312 sats \ 14 replies \ @mattcrv OP 31 Jan \ parent \ on: satsymbol.org | It’s time for a better symbol for sats. bitcoin
That's the sats symbol Bitkit uses today, but it'll soon be gone forever hahaha. Enjoy it while you can!
write
preview
128 sats \ 9 replies \ @kr 31 Jan
in what ways is the current symbol not working for Bitkit?
reply
693 sats \ 8 replies \ @mattcrv OP 31 Jan
Seeing a balance of ⚡ 502 000 implies that all the funds are spendable on Lightning, even if they're not (which's the case for wallets like Bitkit that also support on-chain balances). Lightning might not be the main method for transacting bitcoin in the future, so associating "sats" so closely with it is limiting.
reply
420 sats \ 3 replies \ @nullcount 31 Jan
You could make the UX better by treating onchain and LN balances as a unified balance and allow spending from both.
But I'm sure this symbol is the bigger UX problem affecting users of Bitcoin /s
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @mattcrv OP 31 Jan
You could make the UX better by treating onchain and LN balances as a unified balance and allow spending from both.
That doesn't solve the overarching problem. What about wallets that don't have Lightning?
But I'm sure this symbol is the bigger UX problem affecting users of Bitcoin /s
The lack of a sats symbol is certainly not the "bigger UX problem affecting user of Bitcoin". We don't believe that. There are many problems to be solved, and we can work on solving all of them!
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @nullcount 31 Jan
what about wallets that don't support LN
Small UTXOs are becoming dust due to high fees. But we need another symbol to represent those units which are now unspendable /s
reply
42 sats \ 0 replies \ @mattcrv OP 31 Jan
Small UTXOs are becoming dust due to high fees. But we need another symbol to represent those units which are now unspendable /s
There are many problems to be solved in Bitcoin, and a sats symbol is not the only one or the main one, but it's one of them. Many Bitcoiners are working on solving different, independent issues. That's the beauty of decentralization. There's no Bitcoin Foundation dictating which issue of the roadmap should be prioritized!
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @kr 31 Jan
good point
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @mattcrv OP 31 Jan
Another issue is that the ⚡ Unicode symbol gets rendered as an emoji when typed. A currency symbol that is an emoji will never be taken seriously. We could use ϟ instead, but it looks Harry Potter's scar reversed. There's ↯ as well, but it's too bearish.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 1 Feb freebie
Seeing a balance of ⚡ 502 000 implies that all the funds are spendable on Lightning
I think that won't matter in the long run.1 A lot of words we use don't really make sense but words change their meaning all the time.
Most people won't even know about lightning. They'll just use the symbol without thinking about it. And if anyone asks why we use a lightning bolt as the currency symbol, we'll just respond with: "For historical reasons."

Footnotes

  1. I don't even think it implies that. It's already just a symbol for sats for me. ↩
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @anon 31 Jan
but it'll soon be gone forever hahaha
Oh yeah, because Bitkit will be going full shitcoinery with tether? Will be gone like Bitkit itself hahahaha
reply
0 sats \ 2 replies \ @mattcrv OP 31 Jan
Bitkit will be here for a long time, no plans to add USDT anytime soon, and it'll never go full shitcoinery. We're working hard to build a great Bitcoin wallet and hope you're open to giving Bitkit another chance!
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @aoeu 1 Feb
Maybe I missed something, but what did bitkit do in the past for people to get this impression about it?
reply
30 sats \ 0 replies \ @mattcrv OP 1 Feb freebie
Bitkit is developed by Synonym, a Tether-owned company. Synonym was the first company to put USDT on Lightning: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfaqYeyake8
Initially, Synonym had plans to add USDT to Bitkit but has since deprioritized it.
reply