How confusing is '1 BTC = 100 million Satoshis (sats)'? This long-standing issue in the Bitcoin ecosystem has recently come to the forefront—a debate over the naming of Bitcoin's smallest unit is sparking widespread discussion within the community.
The starting point of this storm is Bitcoin developer John Carvalho's proposal for Bitcoin Improvement Proposal BIP-177 on April 23. His goal is to eliminate the term 'Satoshi' and redefine Bitcoin's total supply as 21 quadrillion units, thereby simplifying users' understanding and use experience of Bitcoin as a payment tool.
Carvalho points out that the current design of 'satoshis' has resulted in 'overly complex decimal calculations' in practical use, which is a key barrier preventing ordinary users from adopting Bitcoin for payments. He believes that any solution that still requires users to understand 0.000001 BTC or 0.00000047 BTC is merely 'shifting complexity rather than solving it.'
'Satoshis' vs. 'Bits': Which is more suitable as 'Bitcoin change' in the eyes of users?
In fact, this is not the first attempt to change Bitcoin units. As early as 2017, Bitcoin developer Jimmy Song proposed the 'Bit' unit, representing one millionth of a Bitcoin, or 1 Bit = 100 sats. However, Carvalho clearly disagrees with this approach. He believes that 'Bits' still cannot fundamentally eliminate users' confusion about decimal placement.
The support for this change proposal is not limited to the developer camp. Block CEO and former Twitter founder Jack Dorsey has publicly stated on social platforms that he believes the naming of 'Sats' is extremely unfriendly to newcomers. He prefers to promote the concept of 'Bits' and points out, 'Bitcoin’s Bits are better, and Bitcoin itself is the best payment tool.'
Dorsey is not alone in this. Stevie Lee, the product lead of the Bitcoin infrastructure platform Spiral, has also stated that **most users do not know what a satoshi is and even mistakenly think it is another currency.** They just want to 'send Bitcoin,' 'not to figure out exactly how many “satoshis” Bitcoin has.'
Opponents: This is not simplification, but chaos creation
However, not everyone in the community supports this change. Swan Bitcoin CEO Cory Klippsten and Byte Federal's product director Michelle Weekley both expressed strong opposition.
Weekley stated on X: '**People can understand that there are 100 cents in a dollar; they can also understand that 1 Bitcoin equals 100 million Satoshis.** This is not a problem.' She believes that if users can accept the subdivision mechanism of fiat currency, they can also adapt to the existing unit system of Bitcoin.
Magdalena Gronowska, who claims to be a Bitcoin advisor, pointed out that such renaming could lead to misunderstandings at the market level: Users seeing changes in unit displays may mistakenly believe that Bitcoin's total supply has skyrocketed or even think that the price has 'collapsed.'
The underlying issue here is the contradiction between market perception and cognitive psychology. Currency units are not just technical issues; they are also issues of public consensus. Changing the unit name may inadvertently touch upon the extremely sensitive collective memory of 'inflation.'
Satoshi's attitude: 'Changes are possible, but consensus is required.'
Interestingly, Satoshi Nakamoto himself discussed similar issues as early as 2010. He posted on a forum stating, 'If dealing with small numbers is annoying, we can change the position of the decimal point.' Satoshi added, 'The amount itself remains unchanged; only the display method changes, which is a matter of convention.'
In other words, Satoshi does not reject adjustments to display units, provided that it does not affect Bitcoin's fundamental economic model.
From this perspective, the current debate is more like a collective reflection on user experience: Has Bitcoin's usability failed to keep pace with its value growth?
Especially now that the BTC price has surpassed $100,000, ordinary people are increasingly confused by payment units like 0.000237 BTC; this proposal may not be 'alarmist.'
Market perspective: User experience is key to adoption, not the technology itself.
The debate about 'Sats' and 'Bits' actually reflects the increasingly apparent **'usability anxiety'** within the Bitcoin ecosystem.
As BTC leaps from the geek circle into mainstream financial assets, becoming part of national reserves, institutional investment targets, and even corporate balance sheets, every detail surrounding it will be re-examined: Is the price unit clear? Is the payment process user-friendly? Can users complete a transaction without needing an explanation?
These issues cannot be solved solely by hardware wallets or trading platforms; they require comprehensive user education and ecological collaboration.
In this process, tools such as AI research reports, chart analysis, and in-depth news interpretation provided by Mlion.ai can help users clarify logical connections—from the micro mechanisms behind price trends to the potential impact of policies and proposals on the market, offering one-stop insights into the key variables affecting Bitcoin's future.
For example:
Using in-depth analysis of news, you can understand the actual impact of BIP-177 on the ecosystem at the first moment;
With the help of AI chart explanation functions, assess community acceptance from on-chain transaction data;
Track subtle shifts in KOL opinions, regulatory attitudes, and user sentiment through news aggregation + RAG technology.
Conclusion: The unit dispute is essentially a dispute over adoption.
'Sats' and 'Bits' sound like a terminology dispute, but at its core, it is a path choice for how Bitcoin enters the mainstream payment scene. Is it about preserving the rigor of early design or adapting to the simplicity of public thinking? Is it about insisting on precision in a decentralized context or compromising on the user experience?
There are no absolutes in answers; the only certainty is that improvements made under the premise of respecting consensus and protecting value stability may truly be accepted by the market.
The future of Bitcoin is not just a financial asset but a network currency driven by user experience. It must be something that people can 'understand, afford, and spend.'
Disclaimer: The above content is for informational sharing only and does not constitute any investment advice. Market volatility is significant; please exercise caution in judgment.