Topic: Bitcoin decimals. Is 1.00000000 Bitcoin the same as 1.000000000000 Bitcoin? - page 2. (Read 485 times)

By the time that happens, $1 is worth nothing and 1 sat will still be small enough not to need smaller denominations.

Nothing changes.

no we do not
stop playing user display cludgy math games to pretend proposals to break bitcoin code rules and data structures is a nothing burger..
look at actual bitcoin raw transaction data, there are no fractions
and no a hard drive does not see #'vbyte'
hard drives count data in actual bytes.

again you arw talking about human cludgy math, of the human GUI display of how bad math wants to calculate a fee based on data it ignores "for discount" or pretends is 4x bigger than actual bytes for legacy

try to stick to what actually exists in the real blockchain physical data, not what you see on a GUI display or in comments of code (comments are not rules, especially when the comments are badly worded to misrepresent what is actually happening in real world math terms
oh and take your own advice from another topic
so try it once in a while instead of setting yup your social ping pong games to try to make people think its ok to break bitcoin rules because a comment told them so


you are again trying to set up a narrative that we actually do have sub units of sats on bitcoin to pretend that breaking the actual blockchain data format and value of bitcoin is a nothingburger because in your view the GUI, comments of code and your misrepresentations of what satoshi said is a more important  decider (in your view) than actual code and data and actual satoshi quotes references


i know you then try to redeem yourself by then saying
but you had already entered the subtle implicit idea into peoples heads.. that bitcoin does have fractions of sats by what you said at the start of the paragraph

stop playing ping pong games to try to sway readers into thinking that breaking bitcoin is not a problem

---

its funny how your buddy group of malicious intent to break bitcoin. pretend that when someone proposes a new fee mechanism you lot say "there is no fee mechanism, miningpools can pick and choose what is a relevant fee to them, ignoring the reason someone paid X instead of y"

but as soon as it fits your narrative, you then say that there is a fee policy that the network treats as a rule "Because transactions are actually measured in weight units"

In that case, since the verification process does not explicitly check that amounts are within 8 decimals (its an implicit check, owing to the fact that every 8-decimal value can be represented in Core's custom integer type), a soft fork adding a second byte field for sub-fractional amounts (as garlonicon explained to me somewhere) should still work.

That's not how it works.

The value you are thinking of is the MIN_RELAY_TX_FEE (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/e9262ea32a6e1d364fb7974844fadc36f931f8c6/src/policy/policy.h#L57), which is indeed set at 1000 sats/kvB (which is equivalent to 1 sat/vB). However, this only applies to the fee paid for a transaction. Sure, you can change it to 1 sat/kvB if you want, meaning that a 250 vB transaction would only have to pay at least 2.5 sats in fees, which would in reality mean it had to pay a minimum of 3 sats. However, none of that allows you to send fractions of a satoshi as a fee or to create outputs which include fractions of a satoshi. It simply sets a lower limit for what your fee can be.

Because transactions are actually measured in weight units, we already have transactions which are fractions of a vbyte in size. For example, here is one I just pulled from my mempool: https://mempool.space/tx/5cf1d3b06cdb4dcd4513a42d6d3b19691558326af4ca11b961d852e39d9ed402. It has a virtual size of 172.25 vB, meaning the minimum fee required for this transaction would be 172.25 sats. But of course we cannot pay a fee of 172.25 sats, so the minimum fee would be 173 sats.

I also believe any decimal added on the right won't change the value of a whole number 1 is always equal to 1.000000000.  It can be proven mathematically unless one value on the decimal became 1  .  Since the number of Bitcoin in circulation is not impacted or changed by adding several zeros on the decimal, I believe the scarcity and value will stay the same.  What changes is the divisibility since Bitcoin can have a smaller fraction than its current original state.

Side note, you don't need a hardfork to add (a few) extra decimal places. There is some parameter in Bitcoin Core which lets you configure the minimum transaction fee of tx's your node will relay (-minrelaytx?). It's default value is 1000 sats/kB (kilobyte). You can change this to as low as 1, and get 3 extra decimal places used, for a total of 11 decimals.

As long as bitcoin has 100,000,000 satoshis there won't be any issues. It just shouldn't be created more decimal "satoshis" houses, so instead of the currently amount we would say bitcoin is composed by 1,000,000,000 satoshis or more. 1 btc must always equal to 100,000,000 satoshis. If people want to create decimal houses they should divide the satoshi unit in more parts, but never changing the currently structure.

If they want to transact 1,37158304 satoshi it's ok.

oeleo you also said

"Satoshi had no issue with further subdivision"
and
"No one complained then that suddenly there were a million times more bitcoin, and the cap of 21 million had suddenly become 21 trillion because of 6 more places after the decimal point."

where you were trying to make it sound like more subunits were created in the past and bitcoin had more shareable bitcoin due to a change in the past and no one cared.. yes you made it sound as if its not a problem to break the rules now to add more units...



i clarified that satoshi was not talking about the hard rule of subunits(sats)... he was just talking about the GUI display of representation outside of the rule.. where it does not even change the rules or subunits.
but just a lazy basket display

stop trying to use references about graphic display translations to think it infers acceptance to break hard code rules

I mean, as DooMAD has pointed out, I literally said that a satoshi has always been the base unit in the very post you quoted, but feel free to create more strawmen at which to direct your rage.

Absolutely. Take a meter. It does not matter if you divide that in to 100 centimeters, or 1,000 millimeters, or 1,000,000,000 nanometers. You will never have more than 1 meter.

If it were the case that dividing bitcoin in to millisats was effectively creating more bitcoin, then why is Lightning bitcoin the same value as on-chain bitcoin? It should be that Lightning bitcoin is 1/1000th the price of on-chain bitcoin, since there are 1000 times more units in the form of millisats. This is obviously not the case, because dividing a fixed supply in to smaller units is not the same as increasing the supply.

Doing that would require a total blockchain data rewrite, something blockchain was designed to prevent.
Let us assume for a moment that 1 sat is equal to 1$, that would be 21m*100m= 2 quadrillion one hundred trillion dollars, do we even have that amount of cash? What would be the worth of fiat currencies then? That means a total crash of the world economy.

I'm quite curious why you would think that any kind of subdivision would mean injection, this is just the pure definition of trailing zeros, why would that thought even come to mind? It would be a different thing if we would increase the amount of each balance by an order of magnitude and add zero before the dot, that's another story.

And, speaking what the "average" user thinks, well, thank you for giving our troll a month's supply of candy so he doesn't get hungry explaining to us how bitcoin is not bitcoin. Furthermore, didn't we all have some kind of gentlemen's agreement that all these non-sense debates with a certain person should be contained in one topic?
Not that I expect the said person to respect it, but at least keep to keep his nonsense under 500 words per page?

That's exactly what they said.  Please stop being illiterate, you overly sensitive little baby.  Read it again, psycho:

Public Notice: This topic contains several posts by user franky1, who fallaciously argues that SegWit and Taproot compatible nodes do not follow consensus rules.  Such a thing cannot happen, as nodes which don't follow consensus rules won't have a valid copy of the blockchain and would not be able to remain part of the network.  This disgusting individual also makes flippant comparisons between software activation methods and rape.  They frequently exhibit behaviours consistent with those of a sociopath.  Do not engage directly with franky1 as they may be mentally ill and a danger to others.  Consider adding them to your ignore list.

I don't think that's what Satoshi is aiming for, otherwise the Bitcoin supply would not be finite.

So why would we need a hardfork in order to get coins less than one satoshi? Locking mechanisms work perfectly, as we can lock 1 satoshi and get 1000 Msat, as these units can be traded and unlocked when we reach one satoshi.

If Bitcoin development to the point where 1 Satoshi equals 1 USD that means an increase in demand, which means that onChain network will not bear all transactions.

What I'm trying to say is that there will be no hardfork if we reach 1 satoshi = 1 dollar.

On-chain transactions don't understand smaller units than satoshi. LN can do mSats too.
But imho it's all a convention. Right now people work with Bitcoins, mBTC and satoshis.

My math tells that no matter how many zeroes are after the decimal point, if they're all zero it's the same number.
But I will add that in order to indeed have this in bitcoin - ie on-chain - bitcoin core may need changes and that's imho not necessary now, as long as 1 sat worth less than 1 cent.

WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG

te subunits always existed as they are today.. just the NAME was not given for that unit

please please pelase go look at the transactions and coin rewards of 2009 in actual byte form data. (true data form) and realise that a coin reward was never 50.00
it was always 5,000,000,000 units. it was just the GUI front end graphic display for human eye interpreted as 50.00.. but that was not the actual hard code rule

as for the subdivision. he was not talking about changing beyond the 8 decimals EG
the true 5,000,000,000 units being displayed as 50.00 changing
to:  5,000,000,000,000 units being displayed as 50.00 by breaking the blockchain data rule

he was talking abot changing the GUI visual human display of
the true 5,000,000,000 units being displayed as 50.00 changing
to:        5,000,000,000 units being displayed as 50.00000000

do not be so duplicitous like your chums who are trying to break every rule of bitcoin
such as the likes of privacyG and you lot, that also want to break the blockchain accounting system of every coins route back to their origin creation of coinbase reward aka "remove the taint coz privacy"


i know deep down you an your chums do understand the importance of blockchains and things like:
the byzantine generals solution (abstinence/lack of mass consent does not equal consent)
the taint is accounting and proof of valid value creation
and limit of shareable units

so dont play dumb to think that bitcoin could and should break rules just to meet your chums malicious desires for harming bitcoin just to promote another crap sub network that has flaws and bugs and not truly compatible to bitcoin principles

dont keep trying to propose to break bitcoin to make your subnetwork look more appealing

MiliSatoshi?
Wow, I never heard about it and all I knew is Satoshi is the last division of bitcoin that we can trade. I don’t know but I never seen mSat getting traded on any faucet also which are popular for paying their user in Satoshi payment for small and quick payouts. If msat was so popular then I think it would have been the digit of interest to be paid out by such small paying / micro payment sites.

I was curious after reading this,
But msat is actually based on Lightening network? & not the bitcoin?

Satoshi had no issue with further subdivision: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.267

When bitcoin was first launched, the term "satoshi" in reference to the smallest unit did not exist. Most people did not even know what the smallest unit was. The software at the time showed bitcoin as 1.00, and most people thought bitcoin was divisible by 100. At some point, we transitioned to bitcoin being divisible by 100,000,000. No one complained then that suddenly there were a million times more bitcoin, and the cap of 21 million had suddenly become 21 trillion because of 6 more places after the decimal point.

Further subdivision is obviously a far more complex issue given that a satoshi is the base unit as far as the software goes. But it seems Satoshi would not consider millisats to be an inflation in supply:


So if you had 1 sat before, it now shows as 1.000 sats. "Same amount of money", in the words of Satoshi.

thinnest slice of bread is 0.5cm thick. and for all time there were X slices that represent a loaf of bread

trying to think of it as 4 loaves of bread with more thinner slices ignores the hard rules about the slices

by breaking the slices down further. breaks many rules where some conventional loaves appears as not fulll loaves anymore. or where it then confuses peoples concepts of how much bread they can share because now they have more slices to share.

It sounds to me that this has already been discussed several times on the forum, and the answer is no. You have a gold coin with which you buy 4 loaves of bread and you divide it into 4, so instead of buying 4 loaves today, you go each day you buy 1 loaf. Is that inflation? No. It is a subdivision.

There should be given name to that fraction of satoshi.  1 satoshi will still equal to 1 satoshi, and currently there is 2,100,000,000,000,000 satoshi (kindly check my zeros if it is correct).  Adding more 0 to the right does not increase the number of Bitcoin but the divisibility.  It even does not increase the number of satoshi but gives fraction to satoshi.  Bitcoin will still be as scarce as it is and satoshi will still be $1 (assuming the price of 1 satoshi is equal to $1) during that time. 

1.00000000 = 1.000000000000 just like what Iroh stated.