Topic: When quoting small amounts of bitcoin, how do you call 100 satoshis? - page 2. (Read 8418 times)

Just no. The base unit for mass in the SI system is the gram. Defined as the mass of 1 ml of water at STP.

He said on page 8 of a thread entitled "When quoting small amounts of bitcoin, how do you call 100 satoshis?"

yes i also agree with 100 satoshi, memorable, and easy on the mention

sometimes the layman, they are always one mention as examples 10k satoshi and 10k  bitcoin. when what they mean is 10k satoshi
and I often heard them

100 satoshi will sound the most known, i recommend doing that 

Hey hey that's a very good point actually, we have to keep it simple!

You have taken your position and are using sats on your website, great, good luck with that. You just don't seem to see how biased you are to that position you have made, biased, and deaf to any argument.

Just look at your statement "the opposition against "bits" is as strong as ever". Do you mean your own personal opposition? because it clearly isn't true for the community in general as there is a very clear and strong shift to bits.

You have also greatly over complicated things, (something the SI folks do so well). You bog yourself down and wonder how on earth you are going to explain that 1 bit = 100 satoshis. It's not rocket science. People get it.

Anyway no hard feelings, each to his own. Enjoy using sats, you're free to choose what you want, no need for all the BS to justify yourself.

It is too confusing. How can a 50 year old man process this in their mind.

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"...


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.


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!


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.

Sarcastic comment was sarcastic.

Don't feel defeated, you're welcome to join the the winning team ;-)

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.

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.

Well these are a few things that come to mind, I'm sure there's lots more.

edit grammar

You defeated me. You win. I have nothing more to comment. All hail 10111111.

If you have recovered from shooting yourself in the foot yet again, perhaps you can address my other points. Is there anything there you can agree with?

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.

In response to KingOfTrolls:
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")

Fixed that for you.

To understand the meaning of "µBTC" one has to understand the meaning of "BTC" first.
However, the whole point of moving the decimal (as far as I understand it) is about finding a setup that allows us to gradually phase out the unit "BTC" entirely. The eventual outcome would be that the term "bitcoin" refers to the currency system as a whole, not a unit.

The underlying problem is that µBTC is — and always will be — a subunit, not the base unit. I can understand that many people want to change the base unit, as it is too large. But I cannot understand why the new base unit should be 100 SAT instead of 1 SAT.

You do realize that if I talk about “100 mBTC” I've effectively MOVED the decimal place, right? Do you really think I would pronounce this “Oh point oh oh oh one bitcoins” when it clearly can be read “One hundred mikes”? (using “mike” as an abbreviation because obviously the word “microbitcoins” is too long)

I will provide a tool-tip that quotes the exact amount in BTC, for clarity.

However, it will certainly not be the main option as it is too inconvenient to pronounce ("oh point oh oh oh oh...") and carries the unwanted implication of being just a small fraction of something. People don't like to have small fractions of something.


You have a very good point about how using bits is better than using whole bitcoins or SI prefixes.
I especially agree with the green part. Many people underestimate the importance of these subconscious effects. The human brain prefers to use (positive) integers.

However, can you explain how using bits is superior to using sats? That's the part that I don't understand.

You have no idea of what we are talking about. Moving the decimal point is not the same as 'reversing' to an imperial system. Surely that's a very elementary concept?

In the bitcoin context, the 'SI purists" insist on the decimal point staying where it is, forcing everyone to deal with currency to 8 decimal places, making daily mental arithmetic impractical.

The 'bits' advocates want the decimal place moved 6 places right to a more standardised currency convention and format, it works better with financial software, and more importantly it better suits how our brains have evolved in dealing with 'counting numbers', it helps bridge bitcoins usability chasm. Having moved the decimal place, SI can operate as per normal. It's still a decimal system. It still has a decimal place.

Not only that but behind the user-interface level, the 'SI purists' can talk to each other in micro or milli all day long if they wish, so they have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

The fact that the whole world except the US (and a few other countries) use the SI system surely means their days are numbered. Totally. Like, why aren't we all reversing to the Imperial system right now?

Ok, mikes is good, I'm glad we agree, apart from the actual name.

It doesn't help the SI purists who insist we all do mental arithmetic to 8 decimal places, but I am sure their days are 'numbered'.