BIP177: bitcoins => bitcoin

moneyball commented at 8:01 pm on May 21, 2025: contributor

I propose we use singular form bitcoin instead of plural form. It is cleaner.

bitcoins => bitcoin

I propose we use singular form bitcoin instead of plural form. It is cleaner.

ba2890f50f

jonatack added the label Proposed BIP modification on May 21, 2025

jonatack added the label Pending acceptance on May 21, 2025

jonatack renamed this:
~~bitcoins => bitcoin~~
BIP177: bitcoins => bitcoin
on May 21, 2025

jonatack commented at 8:35 pm on May 21, 2025: member

cc BIP author @BitcoinErrorLog for approval/feedback

BitcoinErrorLog commented at 9:17 pm on May 21, 2025: contributor

Approved on my end

jonatack commented at 9:40 pm on May 21, 2025: member

I generally say “bitcoin” instead of “bitcoins”. That said, the other BIPs and the user-facing documentation in Bitcoin Core (RPC/CLI/GUI) use the word “bitcoins” to indicate more than one bitcoin (as well as “satoshis”/“sats” that this BIP would deprecate).

in bip-0177.mediawiki:31 in ba2890f50f outdated

27@@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ By redefining the base unit as "one bitcoin," this BIP aligns user perception wi
28 
29 * Internally, the base units remain unchanged.
30 * Historically, 1 bitcoin = 100,000,000 base units. Under this proposal, "1 bitcoin" equals one base unit.
31-* What was previously referred to as "1 bitcoin" now corresponds to 100 million bitcoins under the new definition.
32+* What was previously referred to as "1 bitcoin" now corresponds to 100 million bitcoin under the new definition.

jonatack commented at 9:48 pm on May 21, 2025:

Perhaps consider whether to explicitly state in this draft that “bitcoin” be preferred to “bitcoins”

matbalez commented at 5:41 am on May 22, 2025:

As mentioned in my comment, I don’t think this BIP needs to take a stance beyond just adopting its preferred usage.

jonatack commented at 12:26 pm on May 22, 2025:

A possible outcome if it isn’t explicit, is people opening pull requests to fix the grammar.

matbalez commented at 5:40 am on May 22, 2025: none

I tend to agree that “bitcoin” is the cleaner usage and we should aim to consistently use the cleaner form.

I reviewed the 51 mentions of “bitcoins” across 26 files in the BIP repository (outside of this BIP) and did not find any references which could not have been made equally clearly without explicit pluralization.

I don’t think this BIP needs to explicitly state a preference for “bitcoin” usage, rather it should just go ahead and adopt this usage given the author agrees with the change. The BIP is already proposing significant changes in how we use language around bitcoin units, I would consider it beyond the scope of the BIP to explicitly state a preference either way. It can simply use “bitcoin” without opining further IMO.

BitcoinErrorLog commented at 6:52 am on May 22, 2025: contributor

Since we are fully in this bikeshed, I have captured the nuances below. The TLDR is that “bitcoin” is popular, but there is a grammar convention to pluralize normally when specifying the amount, like “3 bitcoins”…

I will probably defer to the community on how far we want to go specifying this aspect…

In English, whether you treat bitcoin like a mass noun (uncountable, like “gold”) or a count noun (you can say “bitcoins”) depends mostly on which style guide or community norm you follow. There is no universal “grammar law,” but here are the dominant approaches:

1. Bitcoin as a mass (uncountable) noun

Many writers and crypto-native publications treat bitcoin the way you’d treat “money” or “gold”:

Use “bitcoin” for both singular and plural when you’re speaking generically about the currency.
- “Investors moved more bitcoin into cold storage this week.”
- “She transferred some bitcoin to her exchange account.”
Evidence:
- Satoshi’s original whitepaper never uses a plural form like “bitcoins” when referring to amounts; it simply uses “bitcoin” everywhere ([Reddit]1).
- Many crypto-enthusiasts insist “the plural of Bitcoin is Bitcoin,” arguing it’s a collective whole, not individual coins ([CCN.com]2, [Yahoo Finance]3).

2. Bitcoin as a count noun (with “bitcoins”)

Traditional style manuals that treat it like an ordinary noun allow or even recommend adding an -s when specifying units:

AP Style (56th ed., Dec. 2024):
- First reference: “cryptocurrency”; thereafter “bitcoin” (lowercase).
- Use “bitcoins” when giving specific quantities: “6 bitcoins,” “58.7 ethers.”
- But generic mass use remains “bitcoin”: “He bought a tablet with bitcoin.” ([Beyond Bylines]4)
Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
- Lists “bitcoins” as the usual plural form for discrete units. ([Merriam-Webster]5)
Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS):
- Generally, proper names ending in unpronounced -s or -x stay unchanged in the plural (“three Margaux,” “four Robidoux”), which by analogy would suggest “bitcoin” stays the same. If you do add an -s, be consistent: “bitcoins.” ([The Chicago Manual of Style Online]6, [The Chicago Manual of Style Online]7)

3. What to choose?

For technical or crypto-native audiences (whitepapers, forums, developer docs), treating bitcoin as a mass noun is common: “some bitcoin,” not “some bitcoins.”
For broader journalistic or business contexts, following AP Style’s compromise often works best:
- Use bitcoin generically or conceptually,
- Switch to bitcoins when you need to count specific units.

4. Practical examples

Context	Preferred phrasing
Generic discussion of the currency	“Bitcoin’s market cap has grown rapidly.”
Describing a system or protocol	“The Bitcoin network processes transactions.”
Talking about unquantified amounts	“I hold some bitcoin in cold storage.”
Listing exact quantities	“She transferred 3 bitcoins to her wallet.”

Bottom line: English hasn’t “locked in” one rule here. Choose the convention that best fits your audience (and be consistent). If you’re writing for news outlets or broad audiences, the AP Style approach—mass noun for generic, count noun for specifics—is a clear, well-established compromise.

jonatack removed the label Pending acceptance on May 22, 2025

matbalez commented at 7:54 am on May 22, 2025: none

I personally continue to prefer this BIP narrowly focusing on the issue of base unit naming and not opining on preference of “bitcoin” vs “bitcoins” or providing guidance on the nuance of usage thereof. Instead just adopt one usage approach and stick to it consistently within the BIP. My vote would be to use “bitcoin” only (which dovetails nicely with the theme of this BIP!).

One could image an entirely separate BIP providing the guidance on pluralization (or not) with all the nuance cited in your comment above.

BitcoinErrorLog commented at 8:10 am on May 22, 2025: contributor

Note that all of the nuance cited did resolve to a clear convention: bitcoin when uncountable, bitcoins when counted. This is noteworthy in that it contradicts the current PR by @moneyball – I agree with @matbalez that we shouldn’t be specifying all this nuance, but now we must resolve the topic of which convention to apply in this BIP.

jonatack commented at 12:31 pm on May 22, 2025: member

Tend to NACK if not explicit, as it contradicts current convention in the BIPs and Bitcoin Core and for the reason in #1856 (review).

murchandamus commented at 3:55 pm on May 22, 2025: contributor

Bitcoin derives semantically from coin and coin is a countable noun.

I’m with AP on that one: Specific counts different from a single one use the plural.

1 bitcoin
½ bitcoin (one half of a bitcoin)
2 bitcoins
1.3 bitcoin (short for one bitcoin and three tenths of a bitcoin)
0.3 bitcoins (decimal use generally uses plural)
0 bitcoins
Bought with bitcoin (generic mass use for unspecified amount)

Not that my take matters particularly here, it’s up to the BIP’s authors what they want a BIP to say at the Draft stage.

matbalez commented at 6:31 pm on May 22, 2025: none

I think there is agreement that this BIP need not state guidance on which style guide should be adopted by others (countable vs uncountable ), it should simply adopt one.

We can be explicit about it without opining or trying to persuade on this convention. eg add the following line

“This BIP adopts the convention of treating “bitcoin” as an uncountable noun.”

which should avoid Jon’s concern about ppl trying to correct the grammar.

While the AP standard certainly works, I would suggest that users (1) seeing occasional pluralization vs not pluralization (2) needing to think about if/when to pluralize vs not pluralize means the AP convention is strictly more cognitive overhead when reading, writing and speaking about bitcoin.

Since the aim of BIP177 is to lessen user confusion—particularly amongst users new to bitcoin—adopting the mass noun convention seems most consistent with the underlying philosophy of simplicity being advanced by the BIP.

In my view, the BIP should adopt the convention that shows the way towards maximum simplicity.

But ultimately, I believe it is @BitcoinErrorLog’s call to make as BIP author—I don’t really have anything further to add.

jonatack commented at 5:35 pm on May 23, 2025: member

@BitcoinErrorLog @moneyball any further thoughts following the above feedback?

moneyball commented at 0:16 am on May 26, 2025: contributor

I agree with the view this BIP isn’t attempting to set a standard of bitcoin vs. bitcoins. That’s out of scope. Whether grammatically correct or not, what I have observed in the bitcoin space is the singular version of bitcoin, so this PR simply matches that. If that observation is wrong, and most of the ecosystem already uses bitcoins, then so be it, although I’d love to see examples.

On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 10:35 AM Jon Atack @.***> wrote:

jonatack left a comment (bitcoin/bips#1856) https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1856#issuecomment-2905264813

@BitcoinErrorLog https://github.com/BitcoinErrorLog @moneyball https://github.com/moneyball any further thoughts following the above feedback?

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/pull/1856#issuecomment-2905264813, or unsubscribe https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACPUA2JO7ZTKIDAA7PPLKD275L7TAVCNFSM6AAAAAB5UGMXUWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDSMBVGI3DIOBRGM . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: @.***>

jonatack commented at 5:15 pm on May 26, 2025: member

“This BIP adopts the convention of treating “bitcoin” as an uncountable noun.”

which should avoid Jon’s concern about ppl trying to correct the grammar.

ACK, this is what I mean by being explicit about the convention in use for this BIP. @moneyball mind adding the proposed sentence, or similar?

I’d love to see examples.

#1856 (comment)

Addressed feedback to treat bitcoin as uncountable noun ceead6f14c

moneyball commented at 5:19 am on June 4, 2025: contributor

@jonatack @BitcoinErrorLog how does that look?

murchandamus commented at 6:02 am on June 4, 2025: contributor

Seems fine to me, if @BitcoinErrorLog wants to adopt this change.

jonatack commented at 8:33 pm on June 4, 2025: member

LGTM

we must resolve the topic of which convention to apply in this BIP @BitcoinErrorLog your call yay or nay here

BitcoinErrorLog commented at 8:42 am on June 5, 2025: contributor

Is there any reference example of popular usage of uncountable while including the amounts? Bitcoin is ultimately countable, so I am having a little trouble rationalizing this to be anything more than fear of calling the units bitcoins.

moneyball commented at 1:04 am on June 8, 2025: contributor

I did a few minutes of research and couldn’t really make a strong case one way or the other. Asking Grok I got:

Looking at Optech’s style guidelines, it appears they recommend bitcoins. https://github.com/bitcoinops/bitcoinops.github.io/blob/master/STYLE.md#units

My own perception matches what Grok says. But I don’t feel so strongly about this to spend more time trying to make a comprehensive case for it. I’m happy to close this PR if we feel it is either wrong or needs stronger justification (or, maybe someone who feels more strongly about it or has more time can do the homework :)

katesalazar commented at 9:21 am on June 8, 2025: contributor

Let people create and figure out language, and let languages people study languages stuff; you give BIP177 waaay too much attention, yall.

BitcoinErrorLog commented at 11:49 am on June 11, 2025: contributor

Let people create and figure out language, and let languages people study languages stuff; you give BIP177 waaay too much attention, yall.

We are people, creating and figuring out language.

Otherwise, this thread is not a place for personal advice, so feel free to pay less attention to this BIP.

matbalez commented at 5:10 pm on June 11, 2025: none

@BitcoinErrorLog asked for example usage of bitcoin as uncountable noun.

Perhaps the popular dominant usage of bitcoin in uncountable form is the supply cap most commonly referred to as 21M bitcoin not 21M bitcoins, as far I tend to come across it. Like here:

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/takes/bip-21qonly-2-1-quadrillion-bitcoins#:~:text=Of%20course%2C%20I%E2%80%99m%20sure%20you%E2%80%99ve,units%20each

Some quick research uncovered several examples both in pop media and technical documentation.

“an exchange-traded fund designed to track publicly traded companies that hold at least 1,000 bitcoin (BTC)” https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2025/03/11/bitwise-launches-bitcoin-standard-corporations-etf-strategy-takes-a-20-weighting

“This may seem alarming, but considering we typically see millions of bitcoin switch” https://bitcoinmagazine.com/markets/are-bitcoin-whales-buying-the-dip

“Path B: OP_CHECKTEMPLATEVERIFY <Pay Bob 2 Bitcoin (2 inputs)>” https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0119.mediawiki

My summary take:

this BIP needs to adopt a convention
both countable and uncountable conventions are valid with evidence supporting both
my own view is that uncountable is simpler and more consistent with the “simpler is better” philosophy of this BIP

Ultimately, I think the preference is stylistic and John should just make the call and we should just close this out.

moneyball commented at 6:07 pm on June 11, 2025: contributor

I’m comfortable with whatever @BitcoinErrorLog decides, and I am happy to close this PR if the decision is to keep it the same. Appreciate the engagement and attention on it.

jonatack added the label Pending acceptance on Jun 12, 2025

BIP177: bitcoins => bitcoin #1856

1. Bitcoin as a mass (uncountable) noun

2. Bitcoin as a count noun (with “bitcoins”)

3. What to choose?

4. Practical examples