BIP177: Redefine Bitcoin’s Base Unit

[BitcoinErrorLog]

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.

• Type: Informational
• No changes to consensus rules or supply
• Matches Bitcoin’s native integer representation
• Includes multi-phase rollout recommendations

Authored by: John Carvalho (@BitcoinErrorLog)

Mailing list:

https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/YwF-djZi1Bo/m/nIkyuClEAgAJ

[murchandamus]

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.

[murchandamus]

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.

[luke-jr]

How isn't this still decimal?

[RandyMcMillan]

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

[BitcoinErrorLog]

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.

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.

[BitcoinErrorLog]

How isn't this still decimal?

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.

[BitcoinErrorLog]

What a terrible idea of redefining a widely used term by the different meaning.

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.

[BitcoinErrorLog]

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

Thank you for your misc opinions, but, in the end, I could only consider feedback that maintains the core intent of the proposal.

[katesalazar]

Someone explain to me how we moved from there are multiple ways to increase precision to sat is indivisible in less than 3 years?

[schildbach]

How is this proposal different to the already established "sats" denomination?

Also, doesn't the LN already use "fractional satoshis"? If so, the integer-only argument wouldn't be valid.

[BitcoinErrorLog]

Someone explain to me how we moved from there are multiple ways to increase precision to sat is indivisible in less than 3 years?

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.

[BitcoinErrorLog]

How is this proposal different to the already established "sats" denomination?

Also, doesn't the LN already use "fractional satoshis"? If so, the integer-only argument wouldn't be valid.

1. I will re-read the proposal with eye to make sure any "sats" dynamics are clearly addressed. Feel free to contribute!
2. LN "millisats" do not "exist" exactly, they are just a trusted intra-channel credit feature. Mostly they just confuse people to once again misunderstand how Bitcoin (and Lightning) works. Should I add specs to remove millisats as concept to this BIP too?

[schildbach]

I will re-read the proposal with eye to make sure any "sats" dynamics are clearly addressed. Feel free to contribute!

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".

LN "millisats" do not "exist" exactly, they are just a trusted intra-channel credit feature. Mostly they just confuse people to once again misunderstand how Bitcoin (and Lightning) works. Should I add specs to remove millisats as concept to this BIP too?

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.

[BitcoinErrorLog]

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 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 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 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...

[murchandamus]

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.

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.

Either Markdown or Mediawiki are acceptable since #1504 got merged in 2023.

[murchandamus]

I think I see what may cause the rendering issue. The code formatting tags need to be closed:

[murchandamus]

It seems to me that the motivation could be strengthened and that the document should address why presenting user funds denominated in "sats" does not achieve the intended goal. However, speaking as an editor, this proposal appears to be compliant with the formatting requirements at this point.

Assessing the mailing list thread and the comments on this proposal, all commenters so far appear to be skeptical. At this time, I do not perceive this proposal to have sufficient community interest to assign a number. I am happy to revisit this assessment when the proposal picks up more momentum.

[BitcoinErrorLog]

Could you clarify what the threshold is for getting a number?

[murchandamus]

Could you clarify what the threshold is for getting a number?

I don’t have a specific threshold in mind, but a start would be some replies expressing enthusiasm or any commentary in support of this proposal.

[murchandamus]

Assessing the situation further, I have been convinced otherwise.

Let’s call this BIP 177.

[murchandamus]

Checked with John out of band, and he said that "Redefine Bitcoin's Base Unit" works for him, assigned number

[BitcoinErrorLog]

All formatting cleanup

[BitcoinErrorLog]

Added some comments addressing "sats" topic

[ikoinu]

John,
I like your idea and see the need to simply the common naming to a unit, not a sum of 8 decimal places as it is currently. So I support this.
My question would be what happens if a BIP is passed in the future for lesser unit denominations that are soft-fork compatible for finer control as the Bitcoin purchasing power rises, such as from 1.00000001 to 1.0000000001?
Would this necessitate another BIP correction?

[BitcoinErrorLog]

My question would be what happens if a BIP is passed in the future for lesser unit denominations that are soft-fork compatible for finer control as the Bitcoin purchasing power rises, such as from 1.00000001 to 1.0000000001? Would this necessitate another BIP correction?

afaik, there is no meaningful/enforceable way to express decimals in Bitcoin. To truly get more precision, we would need to multiply the units. There are various edge considerations in such a change, like how it affects mining rewards into the future, etc. Any such change would likely be a hard fork, and even if someone designs something reasonable as a soft fork, it would still be controversial and face headwinds. There is no prominent design proposal I know of for any of that.

In the end, I cannot design for all hypothetical Bitcoin futures (or forks), so I focus on the one we have! :)

[murchandamus]

This pull request should be used to help to review and improve the document. Please identify areas that need clarification, suggest improvements, or point out any missing aspects. Merely stating disagreement with the idea itself is not constructive. Thanks.

[0ceanSlim]

This pull request should be used to help to review and improve the document. Please identify areas that need clarification, suggest improvements, or point out any missing aspects. Merely stating disagreement with the idea itself is not constructive. Thanks.

I'll keep that in mind and keep my comments over on other social channels from now on. 🤙🏻