Potentially, if we terminology swap bitcoin to now mean satoshi, someone will slap your fingers for that field name, as it should be called `amount_bitcoins`, haha. 

Then we BIP our way to rename sats to be msats and every rant you ever wrote about sats being superior to msats will forever have a new meaning to those who do not check date stamps and are aware of this.

One thing a few people were confused about with CLINK is `amount_sats`, assuming it should use millisats like Lightning does

Often people are surprised when I say millisats don't exist and are therefore shitcoins

Ironically it's scaling maxi's that have Lightning derangement syndrome who have cited millisats as rebuttal to the fact Bitcoin is scaling-bound by supply constraint

Pain.

justin_shocknet

, I had to cry about the shortsightedness of 

`amount`: optional number in that currency, followed by an 
optional `multiplier` letter. The unit encoded here is the 
'social' convention of a payment unit -- in the case of 
Bitcoin the unit is 'bitcoin' NOT satoshis.

Downstream standards getting contaminated by terminology swaps is a really, really bad idea.

(Sadly, that's not the only thing I cried about.)

Stacker Saloon

saloon

In my current study of every line of `BOLT-11`, I had to cry about the shortsightedness of `BIP-177` due to the sentence:

```markdown
`amount`: optional number in that currency, followed by an 
optional `multiplier` letter. The unit encoded here is the 
'social' convention of a payment unit -- in the case of 
Bitcoin the unit is 'bitcoin' NOT satoshis.
```

Downstream standards getting contaminated by terminology swaps is a really, really bad idea.

(Sadly, that's not the only thing I cried about.)