BIP172: Define Bitcoin Subunits as Satoshis

0ceanSlim commented at 4:57 pm on April 28, 2025: contributor

Formally define the smallest subunit of a bitcoin as a “Satoshi”

jonatack added the label New BIP on Apr 28, 2025

in bip-satoshi-standard.mediawiki:26 in 38ea770b0f outdated

21+This lack of standardization can lead to:
22+
23+1. Confusion for newcomers to the Bitcoin ecosystem
24+2. Inconsistent user experiences across different applications and services
25+3. Ambiguity in technical documentation and discussions
26+4. Potential errors in development and implementation of Bitcoin-related software

murchandamus commented at 9:02 pm on April 28, 2025:

This numbered list renders as a single line. The syntax for numbered lists in MediaWiki format is to start lines with “# “. AFAIU, this should work as intended:

0# Confusion for newcomers to the Bitcoin ecosystem
1# Inconsistent user experiences across different applications and services
2# Ambiguity in technical documentation and discussions
3# Potential errors in development and implementation of Bitcoin-related software

in bip-satoshi-standard.mediawiki:11 in 38ea770b0f outdated

 6+Comments-Summary: No comments yet.
 7+Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-TBD
 8+Status: Draft
 9+Type: Informational
10+Created: 2025-04-28
11+License: BSD-2-Clause

murchandamus commented at 9:04 pm on April 28, 2025:

Please indent these lines with two spaces.

in bip-satoshi-standard.mediawiki:82 in 38ea770b0f outdated

77+Thanks to the entire Bitcoin community who has organically adopted the terms "satoshi" and "sats" over the years, and to Satoshi Nakamoto for creating Bitcoin with its precisely defined subdivision structure.
78+
79+== References ==
80+
81+1. Satoshi Nakamoto. "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" (2008)
82+2. BIP-176: Bits Denomination (Jimmy Song)

murchandamus commented at 9:06 pm on April 28, 2025:

Same here:

0# Satoshi Nakamoto. "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" (2008)
1# BIP-176: Bits Denomination (Jimmy Song)

in bip-satoshi-standard.mediawiki:45 in 38ea770b0f outdated

40+
41+4. The terms "satoshi" and "sats" are not proper nouns when referring to the unit of currency and should not be capitalized except at the beginning of sentences or in titles.
42+
43+5. Bitcoin-related applications, services, documentation, and communications are encouraged to use these standardized terms to promote consistency across the ecosystem.
44+
45+== Rationale ==

murchandamus commented at 9:08 pm on April 28, 2025:

The rationale could be extended to address BIP 176 and BIP 177 as alternate approaches.

in bip-satoshi-standard.mediawiki:60 in 38ea770b0f outdated

55+Existing applications that use other terms or conventions can continue to operate but are encouraged to adopt the standardized terms to improve overall ecosystem clarity.
56+
57+== Copyright ==
58+This BIP is licensed under the BSD 2-clause license.
59+
60+## Reference Implementation

murchandamus commented at 9:08 pm on April 28, 2025:

This renders as a numbered list, presumably it was meant to also be a section title?

0== Reference Implementation ==

murchandamus commented at 9:11 pm on April 28, 2025: contributor

Thanks @0ceanSlim for your proposal. I don’t think I saw discussion about this on the mailing list, did you post it there? This looks fairly complete already, I just have a few formatting suggestions. Note that the “Created” header in the preamble refers to the date that a proposal was assigned a number, so the current value should be “?”.

0ceanSlim commented at 9:16 pm on April 28, 2025: contributor

@murchandamus I actually have a draft email written as I knew it was procedure but didn’t have the right email on hand. If you could send me the right one I’ll send it.

0ceanSlim commented at 9:23 pm on April 28, 2025: contributor

I’ve addressed your feedback! Thank you for taking a look!

murchandamus commented at 9:27 pm on April 28, 2025: contributor

You can find information on the BIP Process in BIP 2. The email address is bitcoindev@googlegroups.com.

in bip-satoshi-standard.mediawiki:111 in 060ab28ce7 outdated

106+
107+== Glossary ==
108+
109+- BTC: The ticker symbol for bitcoin, the cryptocurrency
110+- Satoshi: The smallest unit of bitcoin, equal to 0.00000001 BTC
111+- Sats: Abbreviation for "satoshis"

murchandamus commented at 9:30 pm on April 28, 2025:

Another instance of the line breaking issue:

0* BTC: The ticker symbol for bitcoin, the cryptocurrency
1* Satoshi: The smallest unit of bitcoin, equal to 0.00000001 BTC
2* Sats: Abbreviation for "satoshis"

0ceanSlim commented at 9:30 pm on April 28, 2025: contributor

You can find information on the BIP Process in BIP 2. The email address is bitcoindev@googlegroups.com.

hm… That’s the email I sent to but I got a response back that it didn’t go through from gmx… I’ll try sending again.

Perhaps it’s because I’m not a part of the group and I don’t know how to add my gmx to the group yet. I’ll look into it.

in bip-satoshi-standard.mediawiki:93 in 060ab28ce7 outdated

88+Before standardization, various formats might be used:
89+- 0.00000100 BTC
90+- 100 satoshi
91+- 100 satoshis
92+- 100 sat
93+- 100 sats

murchandamus commented at 9:30 pm on April 28, 2025:

0* 0.00000100 BTC
1* 100 satoshi
2* 100 satoshis
3* 100 sat
4* 100 sats

in bip-satoshi-standard.mediawiki:97 in 060ab28ce7 outdated

92+- 100 sat
93+- 100 sats
94+
95+After standardization, the preferred formats would be:
96+- 100 satoshis (formal)
97+- 100 sats (abbreviated)

murchandamus commented at 9:31 pm on April 28, 2025:

0* 100 satoshis (formal)
1* 100 sats (abbreviated)

in bip-satoshi-standard.mediawiki:43 in 060ab28ce7 outdated

38+   - 1 bitcoin (BTC) = 100,000,000 satoshis
39+   - 1 satoshi = 0.00000001 bitcoin
40+
41+4. The terms "satoshi" and "sats" are not proper nouns when referring to the unit of currency and should not be capitalized except at the beginning of sentences or in titles.
42+
43+5. Bitcoin-related applications, services, documentation, and communications are encouraged to use these standardized terms to promote consistency across the ecosystem.

murchandamus commented at 9:32 pm on April 28, 2025:

While we are at it, we could also use the same formatting for this numbered list:

0# The term "satoshi" (singular) or "satoshis" (plural) shall be the standard term for 1/100,000,000 of a bitcoin (0.00000001 BTC).
1# The abbreviation "sat" (singular) or "sats" (plural) shall be the standard short form for "satoshi"/"satoshis".
2# The relationship between units shall be expressed as:
3#* 1 bitcoin (BTC) = 100,000,000 satoshis
4#* 1 satoshi = 0.00000001 bitcoin
5# The terms "satoshi" and "sats" are not proper nouns when referring to the unit of currency and should not be capitalized except at the beginning of sentences or in titles.
6# Bitcoin-related applications, services, documentation, and communications are encouraged to use these standardized terms to promote consistency across the ecosystem.

murchandamus commented at 9:33 pm on April 28, 2025: contributor

Thanks for the quick turnaround. Could you take another look at the formatting of the alternative approaches? Were those intended to be lists or whole sentences? Right now it feels like it’s a bit in between those.

0ceanSlim commented at 9:40 pm on April 28, 2025: contributor

awesome, committed changes. I think the email went out too. I added my gmx to the group and sent again and I didn’t get a failure notice.

0ceanSlim commented at 9:41 pm on April 28, 2025: contributor

oh missed your first comment. It’s meant to be a list but each reason is a sentence. How would you suggest I format?

in bip-satoshi-standard.mediawiki:69 in 6e241d1eb5 outdated

64+
65+Maintains compatibility with existing systems, documentation, and user understanding
66+
67+Achieves similar clarity benefits through standardization without requiring a fundamental redefinition of terms
68+
69+Our proposal represents a minimally disruptive approach to standardization, formalizing existing common practice rather than introducing new terms (BIP-176) or redefining existing ones (BIP-177).

murchandamus commented at 10:09 pm on April 28, 2025:

I meant that the two paragraphs currently don’t contain full sentences as they don’t have punctuation, but also aren’t formatted as lists, so I was thinking that either each section should be a paragraph with multiple sentences or each section should be a list. Either way, the summarizing sentence should probably not belong to the subsection about BIP 177 but precede both:

0Our proposal represents a minimally disruptive approach to standardization, formalizing existing common practice rather than introducing new terms (BIP-176) or redefining existing ones (BIP-177).
1
2==== BIP-176: Bits Denomination ====
3BIP-176 proposes using "bits" as a standard term for 100 satoshis (or 0.000001 BTC). While this proposal has merit for creating a middle-ground denomination that avoids small decimal places when bitcoin's value is high, our approach differs in that it: Formalizes existing widely adopted terminology rather than introducing or prioritizing a different unit, focuses on the fundamental base unit that cannot be subdivided further within the Bitcoin protocol, and maintains the simplicity of a two-tier system (bitcoin and satoshi) rather than adding a third tier.
4
5==== BIP-177: Redefine Bitcoin's Base Unit ====
6BIP-177 takes a more radical approach by proposing to redefine the term "bitcoin" to refer to what is currently called a "satoshi" (1/100,000,000 of the current bitcoin). While this proposal aims to eliminate decimal points and simplify mental calculations, our approach differs in that it:
7
8Preserves the established meaning of "bitcoin" which has global recognition and avoids potentially confusing redefinition, maintains compatibility with existing systems, documentation, and user understanding, and achieves similar clarity benefits through standardization without requiring a fundamental redefinition of terms.

 0Our proposal represents a minimally disruptive approach to standardization, formalizing existing common practice rather than introducing new terms (BIP-176) or redefining existing ones (BIP-177).
 1
 2==== BIP-176: Bits Denomination ====
 3BIP-176 proposes using "bits" as a standard term for 100 satoshis (or 0.000001 BTC). While this proposal has merit for creating a middle-ground denomination that avoids small decimal places when bitcoin's value is high, our approach differs in that it:
 4
 5* Formalizes existing widely adopted terminology rather than introducing or prioritizing a different unit
 6* Focuses on the fundamental base unit that cannot be subdivided further within the Bitcoin protocol
 7* Maintains the simplicity of a two-tier system (bitcoin and satoshi) rather than adding a third tier
 8
 9==== BIP-177: Redefine Bitcoin's Base Unit ====
10BIP-177 takes a more radical approach by proposing to redefine the term "bitcoin" to refer to what is currently called a "satoshi" (1/100,000,000 of the current bitcoin). While this proposal aims to eliminate decimal points and simplify mental calculations, our approach differs in that it:
11
12* Preserves the established meaning of "bitcoin" which has global recognition and avoids potentially confusing redefinition
13* Maintains compatibility with existing systems, documentation, and user understanding
14* Achieves similar clarity benefits through standardization without requiring a fundamental redefinition of terms

murchandamus commented at 10:10 pm on April 28, 2025: contributor

I see, how about:

0ceanSlim commented at 11:28 am on April 29, 2025: contributor

I also added a section on how it’s analogous to the traditional currency systems today in the rationale

in bip-satoshi-standard.mediawiki:105 in 79a4e488eb outdated

100+# Satoshi Nakamoto. "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" (2008)
101+# BIP-176: Bits Denomination (Jimmy Song)
102+
103+== Glossary ==
104+
105+* BTC: The ticker symbol for bitcoin, the cryptocurrency

katesalazar commented at 3:28 pm on April 29, 2025:

Currently universal ticker symbol, while historically XBT has also been used.

0ceanSlim commented at 5:01 pm on April 29, 2025:

Should I ammend the glossary to include this?

0ceanSlim commented at 2:47 pm on April 30, 2025:

I amended to say “current universal” ticker

in bip-satoshi-standard.mediawiki:50 in 79a4e488eb outdated

45+
46+The term "satoshi" and its abbreviation "sats" have already gained widespread adoption within the Bitcoin community. This BIP seeks to formalize this existing convention rather than introduce new terminology.
47+
48+=== Analogous to Traditional Currency Systems ===
49+The proposed bitcoin/satoshi (or BTC/sat) standard follows the established pattern of major world currencies, which typically have a primary unit and a smaller subunit. Most notably, the United States dollar—the world's primary reserve currency—uses dollars and cents in a two-tier denomination system. This familiar dollars/cents model has proven effective and intuitive for everyday transactions across different scales.
50+The bitcoin/satoshi system mirrors this approach while accounting for Bitcoin's higher divisibility requirements. Furthermore, the phonetic similarity between "sat" and "cent" creates an intuitive bridge for newcomers to understand Bitcoin's smallest unit, making the learning curve less steep for those familiar with traditional currency systems. This natural familiarity aids adoption by leveraging existing mental models of how currency denominations work.

edilmedeiros commented at 6:43 pm on April 29, 2025:

I appreciate the observation that “sat” sounds like “cent” (I’m too stupid to have realized it myself), but saying that this phonetic familiarity improves adoption is quite a big step for me. Just having a standard way to talk about small quantities without resorting to long decimals seems to be all the justification required for the proposal.

0ceanSlim commented at 7:06 pm on April 29, 2025:

Maybe it doesn’t “improve adoption”. You’re right in that. But the phonetic similarity does help with out mental model of todays currencies, which was more my point. Do you have a suggestion as to a better way to word this that works for everyone?

As for the symbol, I briefly considered adding a section on a symbol. satsymbol.com has a symbol for sats that’s been widely adopted by many apps. This is what I would have proposed be the symbol for sats. But I felt it was outside the scope of this BIP. Perhaps a BIP in the future to define symbols can come. There is nothing that says an orange B with lines through it tilted to the right is the official symbol for Bitcoin either. Bitcoin has no official symbol. This and being outside the scope of this BIP was why I left it out for now. I think symbols could use it’s own BIP to formally define Bitcoin and satoshis alike.

0ceanSlim commented at 2:46 pm on April 30, 2025:

I changed the wording to not suggest this aid adoption.

edilmedeiros commented at 6:56 pm on April 29, 2025: none

Maybe this will be out of scope for this proposal, but feels so related that I can’t not mention it.

Unicode has standardised a Bitcoin symbol under code U+20BF: ₿

Plane 0: Basic Multilingual Plane Unicode Block: Currency Symbols Unicode Version: 16.0

Would be at least nice to have it mentioned since you are formally defining 1 bitcoin in term of satoshis.

Unfortunately, they didn’t define a symbol for satoshis. Maybe this proposal helps to justify doing so in the future, even though I believe we don’t have such a common currency symbol for satoshis.

murchandamus commented at 8:42 pm on April 29, 2025: contributor

Maybe this proposal helps to justify doing so in the future, even though I believe we don’t have such a common currency symbol for satoshis.

While I have proposed a couple symbols myself in the past, I would like to second that it should probably remain out of scope for this proposal, as debates about a satoshi symbol tend to consume other topics and not converge.

cryptoquick commented at 11:23 pm on April 29, 2025: none

Finally, a sensible BIP. I appreciate how you addressed Murch’s feedback. You have my ACK.

0ceanSlim commented at 2:49 pm on April 30, 2025: contributor

I’m good with it now. Just waiting on more review and feedback! Thanks for all the comments so far.

0ceanSlim commented at 2:50 pm on April 30, 2025: contributor

I’ve addressed all current feedback and made some minor changes.

murchandamus renamed this:
~~Add BIP: Define Bitcoin Subunits as Satoshis~~
BIP172: Define Bitcoin Subunits as Satoshis
on May 1, 2025

murchandamus commented at 0:38 am on May 1, 2025: contributor

I appreciate the high responsiveness. Let’s call this BIP 172.

Could you please add an entry in the README table and update the BIP number, Comments-URI, and Created headers as well as the file name?

0ceanSlim commented at 11:42 am on May 1, 2025: contributor

Actually before proceeding I want to address this comment on the mailing list

From Lucas André:

Maranatha!

I propose a small addition that could improve this, particularly for users relying on assistive technologies (like our boi Hal Finney once did).

Specifically, I suggest adding a short section on accessibility and voice/UI guidance. Your proposal does a solid job, but it doesn’t yet cover how these should be handled in screen readers, voice assistants, or accessible interfaces. Below is a proposed section that could be added under “specification” or introduced as a new non-normative section.

To ensure clarity and inclusiveness in UIs and assistive technologies, the following recommendations apply:

Pronunciation: The abbreviation “sat” should be pronounced as /sæt/, and “sats” (plural) should be pronounced as /sæts/ (rhyming with “cats”) by screen readers and voice assistants. “Satoshi” (singular) is pronounced /səˈtoʊʃi/. “Satoshis” (plural) is pronounced /səˈtoʊʃiz/.

Singular vs. Plural: “1 sat” should be read as “one satoshi” and “100 sats” as “one hundred satoshis” to preserve correct pluralization and meaning. When reading aloud:

“1 sat” → “one satoshi” → /wʌn səˈtoʊʃi/ “100 sats” → “one hundred satoshis” → /wʌn ˈhʌndrəd səˈtoʊʃiz/

Readable Formats: Prefer full terms in accessibility modes (e.g., “satoshis” instead of “sats”), and group digits to assist parsing (e.g., “12,345” instead of “12345”).

Contextual Labels: Interfaces should use clear alt-text or aria-labels such as: alt=“Transaction fee: 14 satoshis per virtual byte”. This enables screen readers and other assistive technologies to accurately interpret and communicate the content.

If this makes sense, I’d be happy to help refine it or adjust to fit the structure if necessary.

References: https://www.internationalphoneticalphabet.org/ https://tophonetics.com/

Peace, Lucas.

Link to mailing list comment

While this is a great suggestion I’m on the fence as to whether or not this makes the BIP too verbose. Please let me know your thoughts. Sorry I’m addressing this comment last minute!

in README.mediawiki:914 in 2044b30b0e outdated

910@@ -911,6 +911,12 @@ Those proposing changes should consider that ultimately consent may rest with th
911 | Standard
912 | Rejected
913 |- style="background-color: #cfffcf"
914+| [[bip-0172.mediawiki|172]]

jonatack commented at 9:45 pm on May 1, 2025:

For the CI to pass, this line 914 needs to be preceded by

0|-

and line 913 above it |- style="background-color: #cfffcf" moved after | Draft below, as it corresponds to the style for a Final status in the BIP after.

jonatack commented at 9:59 pm on May 1, 2025:

(You can run the following script locally from BIPs repo root to verify before re-pushing)

0./scripts/diffcheck.sh

0ceanSlim commented at 11:11 pm on May 1, 2025:

Gosh I can’t seem to get it right… I feel so dumb lol

jonatack commented at 2:20 am on May 2, 2025:

@0ceanSlim no worries, this should be the diff from your last push (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1841/commits/a904a39717d7135850e8f00842363063c4436e72) to fix it:

0 | Luke Dashjr
1 | Standard
2 | Rejected
3-|- style="background-color: #cfffcf"
4+|-
5 | [[bip-0172.mediawiki|172]]
6 | Applications
7 | Define Bitcoin Subunits as Satoshis

0ceanSlim commented at 11:12 am on May 2, 2025:

I did this exactly but still failing…

0ceanSlim commented at 11:50 am on May 2, 2025:

nevermind. I got it. I accidentally had a space in there. Thanks for the help!

murchandamus commented at 10:28 pm on May 1, 2025: contributor

While this is a great suggestion I’m on the fence as to whether or not this makes the BIP too verbose. Please let me know your thoughts. Sorry I’m addressing this comment last minute!

I don’t think this is too verbose, feel free to put it in.

0ceanSlim commented at 11:11 pm on May 1, 2025: contributor

I’m sorry about all the bad commits… I can’t seem to get the readme correct.

Also, @murchandamus if you’d like to suggest how I should format the addition of information for users with assistive technologies, that would be great

in bip-0172.mediawiki:19 in 4c7f349e41 outdated

14+== Abstract ==
15+This BIP proposes to formally define and standardize Bitcoin's smallest indivisible unit (1/100,000,000 of a bitcoin) as "satoshi" (singular) or "satoshis" (plural), with "sats" as the standard abbreviated form. This standardization aims to improve clarity in communication, user interfaces, documentation, and development across the Bitcoin ecosystem.
16+
17+
18+== Motivation ==
19+As Bitcoin adoption grows, the need for a clear, standardized terminology for its subunits becomes increasingly important. Currently, there are various terms used to refer to Bitcoin's smallest unit (1/100,000,000 BTC), including "satoshi," "satoshis," "sat," "sats," and sometimes simply expressed as decimal values of bitcoin (0.00000001 BTC).

macedogm commented at 9:13 pm on May 3, 2025:

0As Bitcoin adoption grows, the need for a clear, standardized terminology for its subunits becomes increasingly important. Currently, there are various terms used to refer to Bitcoin's smallest unit (1/100,000,000 BTC), including "satoshi", "satoshis", "sat", "sats" and sometimes simply expressed as decimal values of bitcoin (0.00000001 BTC).

macedogm commented at 9:23 pm on May 3, 2025:

Nice and clean work! 👏🏻 Super small nit suggestion.

in bip-0172.mediawiki:107 in 4c7f349e41 outdated

102+
103+== Glossary ==
104+
105+* BTC: The current universal ticker symbol for bitcoin, the cryptocurrency. 
106+* Satoshi: The smallest unit of bitcoin, equal to 0.00000001 BTC
107+* Sats: Abbreviation for "satoshis"

macedogm commented at 9:28 pm on May 3, 2025:

0* Satoshi: The smallest unit of bitcoin, equal to 0.00000001 BTC.
1* Sats: Abbreviation for "satoshis".

0ceanSlim commented at 1:03 am on May 4, 2025: contributor

Alright Everyone. Take a look see! I’ve added Accessibility Considerations and fixed some small punctuation errors ht/ @macedogm

macedogm commented at 2:50 am on May 4, 2025: none

ACK (in case it counts)

edilmedeiros commented at 12:58 pm on May 4, 2025: none

I would not oppose merging as it is, but I don’t think the assistive tech additions contribute to the proposal. They are quite general comments/recommendations that apply to the good design of all human interfaces, not only bitcoin-related. Although important, they dilute the main contribution which is formally defining bitcoin subunits.

Sorry I didn’t seem this earlier, the pace of change in this proposal is quite swifty.

0ceanSlim commented at 11:32 am on May 5, 2025: contributor

@edilmedeiros I shared this concern but asked earlier and @murchandamus said he didn’t think it was too verbose and to go ahead and add it if I would like to. So I did. I’d love to see this merged ❤️

katesalazar commented at 4:42 pm on May 5, 2025: contributor

a very nit but some sections have a ~~space~~ line between the heading and the content while others do not

0ceanSlim commented at 6:57 pm on May 5, 2025: contributor

a very nit but some sections have a ~~space~~ line between the heading and the content while others do not

Good catch. I added a space line after each heading. It seemed other BIPs mostly have it this way.

in bip-0172.mediawiki:74 in 505b33b74f outdated

69 The term "satoshi" and its abbreviation "sats" have already gained widespread adoption within the Bitcoin community. This BIP seeks to formalize this existing convention rather than introduce new terminology.
70 
71 === Analogous to Traditional Currency Systems ===
72+
73 The proposed bitcoin/satoshi (or BTC/sat) standard follows the established pattern of major world currencies, which typically have a primary unit and a smaller subunit. Most notably, the United States dollar—the world's primary reserve currency—uses dollars and cents in a two-tier denomination system. This familiar dollars/cents model has proven effective and intuitive for everyday transactions across different scales.
74 The bitcoin/satoshi system mirrors this approach while accounting for Bitcoin's higher divisibility requirements. Furthermore, the phonetic similarity between "sat" and "cent" creates an intuitive bridge for newcomers to understand Bitcoin's smallest unit, making the learning curve less steep for those familiar with traditional currency systems. This natural familiarity leverages existing mental models of how currency denominations work.

katesalazar commented at 9:25 pm on May 5, 2025:

this line is going to age a much very very soon bro

it’s good to write for the present, but better to write for posterity

0ceanSlim commented at 9:40 pm on May 5, 2025:

I’m not sure I follow? You mean traditional currency will be irrelevant in a world where Bitcoin is the standard? I mean if that’s the case we just call it money if there is no other alternative. Or do you mean something else?

This was added to explain the rationale for the naming convention.

0ceanSlim commented at 9:42 pm on May 5, 2025:

Or do you mean less praise for Satoshi as he becomes less relevant over time? I agree Satoshi isn’t some God like figure and I could tone down the praise. He does warrant being acknowledged though of course.

katesalazar commented at 9:51 pm on May 5, 2025:

I will try to think a way to salvage this, but IMO I think the whole paragraph could be simple burninated

0ceanSlim commented at 11:40 am on May 6, 2025:

The historical context is precisely the motivation for people organically adopting the terms imo. I think removing it makes the motivation less clear.

katesalazar commented at 3:06 pm on May 6, 2025:

When the “satoshi” term was coined with this meaning, and while in the few years of its use as such, a sat was so small a value, it wasnt comparable with a USD cent in any (then current) way.

0ceanSlim commented at 3:10 pm on May 6, 2025:

It’s not a comparison of value. It’s a comparison of a smaller denominations. a cent is a smaller denomination of dollars. A sat is a smaller denomination of Bitcoin. Always has been.

katesalazar commented at 5:29 pm on May 6, 2025:

From my perspective it looks like different conversations of different topics around different lines of the source have been deliberately mixed for confusion.

In this line the only comment is I only wanted to remind you to write thinking deeply that the most of readings of your work come from a very distant future.

If “traditional currencies” will be something unfamiliar to people in the future (in case do you think that could be the case), do you really want to be writing this paragraph?

You don’t need to invent reasons for the concept of sats, because it’s already universally accepted. Do you really know what was in the thoughts of people when sats was started to use? I mean aren’t we speaking about 2011? Were you present in the space even?

Are you really the person who should be writing this BIP? Or are you just countering BIP-177?

BIP-177 is such an obviously confusing thing, it doesn’t even really merit any counter.

0ceanSlim commented at 5:46 pm on May 6, 2025:

My personal feeling on BIP-177 have nothing to do with this BIP. People will know what traditional currencies are in the future the same way we know about anything that’s happened in the past. It’s just history. We don’t just forget about things after a certain timeframe… We still know of the Rai Stones from Yap. Obviously people will know the historical context of other currencies and the major global currency at the time Bitcoin was invented/discovered. I’m not inventing reasons, I’m listing the reasons I saw for this to naturally emerge during this time frame. I want the BIP to be as informative as possible.

katesalazar commented at 6:24 pm on May 6, 2025:

Stuff you know strengthens the BIP. Stuff you see debilitates it.

in bip-0172.mediawiki:127 in 505b33b74f outdated

122+* 100 satoshis (formal)
123+* 100 sats (abbreviated)
124+
125+== Acknowledgements ==
126+
127+Thanks to the entire Bitcoin community who has organically adopted the terms "satoshi" and "sats" over the years, and to Satoshi Nakamoto for creating Bitcoin with its precisely defined subdivision structure.

katesalazar commented at 9:33 pm on May 5, 2025:

the community line is very great, the Satoshi line is not bad but is a bit cringey

0ceanSlim commented at 9:37 pm on May 5, 2025:

Would it be better to just say thanks to Satoshi for creating Bitcoin and leave it there?

katesalazar commented at 9:47 pm on May 5, 2025:

0Thanks to [WHO_INVENTED?] for coining the term "satoshi" with the meaning herein informed, and to the community for having converged on using "satoshis" and "sats" as such in a frictionless and peaceful way.

katesalazar commented at 9:48 pm on May 5, 2025:

isn’t it a bit cringey? I left yall a suggestion

0ceanSlim commented at 11:46 am on May 6, 2025:

The wording of your suggestion is very confusing for me personally. I did commit some changes to remove some “praise” for satoshi while leaving the attributions in mostly the same format. If someone else has a suggestion or thoughts on this, I’m open to more opinions.

0ceanSlim commented at 11:48 am on May 6, 2025:

Attributing the invention to the creator is cringy? Am I misunderstanding you?

katesalazar commented at 3:15 pm on May 6, 2025:

Yep you misunderstand me.

I don’t think that anyone pointing to the fact that satoshi is a tribute to Satoshi is cringey.

I just think that mentioning Satoshi in the Acknowledgments section of this BIP is cringey. Maybe I’d add cult-ish, if that’s a word. Feels like an outro, like an Amen, like an HH, like a loved leader.

katesalazar commented at 3:17 pm on May 6, 2025:

I mean who coined the term “satoshi” with this meaning?

0ceanSlim commented at 3:18 pm on May 6, 2025:

You mean to say it’s a bit redundant as this is a BIP so obviosly we don’t need to thank satoshi for the invention otherwise we wouldn’t be here anyways? I suppose I can just thank the community. I sort of see what you mean.

0ceanSlim commented at 5:48 pm on May 6, 2025:

It naturally emerged as far as I know. If anyone can point to a specific resource on some of it’s first usages, I’d love to insert them.

in bip-0172.mediawiki:65 in 8cf1c4fb5e outdated

61@@ -62,7 +62,7 @@ To ensure clarity and inclusiveness in user interfaces and assistive technologie
62 
63 == Rationale ==
64 
65-Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin, established that one bitcoin would be divisible to eight decimal places, creating 100,000,000 units per bitcoin. The community has organically adopted the term "satoshi" to refer to this smallest unit, honoring Bitcoin's creator.
66+Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin, established that one bitcoin would be divisible to eight decimal places, creating 100,000,000 units per bitcoin. The community has organically adopted the term "satoshi" to refer to this smallest unit.

katesalazar commented at 3:19 pm on May 6, 2025:

disclaimer: didn’t ask for this to be changed

0ceanSlim commented at 3:20 pm on May 6, 2025:

Yes, I know. But I felt it good to remove anyways.

0ceanSlim commented at 3:23 pm on May 6, 2025: contributor

Regardless of any pending changes, I would kindly ask for this to be merged in it’s current form as we are indeed starting to get very nit on suggestions. That is of course unless any reviewers have a big pending issue with it’s current form.

in bip-0172.mediawiki:127 in 8cf1c4fb5e outdated

123@@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ After standardization, the preferred formats would be:
124 
125 == Acknowledgements ==
126 
127-Thanks to the entire Bitcoin community who has organically adopted the terms "satoshi" and "sats" over the years, and to Satoshi Nakamoto for creating Bitcoin with its precisely defined subdivision structure.
128+Thanks to the entire Bitcoin community who has organically adopted the terms "satoshi" and "sats" over the years, and to Satoshi Nakamoto for creating Bitcoin.

katesalazar commented at 3:24 pm on May 6, 2025:

IMO this feels like an outro, like an Amen, like an HH, like a loved leader. Maybe it’s personal.

Anyway, trying to be more objective, acknowledging for Bitcoin is offtopic here. This BIP is about terminology, not about technology; then limit acknowledgments to terminology instead of broadening them to technology?

0ceanSlim commented at 5:53 pm on May 6, 2025:

amended.

murchandamus commented at 9:31 pm on May 7, 2025: contributor

Sorry, the unrelated on-going community debate has taken a big chunk of my time in the past week. Another review of this proposal is on my todo list but may take another few days.

murchandamus commented at 5:18 pm on May 8, 2025: contributor

I have no further review comments. LGTM

Add BIP172: Define Bitcoin Subunits as Satoshis c37927174e

murchandamus force-pushed on May 8, 2025

murchandamus merged this on May 8, 2025

murchandamus closed this on May 8, 2025

BIP172: Define Bitcoin Subunits as Satoshis #1841