Eventually (100+ years, probably) this would lead to a loss of fungibility of BTC, and the smallest unit of coin would end up buying more than the smallest items you would want to buy.
I'm surprised no one else seized the opportunity to correct this false logic. Bitcoins are infinitely divisible. That they are
presently divisible only to 8 places after the decimal point is just an implementation detail of the current protocol. It would be trivial to adjust the software so that, after a certain block number is reached, the decimal point becomes shifted for all blocks after that (until the next time a shift is needed). Some day, the Satoshi will not be the smallest possible unit of Bitcoin. We will have milli-Satoshis and perhaps even micro-Satoshis eventually. The beauty of a digital commodity is that it is infinitely divisible with perfect accuracy.
Personally, I didn't feel like it. But good call considering you haven't been here very long, most people don't understand this is possible.
Possible
now because the network is small and tight knit and the developers can "Stop the World" whenever it's necessary to make major changes to the protocol. If/When BTC is as big as Visa, even minor tweaks may be completely impossible without breaking the clients for half the users on the network.
Developers can't "stop the world" in any context, and tweaks can be made to the running network anyway, at least as long as users are willing to upgrade. The network is particularly fault tolerant.
In particular, I'm not sure how BTC values are stored, except that Satoshi did a lot of stupid and unnecessary things.
You don't know how the system works, but in the same sentence claim that Satoshi did a lot of stupid things? Are you trolling?
Even if shifting the currency to the left by one decimal doesn't break backwards compatibility with clients, it would at the very least cause a great deal of confusion. Moreover, it's something that won't even be remotely relevant until decades from now, when the market cap of BTC is either zero or unpredictably large.
Point one isn't true, but only because a decimal shift isn't how it would be done. The values are stored in a 64 bit integer variable, but only about 54 bits are in use, so the leading bits can be taken as a 'marker' to tag values using an extended standard.
Point two is certainly true.
Not counting coin losses, BTC is only capable of holding dollar influx equal to $21Tn before it is no longer divisible by units smaller than $.01 without absolutely increasing the division.
Where did you come up with that BS number?