Bitcoin, sats, bits, numbers, and perceptions

In December 2024 John Carvalho proposed BIP 21Q titled "Redefinition of the Bitcoin Unit to the Base Denomination." His point: the word "bitcoin" should not refer to the 21 million bitcoins we hear about, but to what we currently call "sats", the "base" unit of bitcoin. There are 2.1 quadrillion sats. So, instead of saying there are 21 million bitcoin, BIP 21Q suggests saying there are 2.1 quadrillion.

There'd be absolutely zero change to Bitcoin, the protocol, with this BIP (unlike the OP_CAT or more current OP_RETURN debates). This is just a movement to get people to change the way they talk about and refer to "bitcoin." BIP 21Q is just a rewording, a rephrasing, a rebranding, a rethinking.

Since then, there has been discussion. I'll admit it's interesting to talk about, but I've never thought much of it. My take has been, and frankly still is: this too will pass. I hadn't heard or thought of this in a couple of months. Until...

In the past couple of days though, like a campfire that has been slowly dying down, a sudden rush of wind has fanned the embers and the flames have sparked upward. As best I can tell, that wind came out of the mouth (or typing) of Jack Dorsey (Twitter founder, Square/Block CEO, billionaire, you know Jack) when he put this note out.

Watch the vid on YouTube.

The video makes some good points, both against and in favor of BIP 21Q. Quickly, Grok summarized the arguments for and against, below:

Today, I even read chatter about a middle ground compromise to use "bits" as the base unit. In other words, don't use "sats" but use "bits." I guess the idea is that a bitcoin can stay one of 21 million, but "bits," which sounds like little bitcoins, can be the 2.1 quadrillion. "Oh brother," I thought, even more confusion. We've been through this back in the 20-teens with bits, ubits, and mbits. This was a main reason I made the Satoshi Bitcoin Converter because it was confusing! I'm happy we were past all this, but then...it's back!

Just for kicks, you can fool around with the old SBC version 7 and find out how confusing it is.

One of the arguments in the video is that the BoardwalkCash.com folks have adopted "bitcoin" as their base unit. Boardwalk Cash is a cashu/ecash (and Lightning) web app with the intention of making spending and receiving small, coffee-sized payments easy.

Notice the bitcoin B after the zero, not "sats" or a satoshi symbol, like the one I proposed: シ 😃

Below, I sent 21 sats (bitcoins?) from a different ecash/cashu wallet. And, boom, there they appear in Boardwalk Cash. Notice how it appears as 21₿, as 21 bitcoin. Then, when I click it, it shows $0.02 USD, two pennies.

I didn't actually send 21 what-we-think-of-today bitcoins, worth $2.16 million. I sent two US pennies worth.

And so, this is the main argument against, in my view: possible confusion. The other issue would be the changeover by things like exchanges or maybe even smart contracts that bridge BTC to other chains. Having worked on my little converter app, I know that it can be easy to make a decimal mistake in the code and throw everything off. I'm certain that, should we move to 2.1 quadrillion bitcoins, somebody will foul up an interface or back end which might cause a big problem, maybe some big losses.

Two things here:

On the more technical side, the changing of names and code on exchanges or smart contracts, it would almost be better if there was a hard-and-fast, set changeover date, like there was with Y2K. There is a clear before-and-after, B.C. and A.D. date. Call it, "BQ" and "AQ", before and after quadrillion. 😂 If there was a date/time where everything was 21M "bitcoin" to 2.1Q "bitcoin", that would force the issue.

However, there is not such a date or time, nor will there be...recall that bitcoin is decentralized, no CEO here. If this 2.1Q change actually happens, the reality is that it will be a rolling, gradual, thing. It will be case by case, app by app, exchange by exchange. And some won't make the change at all. This lends back to the confusion situation.

Secondly, on the human perception side, this actually concerns me less. We can change human perception. It takes some time, but human perception and thinking is very plastic and can definitely be molded. Heaven knows the examples of how this has been used the wrong way in history, umm, anything like this go on in World War II?

Quick case studies of changing perception:

Standard Oil (John D. Rockefeller's company) was essentially a monopoly and was broken up by the U.S., remember that from history class? They had a multitude of sub-brands, one of which was "Esso", get it?, S.O., Standard Oil? They wanted to move away from ties to Standard Oil, at least perception-wise, and wanted to consolidate all their sub-brands. They moved to "Exxon" with a marketing campaign. The marketing types were brilliant. They understood that there is a time thing involved. Unlike the Y2K hard date above, they knew that human perception, as malleable as it is, changes over time. Rather than fight this, they used this to their advantage.

As I understand, one of their techniques was to use the visual. The Esso sign was shown in places with the Esso logo up high and prominent. But, down below, was the never-before-seen Exxon sign. It was just there, doing nothing. Doing nothing except implanting itself into the subconscious of the viewers. Then, the Exxon sign, in later ads, appeared higher. The Esso sign lowered and was less prominent. Hmm? What's going on? Does anyone even notice? Hmm? Then, in the coup, the tiger mascot literally lowered the Esso sign down and raised the Exxon sign up.

In the final coup d'état, the Esso sign simply disappeared. And, make no mistake, this is the coup de grâce...the word Esso just disappeared. It was no longer seen at all. Then, it was forgotten and it was gone. Now, there is Exxon.

More recently, we all know that Twitter rebranded to X. It seemed so dumb, definitely awkward, I'm still not entirely used to it, people still write, "...so-and-so posted on X, formerly Twitter,..." (as if no one knows that X is formerly Twitter), I still say people "tweet" on X, but it's changing. I now hear reference to what so-and-so said "on X", with no mention of Twitter. It's changing. Time...it'll change...Twitter will stop being mentioned, Twitter will be a part of history, like Esso.

Nothing. I fully predict that this 2.1 quadrillion bitcoins thing will go nowhere. One of the main reasons for moving to replace "sats" as "bitcoins" is the perception that 1 bitcoin is unattainable and that people know "bitcoin," but don't know "sats." A bull bitcoin is out of reach for most people, but sats are attainable by everyone with a wallet. And, if they don't know ther term "sats," it's probably easier to change that perception (to educate them on sats) than it is to change and possibly confuse their knowledge of 21M bitcoins with 2.1Q bitcoins. It's probably easier to educate on "sats" than it is to change all the backends on exchanges and smart contracts and front ends (and some won't change at all, which will add more to confusion).

Solution: educate

Practical solution: if you think you might be speaking to a "normie" audience, make it a point to use the phrase "bitcoin sats." Over time, as people acquire and use sats to buy burgers, they'll know that sats means 1 of 2.1 quadrillion, but a bitcoin is 1 of 21 million. This is the Esso tiger lowering "bitcoin" and raising "sats."