I oppose BIP-177 due to its potential for confusion, high implementation costs, and cultural impact. I believe this change introduces significant risks without clear benefits. Using "satoshi" as the default unit in software is a simpler, more practical solution that respects Bitcoin’s heritage and meets user needs.

1. Potential for Confusion: The proposed "bitcoin" unit is too similar to the existing "Bitcoin (BTC)", which could confuse users, especially newcomers. Most wallets, exchanges, and users already use "Bitcoin (BTC)" or "sat" consistently. Changing the terminology may lead to errors in transactions or misunderstandings across platforms.

2. Compatibility and Cost: Redefining the unit requires updates to wallets, exchanges, and other infrastructure, which could be costly and disrupt existing systems. This seems unnecessary when user interfaces can already address small transactions by displaying "satoshi (sat)" as the default unit.

3. Cultural Significance: The satoshi unit honors Bitcoin’s creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, and has become a valued part of Bitcoin’s culture. Redefining it as "bitcoin" risks diminishing this tradition, which holds symbolic importance for the community.

4. Alternative Solution: I recommend promoting satoshi as the default display unit in user interfaces instead of altering the protocol. Many wallets (e.g., Phoenix, Wallet of Satoshi) already use "satoshi" as the default unit for small transactions, particularly in Lightning Network contexts. This approach is effective, requires no protocol changes, and avoids compatibility issues.