pull down to refresh

Redefinition of the Bitcoin Unit to the Base Denomination
Abstract This BIP proposes redefining the commonly recognized "bitcoin" unit so that what was previously known as the smallest indivisible unit becomes the primary reference unit. Under this proposal, one bitcoin is defined as that smallest unit, eliminating the need for decimal places. By making the integral unit the standard measure, this BIP aims to simplify user comprehension, reduce confusion, and align on-chain values directly with their displayed representation.
Motivation The current convention defines one BTC as 100,000,000 of the smallest indivisible units. This representation requires dealing with eight decimal places, which can be confusing and foster the misconception that bitcoin is inherently decimal-based. In reality, Bitcoin’s ledger represents values as integers of a smallest unit, and the decimal point is merely a human-imposed abstraction.
By redefining the smallest unit as "one bitcoin," this BIP aligns user perception with the protocol’s true nature. It reduces cognitive overhead, ensures users understand Bitcoin as counting discrete units, and ultimately improves educational clarity and user experience.
Specification
Redefinition of the Unit: Internally, the smallest indivisible unit remains unchanged.
Historically, 1 BTC = 100,000,000 base units. Under this proposal, "1 bitcoin" equals that smallest unit.
What was previously referred to as "1 BTC" now corresponds to 100 million bitcoins under the new definition.
Terminology: The informal terms "satoshi" or "sat" are deprecated. All references, interfaces, and documentation SHOULD refer to the base integer unit simply as "bitcoin."
Display and Formatting: Applications SHOULD present values as whole integers without decimals.
Example: Old display: 0.00010000 BTC New display: 10000 BTC (or ₿10000)
Conversion: Ledger and consensus rules remain unchanged. Implementations adopting this standard MUST multiply previously displayed BTC amounts by 100,000,000 to determine the new integer representation.
Rationale Usability: Integer-only displays simplify mental arithmetic and reduce potential confusion or user error.
Protocol Alignment: The Bitcoin protocol inherently counts discrete units. Removing the artificial decimal format aligns user perception with Bitcoin’s actual integral design.
Educational Clarity: Presenting integers ensures newcomers do not mistakenly assume that Bitcoin’s nature is decimal-based. It conveys Bitcoin’s true design from the start.
Future-Proofing: Adopting the smallest unit as the primary measure ensures a consistent standard that can scale smoothly as Bitcoin adoption grows.
Addressing Alternative Approaches Refuting the "Bits" Proposal (BIP 176)
An alternative suggestion (BIP 176) proposes using "bits" to represent one-millionth of a bitcoin (100 satoshis). While this reduces the number of decimal places in certain contexts, it fails to fully address the core issues our BIP aims to solve:
Persistent Decimal Mindset: Using "bits" still retains a layered decimal approach, requiring users to think in terms of multiple denominations (BTC and bits). This shifts complexity rather than eliminating it.
Inconsistent User Experience: Users must learn to toggle between BTC for large amounts and bits for small amounts. Instead of providing a unified view of value, it fragments the user experience.
Incomplete Alignment with the Protocol’s Nature: The "bits" proposal does not realign the displayed value with the integral nature of Bitcoin’s ledger. It continues to rely on fractional units, masking the fundamental integer-based accounting that Bitcoin employs.
Not Permanently Future-Proof: Though "bits" may simplify certain price ranges, future circumstances could demand additional denominations or scaling adjustments. Our integral approach resolves this problem entirely by making the smallest unit the standard measure, avoiding future fragmentation.
In essence, while BIP 176 attempts to simplify small amount representations, it only replaces one decimal representation with another. By redefining "bitcoin" as the smallest indivisible unit, this BIP eliminates reliance on decimal fractions and separate denominations entirely, offering a clearer, more intuitive, and ultimately more durable solution.
Backward Compatibility No consensus rules are altered, and on-chain data remains unchanged. Differences arise solely in display formats:
For Developers: Update GUIs, APIs, and documentation to present values as integers. Remove references to fractional BTC.
For Users: The actual value of holdings does not change. Transitional measures, such as dual displays or explanatory tooltips, can ease the adjustment period. Security Considerations
A short-term risk of confusion exists as users adapt to the new representation. Users accustomed to decimals may misinterpret initial displays. To mitigate this: Offer dual displays and tooltips during the transition.
Provide clear educational materials and coordinated messaging.
Use alerts or confirmations in applications if input values appear unexpectedly large or small.
Over time, confusion will subside, leaving a simpler, more intuitive understanding of Bitcoin’s integral values.
Reference Implementation Some wallets, such as Bitkit, have successfully adopted integer-only displays, demonstrating the feasibility of this approach. Transitional features—like showing both old and new formats side-by-side—can help smooth the transition.
Test Vectors Old: 1.00000000 BTC → New: 100000000 BTC (or ₿100000000) Old: 0.00010000 BTC → New: 10000 BTC (or ₿10000) Old: 0.00500000 BTC → New: 500000 BTC (or ₿500000)
All formerly fractional representations now directly correspond to whole-number multiples of the smallest unit.
Implementation Timeline Phase 1 (3-6 months): Introduce the concept, provide dual displays and educational materials.
Phase 2 (6-12 months): Prominent services adopt integer-only displays by default.
Phase 3 (12+ months): Integer representation becomes standard. Documentation and user guides no longer reference decimal-based formats. Conclusion
Redefining the "bitcoin" unit as the smallest indivisible unit and removing decimal-based representations simplifies comprehension and aligns displayed values with the protocol’s integral accounting. While a transition period may be necessary, the long-term benefits include clearer communication, reduced confusion, and a more accurate understanding of Bitcoin’s fundamental design.
Copyright This BIP is licensed under CC0-1.0.
1622 sats \ 2 replies \ @btcpt123 13 Dec
This will create way more confusion that it will solve.
reply
I can see the headline now: "Bitcoin now worth less than a penny!"
The popular understanding of Bitcoin is that 1 btc is worth a lot. @BitcoinErrorLog's proposal throws that away and has to fight the mental image pretty much everyone who's ever heard of bitcoin has. Seems like it would just lead to confusion, like a bad rebrand.
reply
I mean can you imagine. All the folks on r/buttcoin and elsewhere...
'Bitcoin worthless!!! Worth less than a penny, it crashed!!!' I mean oh my
reply
reply
John Carvalho with this proposal only want to make relevant his crap Bitkit wallet that is pushing this use of ₿ as unit for bitcoin. Stupid move.
reply
140 sats \ 6 replies \ @OgFOMK 13 Dec
Someone did a lot of thinking about nothing instead of understanding the generation of numeric use. We already use sats and sats are very simple.
No. It's also going to break the line of education and communication from the previous generation of Bitcoin plebs to the present which is the similar intent of renaming schools, military bases and other historical places. It's Marxist nonsense.
reply
It's not so much marxist... as there is a serious 'unit bias' for Bitcoin vs sats. It's everywhere. People see 'oh 100k forget that'. But the dogcoin? Oh that's cheap i'll get that one!
However this would take a long time to implement and there's no way it would turn out uniform
reply
589 sats \ 4 replies \ @OgFOMK 13 Dec
The unit bias is innumeracy. To be quite honest if we had more decimal places in fiat currency there would be no need to print higher denomination bills. These tokens are merely means to exchange value and if the currency is tight in circulation a business person will say:
Vendor - "OK, Jack, I understand that you don't have a full penny for this candy. Do you have a half penny?"
Jack - "Why yes, I do have a half penny."
Vendor - "Well just pay me that and you can keep the candy."
This is sales! Instead, we have been psyched out of using change and the register doesn't do tenths of a penny... But the gas stations do!
If you fundamentally understand math, money and exchange then you can navigate value very easily. My first amplifier for an electric guitar I bought with $120 USD in 1987. I saw the MSRP (Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price) or sticker price of $200 and I kept pacing back and forth at a mall guitar store. I was a skinny punk rock dude and the salesman said, "You want to try it out?" I said, "Yes!" It was a beautiful Crate Amplifier. I tried it out and I was think that I have to have this.
The salesman said, "Are you ready to buy it?" I told him that I didn't have enough money. He said, "How much do you have?" I told him $120. We didn't use credit cards. He said, "I'll take it." Wow! I negotiated and I didn't even know it. Lesson learned. The salesman knew that the bottom line is that he get sales to pay the bills. He needed liquidity. Liquidity is how the gas stations and other businesses use decimal values to accumulate while we are stuck with higher denominated cash and we in turn forfeit value to them.
The point is that the smaller units of Bitcoin are already in use and people who cry about 100,000,000 sats in one Bitcoin don't understand anything. They only understand that it's $100,000 USD for one and they can't have it. They also want to immediately sell a whole coin for another ungodly price. They are innumerate.
Now the Marxists, well they want you to be confused, trendy and poor. They are the ones who want to dumb everyone down so that they can have slaves. If you can't see that then you might be in the golden cage.
Finally the term sat is the root of the Satoshi name. It literally means "truth" in Sanskrit which is where the Satoshi nym derivative comes from. It's a Japanese cognate to suggest a man who embodies truth. The basic unit of Bitcoin is "truth".
reply
Thank you... I had never heard that explanation of 'Satoshi' before! Something something Japanese (central intelligence LOL) but I hadn't heard the bit about Sanskrit. Incredibly interesting!
Yes and you are right. The thing about Bitcoin's price... is that it isn't really that important.
1000 sats per dollar... that's it. For 10 dollars, someone can buy 10,000 sats approximately, and the sats are just that... sats! That's why it doesn't matter what the exchange rate is, Bitcoin is just money and a powerful, scarce savings account!
As far as the 'can't have one' crowd... they can do like anyone else and
  1. pick up a second job
  2. pick up extra shifts at work
  3. save long term
  4. reduce expenses (costs) and increase cashflow (for example through employment)
There is no 'get rich quick' scheme, just hard work and saving. From what I can tell, Bitcoin is extremely liquid, traded in huge volumes every day, not to mention being embraced by individuals, companies, and eventually countries! (US!)
The earlier that people realize that 1 sat = 1 sat the earlier they start stacking! The exchange rate being unimportant! 1000 sats just as valid and important to the individual as 1000000 sats... and seed phrases are created equal.
Bitcoin is for saving <3
reply
basic unit of bitcoin is truth!
this is so amazing, another tool in my awakening arsenal.
reply
17 sats \ 1 reply \ @OgFOMK 14 Dec
Satya (Sanskrit: सत्य; IAST: Satya) is a Sanskrit word translated as truth or essence.[3] It also refers to a virtue in Indian religions, referring to being truthful in one's thoughts, speech and action.[4] In Yoga, satya is one of five yamas, the virtuous restraint from falsehood and distortion of reality in one's expressions and actions.[5]
reply
wonderful!
reply
It's outrageous! That's a slap in the face to Nakamoto. John is clever, but he's completely off base here.
reply
325 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 13 Dec
I would short this BIP if I could
reply
This is a great statement! I would join on this shorting!
reply
This is a recipe for confusion. The current system is well-established and understood by most in the community. Changing this would not only disrupt the existing educational framework but also create a misleading perception of Bitcoin's value. People are used to thinking of Bitcoin as a high-value asset, and redefining the smallest unit as "one bitcoin" would make it seem like Bitcoin is worth less than a penny. This could lead to misunderstandings, especially among newcomers, and undermine the clarity that the current terminology provides. Instead of simplifying things, this proposal might just add to the chaos.
reply
48 sats \ 0 replies \ @jgbtc 13 Dec
This is stupid. I can't think of any reason to do this other than to attack bitcoin by creating confusion.
reply
Useless
reply
218 sats \ 0 replies \ @000w2 13 Dec
Language is emergent, it's absurd to try and control it. A bitcoiner should know better.
reply
John is trolling us with his big BALLS.
Satoshi as the base unit, Bitcoin for 100M satoshi.
reply
reply
This is so ridiculous and way more confusing.
reply
if it ain't broke, don't fix it
reply
reply
The number of people I've met who say something like "what do you think of <random_shitcoin> it's only $0.34, bitcoin is too expensive"
reply
106 sats \ 0 replies \ @OgFOMK 13 Dec
Let them get wrecked.
reply
Sats are what... 10,000 for 10$?
1 sat is 1/1000th of a dollar approximately or 1/10th of a cent. Way cheaper than that 34 cent coin if you ask me!
reply
Does anyone remember millibits (mBTC) being used back in the day?
reply
You can still specify mBTC with some common wallets now.
Offhand I know that with Electrum you can specify the transaction fee sats/vB in decimal sats/vB like fee = "3.1 sats/vB". That's not exactly mBTC, but it's kinda the same...
reply
Sure, just not really common anymore.
reply
Certainly not common enough.
Just for the record, I like calling Bitcoin "Bitcoin", and sats "sats".
I don't know the answer to "how many msats are in 1 sat?", but I understand what 3.1 sats means.
I know that 1 Bitcoin = 1,000,000 sats.
Renaming sats to bitcoin is stupid and just causing more confusion.
If normies have unit bias with bitcoin's price, that's their own fault, don't make it mine.
reply
101 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 13 Dec
I know that 1 Bitcoin = 1,000,000 sats.
1 bitcoin = 100,000,000 sats
reply
Renaming sats to bitcoin is stupid and just causing more confusion.
Yeah, totally agree with you there.
reply
There a re 1,000 mSats in a Sat.
There are 2,100,000,000,000,000,000 mSats in the Bitcoin protocol of Layer 2. That's 2.1 Quintilian.
There are 2,100,000,000,000,000 Sats to play with on chain. That's 2.1 Quadrillion.
reply
44 sats \ 1 reply \ @ek 14 Dec
lightning can go lower than msats, it's just a unit attached to an invoice, see BOLT11:

Human-Readable Part

The human-readable part of a Lightning invoice consists of two sections:
  1. prefix: ln + BIP-0173 currency prefix (e.g. lnbc for Bitcoin mainnet, lntb for Bitcoin testnet, lntbs for Bitcoin signet, and lnbcrt for Bitcoin regtest)
  2. 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.
The following multiplier letters are defined:
  • m (milli): multiply by 0.001
  • u (micro): multiply by 0.000001
  • n (nano): multiply by 0.000000001
  • p (pico): multiply by 0.000000000001
This means that a lightning invoice for 100k sats starts with lnbc1m because 1 mBTC is 100k sats.
reply
Nice! This also shows that lightning is ready for the deflation activities of the increased buying power of Bitcoin.
Fungibility through math and not liquidity through increased supply.
reply
Thanks for that. My first thought about 1,000 mSats in a Sat was right then.
reply
11 sats \ 0 replies \ @ek 14 Dec
msats means millisats and milli means 1/1000
reply
not sure about this
reply
Can you expand on that?
reply
I am curious why a BIP is needed in this matter. Its as if he is trying to use BIP as a legislative thing.
reply
TV launched a SATS index a while ago. https://www.tradingview.com/symbols/SATSUSD/
Sooner or later if calling Sats Bitcoin makes sense it will happen across the world without any legislation
reply
I like this BIP
reply
reply
Bitcoin will become so valuable that we'll need to break sats into smaller denoms.
Call those bitcoins.
reply
We already have there are mSats which is 1,000 to 1 Sat. It's how lightning operates now.
reply
Based proposal. And also very practical. Forget the madness of explaining what a satoshi is vs what a bitcoin is. God, people are already confused by the nature of Bitcoin (and the difference between the currency and the protocol) that we don't need additional terminology.
Bitcoin and bitcoin is enough, I agree.
Also, nobody is really going to fatfinger 10 BTC if intending to send 10 bitcoin (the old 10 sats unit). C'mon.
reply
236 sats \ 6 replies \ @OgFOMK 13 Dec
Based proposal.
More like freebased.
And also very practical.
Practical only for someones ego.
Forget the madness of explaining what a satoshi is vs what a bitcoin is. God, people are already confused by the nature of Bitcoin (and the difference between the currency and the protocol) that we don't need additional terminology.
People who take the time to learn about Bitcoin are not confused. People who try to laterally embrace Bitcoin as a digital dollar are already fools. I'm not being on a high horse here.
I found out about bitcoin in 2013. I even ran Bitcoin core. But I had no idea what I was doing and I gave up. I did not read the white paper. I did not research further. I was just motivated by a Slashdot post and I gave up. In 2017 I was nudged again and I said, "No." Then in 2019 at the end of the year I got interested in CrYpTo and I kept getting routed back to Bitcoin. Finally I dove in on heavy research. I read the white paper and I read Andreas M. Antonopoulos, MASTERING BITCOIN.
You can't dumb things down for people and you certainly don't need to intellectually rug pull all the work of those who are making Bitcoin easier for other people to use! That's the key. If there is no hands on experience there will be no understanding. Thousands of layer 2 products are built on Sats and mSats. Only a jackass would want to fix this.
reply
"If there is no hands on experience there will be no understanding."
1000% agree! Bitcoin is based on Energy and there is no way to 'cheat' energy. Either you have it (do the PoW) or you don't! That's it!! Hence the 'truth' cognate of Sat.
reply
I partially agree on what you said.
The idea whereby "who doesn't study profoundly bitcoin cannot be a true bitcoin user" is foolish at best. Do you understand profoundly how a car works? Do you understand so deeply chemistry to know how a specific drug is created in its details? If you do know these things, still there are plenty of things you cannot understand. That's how constrained resources work and our attention is a constrained resource. Bitcoin is a tool. I don't want to be an expert about something just to use proficiently the result of some experts' work. And this is how life goes about, believe it or not. Nobody is really going through the burdain of studing Mastering Bitcoin just to pay a coffee, so we need to make tools suitable for people to pay coffee even without being a technical user, which means also making the syntax suitable for their needs. Which, among other things, means also working a bit on the "marketing side" to make the bitcoin "brand" recognizable even at the fundamental unit level. If we are so convinced that bitcoin is a tool for freedom and we believe it would be good for all humanity to adopt it, we cannot have the arrogance to say that the Crowd has the knowledge, time or resources to understand bitcoin. Realistically, 99.9999999% of people will not study it at the level of knowing that the protocol has no decimal places but only units.
Overall the proposal is not to "dumb things down for people"...John is not proposing a technical change, not proposing a consensus change, not even proposing to force anyone to adopt it. The gist of the proposal is "Bitcoin has achieved some brand positioning with its bitcoin name, the protocol and the currency are easily recognizable basically by anyone now. Why can't we leverage that recognizability to name the basic unit after it?".
We go about crying that shitcoins get attention, but we don't want to work a bit on the Bitcoin branding to make it easier to grasp at the user level.
If we believe in the silly story that "you've to study at least 100 hours to be a true bitcoin user and I'm not going to create any compromise to make your life easier if you don't want to study it" then I don't know where we're headed. A tool "for anyone" that is used only by 4 bastards is not "a tool for anyone" because nobody cares about it. Bitcoin shall became a tool "used by anyone", where users will have different levels of understanding of the topic. To make it "used by anyone" we need stupid-cuck-user-level communication. Which is also simplifying how we name stuff.
reply
I think people can 'use' Bitcoin, for example pay for things with Lightning, without knowing how Lightning or Bitcoin works. And let's face it... lightning is complicated.
Having said that... people now and likely well into the future will purchase and 'use' sats almost exclusively. When people trade their fiat money (dollars or euros) for 'sound money' like Bitcoin the units they will encounter almost exclusively will be Sats.
If and when the exchange rate of Bitcoin is 1,000,000 dollars/btc (in 10 years or so?) will people still say 'oh I can't afford a whole Bitcoin?!' No! It will be 1 sat per cent and easy for folks to understand
reply
Everything is complicated when your truth is built on a flimsy platform. Certainly lightning is different. It's getting easier all the time. At the same time learning anything is as the French (? not sure of this source) saying goes: "Pain is the trade going into the apprentice."
There are thousands of people trying to make Bitcoin and Lightning easier to use. The trick is that understanding the fundamentals brings you closer to being one of those thousands. As with all technology, when things go well no one is crying and when things don't work everyone is mad. Sometimes it is a matter of asking for help. I am guilty of not asking for help so I get mad and then when I am really bent out of shape I let go and take a long walk.
reply
I really like lightning, use it everyday and honestly I think it's a marvel. Is it perfect? Nope. But wow if you get a few good channels setup it's cheap and quick to transact real Bitcoin.
reply
Thank you for extensively responding and not trolling.
Do you understand profoundly how a car works?
Yes, and you should, too! Don't drive a car unless you know how to check the tires, lubrication, fuel, cooling system and what do if you have different driving scenarios like ice, snow, flooding, sand, mud, lane changes and all three basic information that you will need when the situation comes.
Chemistry and drugs are also something that we need to understand. How do these things make us sick. Knowing that you don't know is also important. This means that by ignoring the free accessible data you are ignorant!
Changing the name of something is not education it's changing what is already in use to bring in people who will want to change things further. Like GitHub changing the term master to main in order to make people not butt hurt.
In a manual transmission there is a master and slave cylinder. That's a fact. Changing the name doesn't change the function but it obscures the function and requires memory by rote and not investigation or understanding. The slave serves the master and the master serves the slave. Understand is to be underneath supporting the idea. You don't have to agree but you understand how it works.
reply
It makes a lot of sense, but I still like sats.
reply
nonsense. We have so many other important things to do for Bitcoin and yet the biggest concern for some people is the name of the small unit of 1 BTC. Is just bullshit noise.
reply
27 sats \ 0 replies \ @rblb 13 Dec
reminds me of eu bureaucrats
reply
I agree with you, but the clunkiness of eight decimal places and other such numeric ugliness that the current 1 btc definition causes is real. Carvalho is pointing out the source of real confusion, especially among no coiners and newbies.
reply
they have to adapt and learn. That's all.
reply
Every wallet allows the user to change from sats to BTC or bits or whatever. If the wallet does not then it's no good.
Now I use Gnucash to track Bitcoin use and I can set up BTC or sats. I've set up BTC with the habit of knowing 8 decimal places. So I put 56,345 sats as 0.00056345 it's easy and it takes about an hour to get used to it. But when I do a big picture look I can see how close my net BTC worth is to 21,000,000 BTC instead of how many sats I have to 2.1 quadrillion.
Innumerate people are not going to care. They just want to preserve value and spend when needed. Marxist like to change stuff so that they can extract more slave labor.
reply
People understand the difference between a million dollars and a penny.
I think they can understand the difference between a Bitcoin and a Satoshi.
reply
The real conversation here should be changing millisats to billibits. Wouldn’t they just be the cutest little things? We could even spell it billybits. That flip would be a trip on BLIP, not a BIP though, right?
reply
John Carvalho has to be the stupidest person in Bitcoin. Or should I say: John Carvalho has to be the stupidest person in 0.00000001
reply
Good for adoption, but I hate it.
I love sats...
reply
I hate sats. I hate when people idolize leaders. Naming the smallest denomination of Bitcoin after Satoshi was nothing more than an attempt to immortalize and idolize the creator, contradicting the principles of the cryptocurrency community.
Why we don't get the bit (100 sats) standardized?
reply
Confusion is pretty much why I made this converter way back in 2013. Guess things cycle around. https://sbc.on-fleek.app/archive/legacy-20230716/index.html
reply
Lol no
reply
What's wrong with satoshis? Why not spend the same energy to promote something that already exists, and doesn't cause as much chaos as reducing the perceived BTC "price" by 8 orders of magnitude?
reply
Yeah... that will totally not make things confusing...
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @OT 13 Dec
Good idea. Don't know if we need a BIP for that though.
reply