Redefinition of the Bitcoin Unit to the Base Denomination
Abstract
This BIP proposes redefining the commonly recognized "bitcoin" unit so that what was previously known as the smallest indivisible unit becomes the primary reference unit. Under this proposal, one bitcoin is defined as that smallest unit, eliminating the need for decimal places. By making the integral unit the standard measure, this BIP aims to simplify user comprehension, reduce confusion, and align on-chain values directly with their displayed representation.
Motivation
The current convention defines one BTC as 100,000,000 of the smallest indivisible units. This representation requires dealing with eight decimal places, which can be confusing and foster the misconception that bitcoin is inherently decimal-based. In reality, Bitcoin’s ledger represents values as integers of a smallest unit, and the decimal point is merely a human-imposed abstraction.
By redefining the smallest unit as "one bitcoin," this BIP aligns user perception with the protocol’s true nature. It reduces cognitive overhead, ensures users understand Bitcoin as counting discrete units, and ultimately improves educational clarity and user experience.
Specification
Redefinition of the Unit:
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.
Terminology:
The informal terms "satoshi" or "sat" are deprecated.
All references, interfaces, and documentation SHOULD refer to the base integer unit simply as "bitcoin."
Display and Formatting:
Applications SHOULD present values as whole integers without decimals.
Example:
Old display: 0.00010000 BTC
New display: 10000 BTC (or ₿10000)
Conversion:
Ledger and consensus rules remain unchanged.
Implementations adopting this standard MUST multiply previously displayed BTC amounts by 100,000,000 to determine the new integer representation.
Rationale
Usability:
Integer-only displays simplify mental arithmetic and reduce potential confusion or user error.
Protocol Alignment:
The Bitcoin protocol inherently counts discrete units. Removing the artificial decimal format aligns user perception with Bitcoin’s actual integral design.
Educational Clarity:
Presenting integers ensures newcomers do not mistakenly assume that Bitcoin’s nature is decimal-based. It conveys Bitcoin’s true design from the start.
Future-Proofing:
Adopting the smallest unit as the primary measure ensures a consistent standard that can scale smoothly as Bitcoin adoption grows.
Addressing Alternative Approaches
Refuting the "Bits" Proposal (BIP 176)
An alternative suggestion (BIP 176) proposes using "bits" to represent one-millionth of a bitcoin (100 satoshis). While this reduces the number of decimal places in certain contexts, it fails to fully address the core issues our BIP aims to solve:
Persistent Decimal Mindset:
Using "bits" still retains a layered decimal approach, requiring users to think in terms of multiple denominations (BTC and bits). This shifts complexity rather than eliminating it.
Inconsistent User Experience:
Users must learn to toggle between BTC for large amounts and bits for small amounts. Instead of providing a unified view of value, it fragments the user experience.
Incomplete Alignment with the Protocol’s Nature:
The "bits" proposal does not realign the displayed value with the integral nature of Bitcoin’s ledger. It continues to rely on fractional units, masking the fundamental integer-based accounting that Bitcoin employs.
Not Permanently Future-Proof:
Though "bits" may simplify certain price ranges, future circumstances could demand additional denominations or scaling adjustments. Our integral approach resolves this problem entirely by making the smallest unit the standard measure, avoiding future fragmentation.
In essence, while BIP 176 attempts to simplify small amount representations, it only replaces one decimal representation with another. By redefining "bitcoin" as the smallest indivisible unit, this BIP eliminates reliance on decimal fractions and separate denominations entirely, offering a clearer, more intuitive, and ultimately more durable solution.
Backward Compatibility
No consensus rules are altered, and on-chain data remains unchanged. Differences arise solely in display formats:
For Developers:
Update GUIs, APIs, and documentation to present values as integers. Remove references to fractional BTC.
For Users:
The actual value of holdings does not change. Transitional measures, such as dual displays or explanatory tooltips, can ease the adjustment period.
Security Considerations
A short-term risk of confusion exists as users adapt to the new representation. Users accustomed to decimals may misinterpret initial displays. To mitigate this:
Offer dual displays and tooltips during the transition.
Provide clear educational materials and coordinated messaging.
Use alerts or confirmations in applications if input values appear unexpectedly large or small.
Over time, confusion will subside, leaving a simpler, more intuitive understanding of Bitcoin’s integral values.
Reference Implementation
Some wallets, such as Bitkit, have successfully adopted integer-only displays, demonstrating the feasibility of this approach. Transitional features—like showing both old and new formats side-by-side—can help smooth the transition.
Test Vectors
Old: 1.00000000 BTC → New: 100000000 BTC (or ₿100000000)
Old: 0.00010000 BTC → New: 10000 BTC (or ₿10000)
Old: 0.00500000 BTC → New: 500000 BTC (or ₿500000)
All formerly fractional representations now directly correspond to whole-number multiples of the smallest unit.
Implementation Timeline
Phase 1 (3-6 months): Introduce the concept, provide dual displays and educational materials.
Phase 2 (6-12 months): Prominent services adopt integer-only displays by default.
Phase 3 (12+ months): Integer representation becomes standard. Documentation and user guides no longer reference decimal-based formats.
Conclusion
Redefining the "bitcoin" unit as the smallest indivisible unit and removing decimal-based representations simplifies comprehension and aligns displayed values with the protocol’s integral accounting. While a transition period may be necessary, the long-term benefits include clearer communication, reduced confusion, and a more accurate understanding of Bitcoin’s fundamental design.
Copyright
This BIP is licensed under CC0-1.0.
pull down to refresh
related posts
This will create way more confusion that it will solve.
I can see the headline now: "Bitcoin now worth less than a penny!"
The popular understanding of Bitcoin is that 1 btc is worth a lot. @BitcoinErrorLog's proposal throws that away and has to fight the mental image pretty much everyone who's ever heard of bitcoin has. Seems like it would just lead to confusion, like a bad rebrand.
I mean can you imagine.
All the folks on r/buttcoin and elsewhere...
'Bitcoin worthless!!! Worth less than a penny, it crashed!!!'
I mean oh my
I would short this BIP if I could
This is a great statement! I would join on this shorting!
Someone did a lot of thinking about nothing instead of understanding the generation of numeric use. We already use sats and sats are very simple.
No. It's also going to break the line of education and communication from the previous generation of Bitcoin plebs to the present which is the similar intent of renaming schools, military bases and other historical places. It's Marxist nonsense.
It's not so much marxist... as there is a serious 'unit bias' for Bitcoin vs sats.
It's everywhere. People see 'oh 100k forget that'.
But the dogcoin? Oh that's cheap i'll get that one!
However this would take a long time to implement and there's no way it would turn out uniform
The unit bias is innumeracy. To be quite honest if we had more decimal places in fiat currency there would be no need to print higher denomination bills. These tokens are merely means to exchange value and if the currency is tight in circulation a business person will say:
Vendor - "OK, Jack, I understand that you don't have a full penny for this candy. Do you have a half penny?"
Jack - "Why yes, I do have a half penny."
Vendor - "Well just pay me that and you can keep the candy."
This is sales! Instead, we have been psyched out of using change and the register doesn't do tenths of a penny... But the gas stations do!
If you fundamentally understand math, money and exchange then you can navigate value very easily. My first amplifier for an electric guitar I bought with $120 USD in 1987. I saw the MSRP (Manufacturers Suggested Retail Price) or sticker price of $200 and I kept pacing back and forth at a mall guitar store. I was a skinny punk rock dude and the salesman said, "You want to try it out?" I said, "Yes!" It was a beautiful Crate Amplifier. I tried it out and I was think that I have to have this.
The salesman said, "Are you ready to buy it?" I told him that I didn't have enough money. He said, "How much do you have?" I told him $120. We didn't use credit cards. He said, "I'll take it." Wow! I negotiated and I didn't even know it. Lesson learned. The salesman knew that the bottom line is that he get sales to pay the bills. He needed liquidity. Liquidity is how the gas stations and other businesses use decimal values to accumulate while we are stuck with higher denominated cash and we in turn forfeit value to them.
The point is that the smaller units of Bitcoin are already in use and people who cry about 100,000,000 sats in one Bitcoin don't understand anything. They only understand that it's $100,000 USD for one and they can't have it. They also want to immediately sell a whole coin for another ungodly price. They are innumerate.
Now the Marxists, well they want you to be confused, trendy and poor. They are the ones who want to dumb everyone down so that they can have slaves. If you can't see that then you might be in the golden cage.
Finally the term sat is the root of the Satoshi name. It literally means "truth" in Sanskrit which is where the Satoshi nym derivative comes from. It's a Japanese cognate to suggest a man who embodies truth. The basic unit of Bitcoin is "truth".
this is so amazing, another tool in my awakening arsenal.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satya
wonderful!
Thank you... I had never heard that explanation of 'Satoshi' before!
Something something Japanese (central intelligence LOL) but I hadn't heard the bit about Sanskrit. Incredibly interesting!
Yes and you are right. The thing about Bitcoin's price... is that it isn't really that important.
1000 sats per dollar... that's it. For 10 dollars, someone can buy 10,000 sats approximately, and the sats are just that... sats! That's why it doesn't matter what the exchange rate is, Bitcoin is just money and a powerful, scarce savings account!
As far as the 'can't have one' crowd... they can do like anyone else and
There is no 'get rich quick' scheme, just hard work and saving.
From what I can tell, Bitcoin is extremely liquid, traded in huge volumes every day, not to mention being embraced by individuals, companies, and eventually countries! (US!)
The earlier that people realize that 1 sat = 1 sat the earlier they start stacking! The exchange rate being unimportant! 1000 sats just as valid and important to the individual as 1000000 sats... and seed phrases are created equal.
Bitcoin is for saving
<3
Language is emergent, it's absurd to try and control it. A bitcoiner should know better.
John Carvalho with this proposal only want to make relevant his crap Bitkit wallet that is pushing this use of ₿ as unit for bitcoin.
Stupid move.
It makes a lot of sense, but I still like sats.
nonsense. We have so many other important things to do for Bitcoin and yet the biggest concern for some people is the name of the small unit of 1 BTC.
Is just bullshit noise.
I agree with you, but the clunkiness of eight decimal places and other such numeric ugliness that the current 1 btc definition causes is real. Carvalho is pointing out the source of real confusion, especially among no coiners and newbies.
they have to adapt and learn. That's all.
Every wallet allows the user to change from sats to BTC or bits or whatever. If the wallet does not then it's no good.
Now I use Gnucash to track Bitcoin use and I can set up BTC or sats. I've set up BTC with the habit of knowing 8 decimal places. So I put 56,345 sats as 0.00056345 it's easy and it takes about an hour to get used to it. But when I do a big picture look I can see how close my net BTC worth is to 21,000,000 BTC instead of how many sats I have to 2.1 quadrillion.
Innumerate people are not going to care. They just want to preserve value and spend when needed. Marxist like to change stuff so that they can extract more slave labor.
reminds me of eu bureaucrats
Does anyone remember millibits (mBTC) being used back in the day?
You can still specify mBTC with some common wallets now.
Offhand I know that with Electrum you can specify the transaction fee sats/vB in decimal sats/vB like fee = "3.1 sats/vB". That's not exactly mBTC, but it's kinda the same...
Sure, just not really common anymore.
Certainly not common enough.
Just for the record, I like calling Bitcoin "Bitcoin", and sats "sats".
I don't know the answer to "how many msats are in 1 sat?", but I understand what 3.1 sats means.
I know that 1 Bitcoin = 1,000,000 sats.
Renaming sats to bitcoin is stupid and just causing more confusion.
If normies have unit bias with bitcoin's price, that's their own fault, don't make it mine.
1 bitcoin = 100,000,000 sats
Yeah, totally agree with you there.
There a re 1,000 mSats in a Sat.
There are 2,100,000,000,000,000,000 mSats in the Bitcoin protocol of Layer 2. That's 2.1 Quintilian.
There are 2,100,000,000,000,000 Sats to play with on chain. That's 2.1 Quadrillion.
lightning can go lower than msats, it's just a unit attached to an invoice, see BOLT11:
This means that a lightning invoice for 100k sats starts with
lnbc1mbecause 1 mBTC is 100k sats.Nice! This also shows that lightning is ready for the deflation activities of the increased buying power of Bitcoin.
Fungibility through math and not liquidity through increased supply.
Thanks for that. My first thought about 1,000 mSats in a Sat was right then.
msats means millisats and milli means 1/1000
This is a recipe for confusion. The current system is well-established and understood by most in the community. Changing this would not only disrupt the existing educational framework but also create a misleading perception of Bitcoin's value. People are used to thinking of Bitcoin as a high-value asset, and redefining the smallest unit as "one bitcoin" would make it seem like Bitcoin is worth less than a penny. This could lead to misunderstandings, especially among newcomers, and undermine the clarity that the current terminology provides. Instead of simplifying things, this proposal might just add to the chaos.
It's outrageous! That's a slap in the face to Nakamoto. John is clever, but he's completely off base here.
This is stupid. I can't think of any reason to do this other than to attack bitcoin by creating confusion.
Useless
The number of people I've met who say something like "what do you think of <random_shitcoin> it's only $0.34, bitcoin is too expensive"
Let them get wrecked.
Sats are what... 10,000 for 10$?
1 sat is 1/1000th of a dollar approximately or 1/10th of a cent.
Way cheaper than that 34 cent coin if you ask me!
John is trolling us with his big BALLS.
Satoshi as the base unit, Bitcoin for 100M satoshi.
People understand the difference between a million dollars and a penny.
I think they can understand the difference between a Bitcoin and a Satoshi.
Bitcoin will become so valuable that we'll need to break sats into smaller denoms.
Call those bitcoins.
We already have there are mSats which is 1,000 to 1 Sat. It's how lightning operates now.
not sure about this
Can you expand on that?
I am curious why a BIP is needed in this matter. Its as if he is trying to use BIP as a legislative thing.
TV launched a SATS index a while ago. https://www.tradingview.com/symbols/SATSUSD/
Sooner or later if calling Sats Bitcoin makes sense it will happen across the world without any legislation
no.
I like this BIP
Why?
This is so ridiculous and way more confusing.
if it ain't broke, don't fix it
https://cdn.satellite.earth/bb1da2730a45a3b8de1dfb8d84d39bc8bca9daec24f9f6faf84eac942afa7328.jpg
https://njump.me/nevent1qvzqqqqqqypzqpxfzhdwlm3cx9l6wdzyft8w8y9gy607tqgtyfq7tekaxs7lhmxfqqs2vsjw3l79je4q6r8fq5wlxrp4dqkx4zrz6et3t2xa3uw3uct3hyghtq5f4
The real conversation here should be changing millisats to billibits. Wouldn’t they just be the cutest little things? We could even spell it billybits. That flip would be a trip on BLIP, not a BIP though, right?
John Carvalho has to be the stupidest person in Bitcoin. Or should I say: John Carvalho has to be the stupidest person in 0.00000001
Good for adoption, but I hate it.
I love sats...
I hate sats. I hate when people idolize leaders. Naming the smallest denomination of Bitcoin after Satoshi was nothing more than an attempt to immortalize and idolize the creator, contradicting the principles of the cryptocurrency community.
Why we don't get the bit (100 sats) standardized?
Confusion is pretty much why I made this converter way back in 2013. Guess things cycle around. https://sbc.on-fleek.app/archive/legacy-20230716/index.html
Lol no
What's wrong with satoshis? Why not spend the same energy to promote something that already exists, and doesn't cause as much chaos as reducing the perceived BTC "price" by 8 orders of magnitude?
Yeah... that will totally not make things confusing...
Good idea. Don't know if we need a BIP for that though.
Based proposal. And also very practical. Forget the madness of explaining what a satoshi is vs what a bitcoin is. God, people are already confused by the nature of Bitcoin (and the difference between the currency and the protocol) that we don't need additional terminology.
Bitcoin and bitcoin is enough, I agree.
Also, nobody is really going to fatfinger 10 BTC if intending to send 10 bitcoin (the old 10 sats unit). C'mon.