#bitcoin bits > sats.

Time for a bits reboot, IMO.

Sats are confusing, afaict sats were designed by Satoshi to be bitcents under bits.

1million is much easier than 100mil base.

Even bitcoin-qt (core) had bits for years.

You still have sats, just bits and bitcents (aka sats), like dollars and cents.

Sets a nice parity target at $1mil per BTC where $1=1bit and 1bitcent=1sat=1cent.

Reinforces point that we're early at $0.02/bit 50x to go for $ parity

Being early makes fluctuation feel minor, reduce media panic with 0.0195 to 0.0185 moves in days. "Price steady at $0.02/bit"

Apparently early bitcoin had only BTC and old bitcents. 2.1billion old bitcents was 21mil btc. Story I heard from early developers, was @halfin persuaded Satoshi it wasn't enough for world population, and so Satoshi added 1million divisions, moving the new bitcent to 1/100th bit,

A bit being 1millionth part of a bitcoin. Where 1bit=100bitcents, like 3.45 bits = 3bits and 45 bitcents. Later community honorifically dubbed the bitcent the satoshi or sat for short. But afaict it was intended to be 2digit decimal bitcent after the smallest base unit bit.

There is something poetic about a bitcoin being made of bits. And the atom, and unit of account of digital commodity money being a "bit" but having decimals under it for bitcents (or sats) helps give accurate / unfounded pricing.

Also a bitcoin is too expensive, but sats are too many, sound cheap and confusing hard to figure out what you bought. Bits fixed that while still not being expensive even at $1mil btc 1bit=$1, and today 1bit=$0.02, also makes it easy to track $/bit parity, 50x to go vs with sats.

"You can buy a fraction of a bitcoin" hasn't worked, universal newcomer confusion, can't afford to buy one, hard to imagine using units that expensive, even to developers (unfamiliar with bitcoin). Too expensive, as a bitcoin may become more than lifetime earnings for most people