Topic: How we came about satoshi (the smallest unit of Bitcoin) in history of Bitcoin (Read 358 times)

There's nothing to suggest that this is the reason behind our current division system. The first post suggesting it, which OP linked to here (https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.46648), was simply because 1 bitcent (0.01 BTC) was becoming worth more than a US cent. The proposal was to divide bitcents by 1,000,000, resulting in milli and micro bitcents.

Dude it's 8 decimals because there are 8 bits in 1 byte that is why you see people using microBitcoin uBTC because they are not including the bits. You say a file is 100kb in size not 800 bits. With bitcoin is is the opposite and it is easier to use bits not bytes (mbtc) microBitcoin uBTC.

So with bitcoin we don't say 1 microBitcoin uBTC it is easer to say 100 satoshi so that 1million satoshi= 1 bitcoin cent and not 10000 mbits.

So with bitcoin using bits is easier then using bytes but with computers and file sizes using bytes us easier.

Basically, use the decimal system that is easier on the eye. It is very interesting though to see how one works better then the other based on the different system.

We might need that hardfork in future if bitcoin does succeed as it was intended to do (e.g used for everyday activities like shopping, buying of coffee, foodstuffs etc). If 1 satoshi was to be equivalent to $1 then there'll be a need to subdivide more if we're to enable spending of lesser than $1 worth satoshi without the need of lightening network.

Currently hardforks are been presented as disadvantages to the coin in question (bitcoin) so I understand the reason for your disapproval but you should understand hardfork aren't that bad especially as it adds more features to the existing ones for improvement and they do more good than harm when the community supports the new chain and it becomes a successful fork (i.e a hardfork that most users or everyone moves to new chain) the past hardforks bitcoin experience weren't successful ones they were either contentious or failed forks.

And, i don't believe we need another hard-fork again if it will be possible, becasue; we have seen many forks without tangible benefits to Bitcoin, rather misleading other potential investors to invest into their fork Obliviousness. If you ask me; we are okay with satoshi, if it will require a hardfork to subdivide bitcoin again.

I am a little confused by this aspect. I read that the leftover millisatoshis are added to the coinbase transaction. I was under the impression that if more than one channel closes with leftover millisat transactions, the  combined total is rounded down to the nearest satoshi, so the miner could get some extra fee.

OP, I don't see nothing wrong in these topics that you show as example. They just used name of Satoshi without writing his surname. Satoshi (starting with capital letter) - it's name of Bitcoin creator and satoshi - smallest fraction of Bitcoin.
Actually, I didn't knew who created this term to name smallest fraction of Bitcoin. And I find it strange that author wasn't avarded any Merits for that post so far.
Personally, I love this term. I started my crypto journey with faucets, so in my early days in crypto world I used this term very often. I never use alternative terms like mBTC, Bits and others.

It isn't the smallest unit that could be recorded. It is the smallest unit recorded presently, but it is possible to further subdivide bitcoin if needed, although it would require a hardfork to do so.

It is probably also worth mentioning that Lightning Network already subdivides satoshi in to a thousand units called millisatoshi. You can make payments on Lightning in millisatoshi, but upon closing a channel you can't broadcast millisatoshi to the blockchain, and so the value will be floored (rounded down) to the nearest satoshi.

Many Newbies misunderstood the word “satoshi” and many of them refer to Satoshi Nakamoto when talking or discussing about “Satoshi” in question.  Here are some few threads that ignorantly talked or discussed about Satoshi Nakamoto, but often use the word “Satoshi”. Whenever we discuss satoshi, we aren’t talking about Satoshi Nakamoto because, staoshi is “the smallest unit that could be recorded on the bitcoin blockchain” and not the creator of Bitcoin.
 
Is Satoshi Alive? ,
Implications of Satoshi holding 10% of bitcoins , Satoshi help! ,
Satoshi Disappear Day ,
Reasons Satoshi probably is, or isn't Julian Assange?

This was the first move by ribuck which was a proposal but, members of Bitcointalk.org denied his proposal on this thread because, it was out of place, due to its nature(Poll). But later he joined another thread which was for "Unicode character for Bitcoin and he asked this question", “What's the plan for subdividing Bitcoins? Do we go in thousands like the metric system (millibits, microbits, nanobits)?”, members where not willing to give an answer to his proposal, and his ideal expired.
 
Feb. 10, 2011, ribuck make another comment in relation to unit account denominations and this time it was done properly on this thread More divisibility required - move the decimal point ,
and eight days later, there was a reply to his question on this thread Bitcent?
created by Kolbas , on this thread a user reinstated ribuck proposal of:

“1 satoshi = 1 microbitcent (smallest denomination)
100 million satoshis = 1 bitcoin
Are we agreed?”

And other users supported, it was agreed that: 0.00000001, will be the smallest unit that could be recorded on Bitcoin blockchain, and it was called satoshi from that day.

What's your take on this findings mate?
Please don't spam on this thread.