switch from the fiat standard to The Bitcoin Standard within the next 10 years, we will be stuck in the fiat matrix when it collapses. With Global M2 doubling every few years, the writings are on the wall.

We already explained how Nah is better than Sat as a unit of account and a medium of exchange. We want to note that, as a store of value, Nah is also engineered to outperform Sat.

Since Bitcoin is still being mined, Sats' inflation rate for the next 10 years is about 0.4% annually. As we go through halving cycles, the inflation rate gets smaller and Bitcoin will become fully inflation-proof in 114 years from now.

As an incentive for Bitcoin OGs to start switching to using Nahs instead of Sats, Nah is engineered to have 0% inflation rate from day 1. All Nahs have been mined and are currently held by diamond handed hodlers: https://uniscan.cc/runes/detail/NAH%E2%80%A2SOVEREIGN%E2%80%A2DIAMOND

With absolute scarcity from day 1, even a small amount of retail demand will result in supply shock.

Nah is engineered to be scarcer and harder than both Sat and fiat, that is a fact verifiable via the Bitcoin timechain, and we now have a choice: adopt Nah and help people transition from the fiat standard to The Bitcoin Standard quickly within the next 10 years, or get left behind. "History shows it is not possible to insulate yourself from the consequences of others holding money that is harder than yours." - Saifedean Ammous.

Find out how to buy Nah by visiting bempresearch.com (the website is still under construction but is functional).

[Alvin_talk]

One of the major challenges of using bitcoin as everyday money is transaction scaling, bitcoin has a throughput of approximately 3-7 transaction per second (tps), this means, depending on the current block condition, bitcoin can handle roughly 250,000-600,000 transaction each day, whereas  institutions such as Visa which handle fiat transactions has an average throughput of 1,700 tps. In a nutshell, for bitcoin to succeed as everyday money it most account for this challenge, don't also forget about volatility.

OP, I personally feel your idea makes the whole network more cumbersome and complicated rather than addressing real issues.

[Aanuoluwatofunmi]

Is this not where the transaction fee priority comes in to solve the problem, what about the solution to scalability as well when we have the layer 2 option, maybe we should even see this as not a serious issue when we can have more benefits than the little or minor things we may consider about bitcoin network, if you are still going to go by the overall assessment, everyone of us know that it is far better than the traditional system.

[dendehomie]

One of the major challenges of using bitcoin as everyday money is transaction scaling, bitcoin has a throughput of approximately 3-7 transaction per second (tps), this means, depending on the current block condition, bitcoin can handle roughly 250,000-600,000 transaction each day, whereas  institutions such as Visa which handle fiat transactions has an average throughput of 1,700 tps. In a nutshell, for bitcoin to succeed as everyday money it most account for this challenge, don't also forget about volatility.

OP, I personally feel your idea makes the whole network more cumbersome and complicated rather than addressing real issues.

Is this not where the transaction fee priority comes in to solve the problem, what about the solution to scalability as well when we have the layer 2 option, maybe we should even see this as not a serious issue when we can have more benefits than the little or minor things we may consider about bitcoin network, if you are still going to go by the overall assessment, everyone of us know that it is far better than the traditional system.

We mentioned LN in the post: "Bitcoin has been doing really well as a store of value. As countries plan to adopt The Bitcoin Standard, there has been a lot of talks about The Lightning Network and how to use Bitcoin as digital cash. But what Bitcoin OGs are focusing on the most right now is pushing The Sat Standard to solve the unit bias problem for 90% of world's population who are still "nocoiners".

This is where it gets really interesting because without a good unit of account, we can't have Bitcoin as a medium of exchange. It might stay as digital gold forever and can never absorb the entire $100 trillion global money supply (M2).

This was where we came in with a proposal..."

In a nutshell, the debate of Sat/fiat vs Nah is a debate about transaction speed vs absolute scarcity (0% inflation) + perfect unit of account. Based on our observation so far, Nah's first users are mostly Bitcoin OGs who have a low time preference and are willing to wait 10 mins for transactions to confirm. They still hodl some Sats to pay for transaction fees and for fast transactions via LN. But for the purpose of preserving value through time and being a unit of account on corporations' balance sheets, it is clear that Nah will outperform Sat in the long run. Converting from Nah to Sat should only take about 10 mins to confirm, but I think most serious buyers will only buy and hodl and very rarely will they sell Nah.

Bitcoin's original point has never been about transaction speed. It is about being the final settlement layer for electronic cash transactions. Nah shall become the primary unit of account on the Bitcoin timechain due to its absolute scarcity and more suitable number of max circulating supply units to enable the transition from fiat to hard money, while Sat will still be the secondary unit of account. It's like gold and silver back in the old days, but this time we have digital diamond and digital gold.

[Ucy]

First of all, it won't be in the interest of Bitcoin to get the world transition from fiat to Bitcoin. That feels like imposition, and government will atleast, want some measure of control of its currency which it typically impose on people.  The government control, no matter how small, if unchecked by the rest of the network, will become centralized. And imposing Bitcoin on people completely contradicts its ideals as a voluntary currency/system.
If you carefully consider everything, you will probably come to the conclusion that Bitcoin can't be adopted inplace of fiat currencies without contradicting its purpose.

In regards to the so called Nah, which by the way feels/sounds like a premined color-coin or token, I do not believe anything like that is needed. The Bitcoin world doesn't have to be like fiat/dollar world with majority of people able to own a whole coin. Since Bitcoin/crypto is typically deflationary, we should expect the whole number to be eventually unaffordable to most people while the smaller unit remains in decimals, which typical independent minded people will become accustomed to rather than expecting things to be like their kindergarten-like former system they sort of graduated from.

There is no ideal unit of account. So I do not consider that a big issue. Prices of things will always go up, and a deflationary currency would be better way to measure the changes for a really long period of time compared to fiat that could completely lose value and vanish away (or its smaller unit vanish away) without trace.

[dendehomie]

First of all, it won't be in the interest of Bitcoin to get the world transition from fiat to Bitcoin. That feels like imposition, and government will atleast, want some measure of control of its currency which it typically impose on people.  The government control, no matter how small, if unchecked by the rest of the network, will become centralized. And imposing Bitcoin on people completely contradicts its ideals as a voluntary currency/system.
If you carefully consider everything, you will probably come to the conclusion that Bitcoin can't be adopted inplace of fiat currencies without contradicting its purpose.

In regards to the so called Nah, which by the way feels/sounds like a premined color-coin or token, I do not believe anything like that is needed. The Bitcoin world doesn't have to be like fiat/dollar world with majority of people able to own a whole coin. Since Bitcoin/crypto is typically deflationary, we should expect the whole number to be eventually unaffordable to most people while the smaller unit remains in decimals, which typical independent minded people will become accustomed to rather than expecting things to be like their kindergarten-like former system they sort of graduated from.

There is no ideal unit of account. So I do not consider that a big issue. Prices of things will always go up, and a deflationary currency would be better way to measure the changes for a really long period of time compared to fiat that could completely lose value and vanish away (or its smaller unit vanish away) without trace.

Satoshi Nakamoto's original vision is to create a final settlement timechain for electronic cash transactions that will replace fiat (aka third parties) and allow everyone to transact in a true peer to peer manner. Bitcoin OGs call this the separation of money and state. We are not "imposing Bitcoin on people". The Bitcoin timechain has been upgraded to logically solve the unit bias problem with the creation of Nah last month and we simply want to inform Bitcoiners on this forum of the development. We voluntarily use the Bitcoin timechain with Nah as the unit of account at our multinational corporation because it makes our accounting and communication easier and most importantly it will preserve the value of our work through time.

Bitcoin is competing with other monetary assets (gold & fiat/crypto) and our research shows that Nah can help Sat take over the monetary market by solving the unit bias problem. Concluding that "Bitcoin can't be adopted inplace of fiat currencies without contradicting its purpose" and grouping Bitcoin together with "crypto" scams make you sound like an agent of a fiat government that fears the day when fiat gets replaced. Please go re read the Bitcoin whitepaper before you re read our post (just a friendly advice and not an "imposition").