cryptd.in

另类 LinkedIn 适合加密人才

It’s Time to Admit It – There Are Only 2.1 Quadrillion Bitcoins

If the above statement offends you, you might not have read the Bitcoin source code.

Follow Rizzo on X.

https://x.com/pete_rizzo_/

Of course, I’m sure you’ve heard that there are 21 million bitcoin – and this is true, the Bitcoin protocol allows for only “21 million bitcoin” to be created, yet these larger denominations can be subdivided into 100 million sub-units each.

Call them whatever you want, there are only 2.1 quadrillion monetary units in the protocol.

This dollars and cents differential has long been the subject of debate – in the time of Satoshi, Bitcoin’s creator, the dual conventions, Bitcoin having both a bulk denomination, and a smaller unit, was not much of a concern. There were questions about whether the software would work at all, and bitcoin were so worthless, selling them in bulk was the only rational option.

Rehashing this debate is BIP 21Q, a proposal to the Bitcoin users authored by John Carvalho, founder of Synonym, creator of the Pubky social media platform, and a tenured contributor whose work dates back to the days of the influential Bitcoin-assets collective.

In short, the BIP proposes that network actors – the various wallets and exchanges – change how Bitcoin denominations are displayed, with the smallest unit of the protocol renamed “bitcoins,” as opposed to “satoshis,” as they have been commonly called.

Here are the specifics of the BIP:

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)

Unsurprisingly, the debate around the BIP has been hostile. For one, it’s not a technical BIP, though this is not a requirement of the BIP process. Suffice to say, it’s perhaps the most general BIP that has been proposed under the BIP process to date, as it mainly deals with market conventions and user onboarding logic, not any changes to the software rules.

However, I have to say, I find the proposal compelling. Nik Hoffman, our News Editor, does not, preferring to stick to the market affirmative.

Yet, I think the proposal raises relevant questions: why should new users be forced to compute their Bitcoin balances using only decimals? Surely this has the adverse side effect of making commerce difficult – it’s simply antithetical to how people think and act today.

Also, in terms of savings, at an $100,000 BTC price, it isn’t exactly compelling to think you could be spending a whole year earning 1 BTC, though that may be.

Indeed, there have been various debates for all kinds of units – mBTC, uBTC – that play around with the dollars and cents convention, but Carvalho here is wisely skipping to the end, preferring just to rip the band-aid off. $1 would buy 1,000 bitcoins under his proposal.

What’s to like here, and I argued this during a Lugano debate on the topic in 2023, is that it keeps both the larger BTC denomination and the smaller unit, now bitcoins. They are both important, and serve different functions.

My argument then was that having a larger denomination like BTC (100 million bitcoins) is important. If there was no “BTC unit,” the press and financial media would be faced to reckon that “1 bitcoin” is still worth less than 1 cent. 

How much mainstream coverage and interest do we think there would be? I’d bet not very much.

In this way, BIP 21Q is a best-of-both-worlds approach.

The financial world, press, and media can continue championing the meteoric rise in value of “BTC,” while everyday users can get rid of decimals and complex calculations, trading the only real Bitcoin unit guaranteed to exist in perpetuity. 

This article is a Take. Opinions expressed are entirely the author’s and do not necessarily reflect those of BTC Inc or Bitcoin Magazine.


评论

發佈留言

發佈留言必須填寫的電子郵件地址不會公開。 必填欄位標示為 *

最新信息

热门类别

搜索网站

热门故事

标签

#AlexeyPertsev (1) #BidenCryptoBan (1) #BidenElection (1) #BinanceVsCoinbase (1) #Bitcoin (452) #BitcoinETF (3) #itcoinFundamentals (1) # 比特币处理 (1) # 比特币价格 (5) # 比特币价格水平 (1) #BitcoinPump (1) #BitcoinReserve (1) #BitcoinSurge (1) #itcoinTop (1) #Bitfinex (1) #Bitwise (1) #BracebridgeCapital (1) #BRC20Tokens (1) #BTC 收购 (1) 1TP5 看涨预测 (1) #BullishSentiment (1) #C 中国矿业 (1) #CPIPreview (1) #CryptoAsset (2) #CryptoBattle (1) #CryptoBoom (1) #CryptoExpert (1) #CryptoInsights (1) #CryptoMania (1) #CryptoMarket (4) #CryptoPrediction (1) #CryptoPredictions (1) #CryptoRegulation (2) #CryptoTakeoff (1) #CryptoTiming (1) #CryptoTips (1) #CryptoTreasury (1) #CryptoUncertainty (1) #DerivativeJump (1) #Dogecoin (74) #ogecoinGains (1) #ogecoinVolume (1) #DutchCourt (2) #ECommerce (1) #El萨尔瓦多比特币 (1) #E以太坊 (74) #EthereumPain (1) #E以太坊价格 (1) #ExpertOpinion (1) #FedRateCut (1) #FiatCurrency (1) #F 财务影响 (1) #F 财务隐私 (1) #FirmShutdown (1) #FrozenAccounts (1) #IllicitFunds (1) #InflationData (1) #Investment (1) #InvestmentLoss (1) #JapaneseFirm (1) #L LegalAction (1) #L 法律影响 (1) #Legislation (1) #LightningNetwork (1) #M 市场分析 (3) #M 市场监测 (1) #M 市场预测 (1) #M 市场预测 (1) #M 市场投影 (1) #M 市场支持 (1) #M 市场波动性 (1) #M 婚姻 (1) #MemeCoin (5) #MemeCoins (2) #Miner 盈利能力 (1) #M 洗钱 (2) #MtGox (4) #朝鲜加密货币 (1) #诺沃格拉茨预测 (1) 1TP5价格里程碑 (1) #P 价格预测 (2) 1TP5价格问题 (1) #PriceSurge (1) #PrisonSentence (1) # 量化分析 (1) #R 监管压力 (1) #SECA Anti-Crypto (1) #ShibaInu (6) #SocialBuzz (1) #T 技术分析 (1) #Toncoin (3) #T 龙卷风现金 (3) #T 龙卷风现金发展项目 (1) #T 龙卷风现金开发者 (1) #UKCrypto (1) #UpsidePotential (1) #USCongress (1) #WyomingLand (1) #XRPPrice (1) #XRPupswing (1)

实用链接

我发现了一些有用的链接,希望与大家分享。