pull down to refresh

How about focusing on CTV softforks this seems more important.
reply
reply
There is no change to Bitcoin required to implement this. Whether someone implements this does not "improve" bitcoin.
Use whatever unit YOU want in YOUR application. No consensus is required. This is best solved as a client-side user preference setting. Not a BIP-worthy proposal, IMO
reply
I don’t get it, seems totally unnecessary to me? Sats has been working just fine.
Furthermore the abstract says the goal is to ‘reduce confusion’ and yet it’s suggesting to achieve that we go to a world where I’m explaining to the uninitiated ‘oh yeh that is a bit confusing, but once you understand that 1 bitcoin is comprised of 100,000,000 bitcoins it will all become much clearer’.
As I said I don’t get it, seems like a really stupid thing to want to change, but maybe I am missing something.
reply
if a gazillion people show up tomorrow and decide to call satoshis arthur, there's sod all anyone can do to stop them - silly, pointless BIP trolling is an irrelevance - anecdotally, it smacks of the same kind of presumption that's been causing so much trouble lately.
reply
100 sats \ 0 replies \ @rblb 19 May
this is an attack on bitcoin
reply
it's worth looking at the specification details of the BIP
i think it would make a lot of sense to evade the unit bias. people have all kinds of names for Federal Reserve Notes:
  • bucks
  • dollars
  • greenbacks
  • garbage
nothing prevents us from still talking about sats... like pennies, cents, etc. the language is ours to use as we see fit.
oh, and "bits" is fucking regarded.
reply
Bip-177 ? what is it ?
reply
62 sats \ 1 reply \ @Murch 19 May
John Carvalho’s proposal to refer to sats as bitcoins:
reply
cheers
reply
Renaming sats to bitcoin, no longer referring to 100 million sats as 1 bitcoin.
reply