Anyhoo, I will sum up the future of Bitcoin. For any of you early adopters out there, consider this your cheat sheet to know where the future of Bitcoin develops:
* "Bitcoin" is still the technology.
* 1 bit will be the "base unit".
* the smallest unit will be "1 bit cent", also known as "1 satoshi" to honor Satoshi Nakamoto. (sort of like 0.01 USD is referred to as a "1 cent", and also its proper name "1 penny", respectively)
* Some people will understand that "1 bitcoin = very rich". The term "Bitcoinaire" may even come up.
* XBT is the abbreviation -- it fits beautifully with "Bitcoin" and "bits", even though that wouldn't be intellectually 100% correct.
* Exchanges, traders, accountants, etc. will understand the price of Bitcoin as "$400 / XBT"
* Laymen will look at the price of Bitcoin as "2500 bits / dollar" (US Dollar) ... bookkeepers and accountants will be familiar with this as well, if necessary.
You try to predict the future with a high degree of accuracy, and you state your prediction with a high degree of certainity.
This is what I call "hubris"...
I completely agree with you. Unfortunately, it's hard for your average user, and your average adopter, to understand what a "SAT" is, especially in the world of Bitcoin. If you go ahead and tell them, "oh, it's short for Satoshi! The guy who worked a lot on Bitcoin in the beginning had the first name Satoshi. He's anonymous and stuff. But don't ask about that".
...well, that's just adding more confusion. (Even if you make the explanation shorter). I'm not saying this because it is what I believe, I am saying it because it is the reactions and feelings of the layman (and even very technically-minded people).
Will newbies and average users understand? Yes.
Will they remember that "1 sat" is the base unit for Bitcoin? As most people forgot things very quickly, my *intentional* interactions with the layman show that they just don't remember "Satoshi" or "Sat". They entirely remember "bits". Things I have heard include:
"Oh ya... a 'bit', right?"
"Um, it was 1 'yoshi' right?" (to which I reply: "no, 1 SA-toshi")
On my website I have explainers about what a "bitcoin" is and what a "satoshi" is, and I'm in regular communication (via email, web-form, etc.) with my site's users.
As a matter of fact I haven't heard any such questions or understanding problems about "satoshi".
(The website has been running for two years, the faucet was added one week ago.)
Anyways, this isn't about "
What is easier: sats or bits?" — this is about "
What is easier: sats or bits&sats?"
Many "bits" adherents seem to forget that when using "bits" we still have to explain what a satoshi is, because sooner or later, the users will want to know what the smallest denomination of bitcoin is.
More specifically I'd have to add a third explainer about "bits"
in addition to the two explainers that I already have (about satoshi and bitcoin).
Obviously I'm not too lazy to write up these explainers, but I'm rather worried that this would add unnecessary complexity to my website (which is targeted towards newbies) and bitcoin as a whole.
Thus I conclude,
even if bits is easier to understand than sats (which I doubt), then adding this unit to the system would still make it more difficult for newbies to understand.
But I cannot understand why the new base unit should be 100 SAT instead of 1 SAT.
Bits advocates a standardised, conventional, universal, currency format, accurate to 2 decimal places. Sats has merit, but getting the world to change to a new format is a big ask, it's probably not going to happen.
It is true that many world currencies use two decimal places. However, you shouldn't fall for the
composition fallacy.
Humans are already used to the fact that different currencies have different divisibility, and the ISO 4217 standard even includes a mechanism to catalogue those using the "exponent" attribute.
Also, using plain integers to measure value is not a "new format" at all:
There is good evidence that the human brain prefers to use integers and intuitively uses integers even when presented with a decimal number. That's the reason why 2.34 $ is pronounced "
two dollars and thirtyfour cents" and
not "
two point three four dollars".
Therefore, as humans already use integers to mentally visualise values, it will be easy to transition to "
two hundred and thirtyfour sats" (given that the exchange rate is appropriate).
By the way, speaking about standardisation, are you aware of ISO/IEC 80000-13?
The unit "bit" is already standardised!
Other reasons are more subjective; imo it feels right, it sounds right, it looks right; it's a core feature of the Bitcoin technology; at this stage it's value is pretty small, not too big, just right for this stage of the adoption curve. It's easy to say. It sounds digital, and thus self-contextual. It's user friendly.
That's right: The unit "bit" has some merits, and no one will prevent you from using it. I can see that a subset of the bitcoin community will use "bits".
However, we were talking about the
base unit here. And it is a necessary condition for a unit to be universally accepted
before it can become the base unit.
After nearly one year of discussion, the opposition against "bits" is as strong as ever, so I cannot see how it could become universally accepted in any foreseeable future.
On the other hand, the unit "satoshi" seems to be universally accepted,
even by those who would actually prefer a different unit. Both "bits" advocates
and "bits" opponents will agree that the smallest denomination of bitcoin should be called "satoshi".
Thus it stands a good chance to become the new base unit.
Poll
