BIP draft: Redefinition of Bitcoin’s Base Unit #1821
Conversation
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
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the submission. This looks pretty complete already, all the sections are there. I have left a couple formatting suggestions and was wondering whether it might have been an oversight that almost the whole document is structured under the Introduction section.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
|
How isn't this still decimal? |
|
What a terrible idea of redefining a widely used term by the different meaning. |
|
|
|
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 <[email protected]>
edit formatting for Bits header
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. |
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. |
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. |
Thank you for your misc opinions, but, in the end, I could only consider feedback that maintains the core intent of the proposal. |
|
Someone explain to me how we moved from there are multiple ways to increase precision to sat is indivisible in less than 3 years? |
| '''Perception of Supply:''' | ||
| 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. | ||
| ===Addressing Alternative Approaches=== |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this paragraph is missing a comparison against the "sats" denomination.
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. |
|
jonatack
changed the title
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 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 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 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... |
Either Markdown or Mediawiki are acceptable since #1504 got merged in 2023. |
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)