Well, people are already using "Satoshi" (when I - guilty secret time! - trawl the faucets, it's "Satoshi" that's used by the faucets and - presumably - by the "fauceteers").

Which brings me to... I have no idea - none of us have much of an idea - how other people are using Bitcoin. It seems to me bizarre to assume that how I use Bitcoin is necessarily equivalent to how other people use it. I trawl the faucets, and "Satoshi" is a useful concept. I buy BTC, and BTC is a useful concept. I make purchases with BTC, and mBTC is a useful concept. I imagine there are wealthy BTC-holders who would find mBTC, µBTC and Satoshis irrelevant. Likewise, for someone who only ever works with Satoshis any xBTC is largely irrelevant.

How merchants, exchanges etc price BTC is entirely up to them. They know their user-base far better than us. If an exchange, say, believes that some users have psychological barriers in buying "less" than a whole BTC then that exchange can - already - choose to price BTC in mBTC or µBTC (or even Satoshis - as the faucets already choose to do). But other exchanges should have the freedom to make their own decisions, decisions that reflect the needs of their own user-bases.

Right now there's a belief that mBTC is preferable to BTC. But we have no idea what price (strictly speaking, prices) BTC will be at in a few years. It could well be that the psychological barriers people currently believe exist will change or reform (we could well be arguing that mBTC is a barrier because - at USD450 per mBTC - people are deterred from purchasing part of a mBTC. Or we might find that - with 1 mBTC at USD0.01 it's all too confusing...)

tl;dr - we already have a wealth of options. Why would I want to limit someone else's options?

PS.  spazzdla, MegaHustlr - apologies for hijacking your discussion! I saw the word "Satoshi" and jumped too quick