Why symbolize Sat/Satoshi as BTC? This is the same as McDonald's denoted by the letter F or other letter of the alphabet, for example. There will only be confusion from such innovations in the design of the Sat/Satoshi-logo.
The small symbol BTC is not needed at all, and BTC already belongs to bitcoin.
Let everything remain as it is, because it has already been accepted into the BTC-community and used to it.
The only thing that can be corrected is in sat to add 2 dashes above and below the symbol S, as in the dollar sign ($).
Like that:
Since sat also stands for currency, albeit a smaller denomination.
The small symbol BTC is not needed at all, and BTC already belongs to bitcoin.
Let everything remain as it is, because it has already been accepted into the BTC-community and used to it.
The only thing that can be corrected is in sat to add 2 dashes above and below the symbol S, as in the dollar sign ($).
Like that:
Since sat also stands for currency, albeit a smaller denomination.
As you may have seen, also here in the thread, BTC is for Bitcoin, the smaller b for the smaller units.
And please also read this here:
https://gallikerdesign.ch/satoshi/web-idea-and-documentation-satoshi-symbol.pdf
A lot of people - me included - believe that the value of one BTC will rise dramatically in the future. IF so, the use of sats will become more common.
If you look at the most used core banking systems in the world, we have the following four rows:
Currency - Currency Symbol - ISO Code - decimal places
Let's say we make now a transfer of 550 Sats, assuming that they would have a value significantly higher than today. This would look, today, like this:
Bitcoin - BTC - BTC1 - 0.000002
1 Due to the fact that sats are a fraction of BTC, the BTC currency code would be used.
2 Most core banking systems have a limited number of 0 they can display after the comma, usually it is 4 to 6 in currencies. This doesn't apply to all core banking systems, but to most of them. 550 Sats would not be displayed, i.e. not transferred.
A go-around-solution would be to enter Bitcoin as a commodity in a core banking system or with a stock symbol. As a commodity, it would need a definition according to ISO 4217 (900–998). However, this would then again be error-prone in other systems. A stock symbol would be the easiest way.
BIP 176 https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0176.mediawiki is a proposal which says that "Bits is presented here as the standard term for 100 (one hundred) satoshis or 1/1,000,000 (one one-millionth) of a bitcoin."
When Jimmy Song proposed this, I was in opposition. Today, I look a bit different at this and wouldn't oppose an ISO-code for Bits, the symbol as defined by Valentina. It would make it easier for core banking systems to use Bitcoin. And it would make it easier to use sats.