This BIP proposes redefining the bitcoin unit of account to represent the protocol’s smallest indivisible unit as “1 bitcoin,” eliminating the need for decimal-based UI conventions.
Authored by: John Carvalho (@BitcoinErrorLog)
Propose BIP 21Q: Redefine bitcoin base unit to smallest indivisible unit
add placeholder number to attempt passing auto tests
scrub metadata to attempt to pass test
0@@ -0,0 +1,149 @@
1+<pre>
2+BIP: 9999
3+Title: Redefinition of the Bitcoin Unit to the Base Denomination
4+Author: John Carvalho <bitcoinerrorlog@gmail.com>
5+Status: Draft
6+Type: Informational
7+Created: 2024-12-10
8+License: CC0-1.0
9+</pre>
Regarding the number assignment, one of the tests will always fail until a number has been assigned and it’s updated in both the table and the BIP. Don’t worry about passing the tests right now.
We usually have the preamble indented, and I added the Comments-URI that is required by BIP 2. The Created date is the date a number was assigned, so we will figure that out later.
0<pre>
1 BIP: ?
2 Title: Redefinition of the Bitcoin Unit to the Base Denomination
3 Author: John Carvalho <bitcoinerrorlog@gmail.com>
4 Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-?
5 Status: Draft
6 Type: Informational
7 Created: ?
8 License: CC0-1.0
9</pre>
80+'''Perception of Supply:'''
81+While the total count of base units is roughly 2.1 quadrillion, this proposal does not alter supply in any way. The change is purely representational. Comparisons can be drawn to other currencies like the Japanese yen or Indonesian rupiah, where high unit counts are standard and not perceived as inflationary.
82+
83+===Addressing Alternative Approaches===
84+
85+== Refuting the "Bits" Proposal ([https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0176.mediawiki BIP 176])
It will actually be easier to support the established convention of ₿ 1.000… in accounting software spreadsheets etc… One simply needs to repurpose metric unit conversion logic to implement Bitcoin accounting idioms. Allowing app developers to repurpose metric unit conversion code will actually ease adoption friction more than this proposal or the “bits” proposal. In the long run - languages/words evolve! - this whole debate seems to arise out of people’s need to control the words other people use more than anything really useful.
Imagine renaming a “penny” to a “dollar” and then trying to force everyone to adopt the new “jargon”. It is as absurd as it sounds!
NAK
Reviewer fixes
Co-authored-by: Mark "Murch" Erhardt <murch@murch.one>
edit formatting for Bits header
Also, the file currently doesn’t render for me in the GitHub preview.—It did render when you had it as a markdown file, but since it was changed to a a mediawiki file it doesn’t. I’m not sure, yet, why. It might be related to the missing indentation in the preformatted text block.
Apologies, I was working in md and assumed I needed to submit as mediawiki, which I am unfamiliar with. Happy to adjust any formatting to be correct… with a little help.
How isn’t this still decimal?
One of the most prominent and rational feedback to the original version of this proposal was to retain stock ticker denominations. This seems rational to me, where we have BTC and XBT, or the like. Maybe this relegates the “21M” meme and culture to the finance world. I don’t know.
But otherwise, I hope to simply specify how people could display Bitcoin units as “bitcoin” and thus avoid bad thinking due to ignorance about how Bitcoin uses integers.
There are a bunch of side benefits to this, but most feedback was otherwise highly subjective or speculative.
What a terrible idea of redefining a widely used term by the different meaning.
Thank you for your feedback.
Please consider that I am merely suggesting we call the only units in Bitcoin “bitcoins” - as well as the other rationale in the document.
It will actually be easier to support the established convention of ₿ 1.000… in accounting software spreadsheets etc… One simply needs to repurpose metric unit conversion logic to implement Bitcoin accounting idioms. Allowing app developers to repurpose metric unit conversion code will actually ease adoption friction more than this proposal or the “bits” proposal. In the long run - languages/words evolve! - this whole debate seems to arise out of people’s need to control the words other people use more than anything really useful.
Imagine renaming a “penny” to a “dollar” and then trying to force everyone to adopt the new “jargon”. It is as absurd as it sounds!
NAK
Thank you for your misc opinions, but, in the end, I could only consider feedback that maintains the core intent of the proposal.
79+Adopting the smallest unit as the primary measure ensures a consistent standard that can scale smoothly as Bitcoin adoption grows.
80+
81+'''Perception of Supply:'''
82+While the total count of base units is roughly 2.1 quadrillion, this proposal does not alter supply in any way. The change is purely representational. Comparisons can be drawn to other currencies like the Japanese yen or Indonesian rupiah, where high unit counts are standard and not perceived as inflationary.
83+
84+===Addressing Alternative Approaches===
How is this proposal different to the already established “sats” denomination?
Also, doesn’t the LN already use “fractional satoshis”? If so, the integer-only argument wouldn’t be valid.
Someone explain to me how we moved from there are multiple ways to increase precision to sat is indivisible in less than 3 years?
In my opinion, the proposals you linked could all be classified as hard forks, and/or, hacks to support a new subordinate UoA, and/or, entirely fictional hugely controversial consensus changes.
This BIP on the other hand is generally harmless.
How is this proposal different to the already established “sats” denomination?
Also, doesn’t the LN already use “fractional satoshis”? If so, the integer-only argument wouldn’t be valid.
I will re-read the proposal with eye to make sure any “sats” dynamics are clearly addressed. Feel free to contribute!
Frankly, I don’t see any difference at the moment – other than the name. That’s why I was asking for including this discussion into the “alternatives”.
LN “millisats” do not “exist” exactly, they are just a trusted intra-channel credit feature. Mostly they just confuse people to once again misunderstand how Bitcoin (and Lightning) works. Should I add specs to remove millisats as concept to this BIP too?
I take it the definition in this BIP is about Bitcoin the currency (as opposed to Bitcoin the payment system). As such, I think this BIP should consider all existing uses of denominations. There is no point in renaming satoshi to bitcoin just for L1, but not for L2. You would also want it to be used in stock quotes and charts, for example.
Frankly, I don’t see any difference at the moment – other than the name. That’s why I was asking for including this discussion into the “alternatives”.
I retained the BTC (XBT, etc) denomination only at the request of the first round of feedback, because I could rationalize stock tickers being a separate system from Bitcoin. I’d be happy to re-remove this concept if the peers here all agree it corrupts the purpose too much.
I take it the definition in this BIP is about Bitcoin the currency (as opposed to Bitcoin the payment system). As such, I think this BIP should consider all existing uses of denominations. There is no point in renaming satoshi to bitcoin just for L1, but not for L2. You would also want it to be used in stock quotes and charts, for example.
I suppose the LN community considers their BLiPs and BOLTs and such to be the place to spec for that protocol, or they could otherwise umbrella under BIPs. This BIP, as all, is just a web page in the end, and anyone is welcome to refer to this BIP to replicate this method.
If everyone likes, I could take the time to specify further how people normally display, abbreviate, and prefix large numbers and denominations of units. I was hoping my example of “2.1M” was enough of a nod…
Also, the file currently doesn’t render for me in the GitHub preview.—It did render when you had it as a markdown file, but since it was changed to a a mediawiki file it doesn’t. I’m not sure, yet, why. It might be related to the missing indentation in the preformatted text block.
Apologies, I was working in md and assumed I needed to submit as mediawiki, which I am unfamiliar with. Happy to adjust any formatting to be correct… with a little help.
Either Markdown or Mediawiki are acceptable since #1504 got merged in 2023.
42+* Use of the ₿ symbol MAY be used to represent base-unit bitcoins but is OPTIONAL.
43+
44+Example 1:
45+
46+ * Old display: <code>0.00010000 Bitcoin<code>
47+ * New display: <code>₿10,000<code> or <code>10,000 bitcoins<code> or <code>0.00010000 BTC<code>
0 * Old display: <code>0.00010000 Bitcoin</code>
1 * New display: <code>₿10,000</code> or <code>10,000 bitcoins</code> or <code>0.00010000 BTC</code>
47+ * New display: <code>₿10,000<code> or <code>10,000 bitcoins<code> or <code>0.00010000 BTC<code>
48+
49+Example 2:
50+
51+ * Old display: <code>10.23486 Bitcoin<code>
52+ * New display: <code>₿1,023,486,000<code> or <code>1,023,486,000 bitcoins<code> or <code>10.23486 BTC<code>
0 * Old display: <code>10.23486 Bitcoin</code>
1 * New display: <code>₿1,023,486,000</code> or <code>1,023,486,000 bitcoins</code> or <code>10.23486 BTC</code>
52+ * New display: <code>₿1,023,486,000<code> or <code>1,023,486,000 bitcoins<code> or <code>10.23486 BTC<code>
53+
54+Example 3:
55+
56+ * Old display: <code>0.345 BTC<code>
57+ * New display: No changes required or <code>₿34,500,000<code> or <code>34,500,000 bitcoins<code>
0 * Old display: <code>0.345 BTC</code>
1 * New display: No changes required or <code>₿34,500,000</code> or <code>34,500,000 bitcoins</code>
59+NOTE: Traditional number display abbreviations, like <code>2.5M<code> for millions, are also optional.
60+
61+'''Conversion:'''
62+
63+* Ledger and consensus rules remain unchanged.
64+* <code>BTC<code> as a currency code remains unchanged (1 BTC = 100,000,000 base units)
0* <code>BTC</code> as a currency code remains unchanged (1 BTC = 100,000,000 base units)
105+===Backward Compatibility===
106+
107+No consensus rules are altered, and on-chain data remains unchanged. Differences arise solely in display formats:
108+
109+* '''For Developers:'''
110+ Update GUIs, APIs, and documentation to present values as integers. Remove references to fractional Bitcoin. <code>BTC<code> units remain unchanged.
0 Update GUIs, APIs, and documentation to present values as integers. Remove references to fractional Bitcoin. <code>BTC</code> units remain unchanged.
128+===Test Vectors===
129+
130+* Old: <code>1.00000000 Bitcoin<code> → New: ₿100,000,000 (or 100,000,000 bitcoins)
131+* Old: <code>0.00010000 Bitcoin<code> → New: ₿10,000 (or 10,000 bitcoins)
132+* Old: <code>0.00500000 Bitcoin<code> → New: ₿500,000 (or 500,000 bitcoins)
133+* Old: <code>0.005 BTC<code> → New: <code>0.005 BTC<code> (or ₿500,000 or 500,000 bitcoins)
0* Old: <code>1.00000000 Bitcoin</code> → New: ₿100,000,000 (or 100,000,000 bitcoins)
1* Old: <code>0.00010000 Bitcoin</code> → New: ₿10,000 (or 10,000 bitcoins)
2* Old: <code>0.00500000 Bitcoin</code> → New: ₿500,000 (or 500,000 bitcoins)
3* Old: <code>0.005 BTC</code> → New: <code>0.005 BTC</code> (or ₿500,000 or 500,000 bitcoins)