If the above statement offends you, you might not have read the Bitcoin source code. <\/p>\n
Follow Rizzo on X.<\/p>\n
https://x.com/pete_rizzo_/<\/p>\n
Of course, I\u2019m sure you\u2019ve heard that there are 21 million bitcoin \u2013 and this is true, the Bitcoin protocol allows for only \u201c21 million bitcoin\u201d to be created, yet these larger denominations can be subdivided into 100 million sub-units each. <\/p>\n
Call them whatever you want, there are only 2.1 quadrillion monetary units in the protocol.<\/p>\n
This dollars and cents differential has long been the subject of debate \u2013 in the time of Satoshi, Bitcoin\u2019s creator, the dual conventions, Bitcoin having both a bulk denomination, and a smaller unit, was not much of a concern. There were questions about whether the software would work at all, and bitcoin were so worthless<\/a>, selling them in bulk was the only rational option. <\/p>\n Rehashing this debate is BIP 21Q<\/a>, a proposal to the Bitcoin users authored by John Carvalho, founder of Synonym, creator of the\u00a0Pubky social media platform<\/a>, and a tenured contributor whose work dates back to the days of the influential Bitcoin-assets collective<\/a>.<\/p>\n In short, the BIP proposes that network actors \u2013 the various wallets and exchanges \u2013 change how Bitcoin denominations are displayed, with the smallest unit of the protocol renamed \u201cbitcoins,\u201d as opposed to \u201csatoshis<\/a>,\u201d as they have been commonly called. <\/p>\n Here are the specifics of the BIP:<\/p>\n Redefinition of the Unit:<\/p>\n Internally, the smallest indivisible unit remains unchanged.Historically, 1 BTC = 100,000,000 base units. Under this proposal, “1 bitcoin” equals that smallest unit.What was previously referred to as “1 BTC” now corresponds to 100 million bitcoins under the new definition.<\/p>\n Terminology:<\/p>\n The informal terms “satoshi” or “sat” are deprecated.All references, interfaces, and documentation SHOULD refer to the base integer unit simply as “bitcoin.”<\/p>\n Display and Formatting:<\/p>\n Applications SHOULD present values as whole integers without decimals.Example:Old display: 0.00010000 BTCNew display: 10000 BTC (or \u20bf10000)<\/p>\n Unsurprisingly, the debate around the BIP has been hostile. For one, it\u2019s not a technical BIP, though this is not a requirement of the BIP process. Suffice to say, it\u2019s perhaps the most general BIP that has been proposed under the BIP process to date, as it mainly deals with market conventions and user onboarding logic, not any changes to the software rules.<\/p>\n However, I have to say, I find the proposal compelling. Nik Hoffman, our News Editor, does not, preferring to stick to the market affirmative<\/a>. <\/p>\n Yet, I think the proposal raises relevant questions: why should new users be forced to compute their Bitcoin balances using only decimals? Surely this has the adverse side effect of making commerce difficult \u2013 it\u2019s simply antithetical to how people think and act today. <\/p>\n Also, in terms of savings, at an $100,000 BTC price, it isn\u2019t exactly compelling to think you could be spending a whole year earning 1 BTC, though that may be. <\/p>\n Indeed, there have been various debates for all kinds of units \u2013 mBTC, uBTC \u2013 that play around with the dollars and cents convention, but Carvalho here is wisely skipping to the end, preferring just to rip the band-aid off. $1 would buy 1,000 bitcoins under his proposal.<\/p>\n