Quote from: Christophe_dcy on Today at 07:16:59 PM

yes, I'm not exactly a newbie :-)

If there's already a debate between sat and bit, it's obvious, according to this paper, that we should go for bit. Talking in sat is strictly pointless in view of the arguments deployed in the article.

Maybe Nakamoto isn't a good idea, and we need to find another one. But the term "bit" doesn't stand out enough from "bitcoin". We need to find something different, and above all, use it.

Some of the ideas that backs bitcoin is the consensus about the ideology it portrays and I feel the day we start seeing changes such as the proposed, that’ll be the day you introduce doubt into the system on decentralization as people largely aren’t going to be okay with this and the system is just good as it is. There isn’t any need for a book of account on it.

Bitcoin seeks to be considered on its own and not having its value to be defined by fiat.

Quote

The current and future exchange rates with the main FIAT currencies would then be of the same order of magnitude: with $1 = 34 Nk at present, and why not, with time, a move towards an exchange rate close to parity: $1 ≈ 1 Nk.

While this proposal might seem rational at the time of typing, you could as well recall that bitcoin is highly volatile and the values at which the conversion rate would be equated will continue to have some real sudden changes. That’s not the sort of thing we hope to see. The bitcoin and Satoshi or mBtc as we’ve got is okay for any conversion rate.