THE Bitcoin The community actively debates Bitcoin improvement proposal (BIP-177)introduced by John CarvalhoCEO of Synonym, April 23, 2025. The proposal aims to redefine the Bitcoin base unit by reversing “Satoshis” (Sats), the smallest unit of Bitcoin (1 BTC = 100,000,000 Satoshis), in “Bitcoin”. Under BIP-177, 1 Satoshi would be equal to 1 bitcoin, which means that 1 BTC would be equivalent to 100 million bitcoins.
This change would eliminate decimals from the Bitcoin display, with values like whole (for example, 0.00001000 BTC becomes 10,000 bitcoins) to simplify the user experience and reduce cognitive load, in particular for newcomers. Supporters, including Jack Dorsey, argue that “Satoshis” confuses new users not familiar with the term and conversion (1 BTC = 100m SATS). The display of integers (for example, 2,000 bitcoins instead of 0.00002 BTC) could make transactions more intuitive, aligning with the use of daily money.
By removing decimals, BIP-177 Aims to reduce the entrance barrier, make Bitcoin more accessible to micro-payments and promote its use in daily transactions. The proposal aligns the user interface with the big book based on Bitcoin, reducing the perception of Bitcoin as a decimal system. With the price of Bitcoin around $ 104,000, displaying smaller units because whole figures could reduce “fear of unit”, where high prices dissuade new users.
Register For TEKEDIA Mini-MBA Edition 17 (June 9 – September 6, 2025)) Today for early reductions. An annual for access to Blurara.com.
Tekedia Ai in Masterclass Business open registration.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-INivest in large world startups.
Register become a better CEO or director with CEO program and director of Tekedia.
Critics oppose the abandonment of “Satoshi”, named after the pseudonym creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi NakamotoArguing that he creates a cultural barrier and erases a wink at the origin of Bitcoin. Adversaries, including the CEO of Swan Bitcoin Cory Klippsten and federal bytes Michelle Weekleymaintains that Satoshis is as intuitive as the cents in dollar. The redefinition of 1 BTC like 100 m Bitcoins could confuse users, suggesting that the Bitcoin offer has inflated or that its value crashed (for example, 1 bitcoin = $ 0.00105 at current prices).
The transition to the new nomenclature could cause logistical problems, requiring updates through wallets, exchanges and documentation. Critics like Bitcoin Advocate Psifour argue that SAT already serves the goal without redefinition. A similar proposal from 2017, BIP-176, suggested “bits” (1 bit = 100 Satoshis) but was rejected. Critics note that the approach of the BIP-177, although more radical, risks a similar rejection due to community resistance.
No critical change in consensus has been made to Bitcoin since the Taproot The upgrade in November 2021, and BIP-177, being a change of display, requires voluntary adoption by portfolios and exchanges, and not an update of the protocol. If adopted, BIP-197 could make Bitcoin more user-friendly, especially for small transactions, but risks short-term confusion and the decline of traditionalists. It does not change the offer of 21 million parts of Bitcoin or the underlying economy.
Critics warn against market perception problems, as retail investors could misinterpret change as a drop in value, potentially affecting price volatility. The success of the proposal depends on the community consensus and the adoption by the main platforms, a process that could take more than a year with provisional double detention measures. The debate reflects Bitcoin’s continuous challenge to balance technical purity, cultural heritage and mass adoption as its price and use cases are evolving.
The implications of BIP-177, which proposes to rename the “Satoshis” to “Bitcoin” with 1 BTC equaling 100 million bitcoins, Span User EXPERIENCE, Adoption, Market Dynamics and Bitcoin Cultural and Technical Landscape. Bitcoin display as a landlord (for example, 10,000 bitcoins instead of 0.0001 BTC) could make small transactions more intuitive, in particular for micro-paids such as tilting or purchases in play. This aligns with the use of daily money, potentially reducing the learning curve for new users.
With the price of Bitcoin around $ 105,206, the smaller units displayed because the whole figures could make Bitcoin more accessible, encouraging adoption among retail users suspicious of the high costs by Incoin. Redefine 1 Satoshi like 1 Bitcoin risks confused users accustomed to Satoshis as the smallest unit. For example, 1 bitcoin is ~ $ 0.00105, which could be confused with a value accident or provide inflation, dissuading new users.
Detail investors could misinterpret change as a devaluation (for example, 1 BTC = 100m bitcoins resembles a massive increase in supply), potentially causing market volatility to the short -term or sales. The platforms should update interfaces, price displays and APIs. Incoherent adoption (for example, some exchanges using old vs new units) could create price differences or trading errors.
The BIP-177 does not change the offer or the economy of 21 million parts of Bitcoin, so that the fundamentals of the long-term market remain unchanged. However, public perception could temporarily distort the feeling. The renamed “Satoshi” removes a tribute to the creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, that many in the community are a fundamental part of the identity of Bitcoin. This could alienate traditionalists and create a cultural flaw.
The debate, amplified by characters like Jack Dorsey and criticisms like Cory Klippsten, highlights tensions between usability and tradition. The lack of consensus could block adoption, as we can see with the BIP-176 rejected (“bits”) in 2017. In regions with less cryptographic familiarity, “bitcoin” as a small unit could resonate better than “Satoshi”, but in established cryptographic communities, resistance could be strong due to unequal terminology.
As a critical change not consensus, BIP-177 requires portfolios, exchanges and traders to update voluntarily. Partial adoption could lead to incoherent user experiences (for example, certain platforms showing “bitcoins” and other “SATS”). A double -device suggested phase (showing the two units) could mitigate confusion but prolong the implementation, requiring significant coordination through the ecosystem. Complete adoption could take more than a year.
Developers must update code bases, documentation and user interfaces, incurring potential costs and bugs. Smaller platforms could be lagging behind, creating a fragmentation of ecosystems. In case of success, the BIP-177 could make bitcoin more competitive with Fiat for daily use, especially in high inflation economies or for cross-border micro-transactions, making small quantities more tangible.
Approval could encourage future beeps focused on the user interface, promoting a more flexible Bitcoin ecosystem. Conversely, rejection could strengthen resistance to non -critical changes, preserving the conservative ethics of Bitcoin. Associated with technologies like The Lightning Network, which allows rapid micro-transactions, BIP-177 could improve the role of Bitcoin as a global payment system, although its impact depends on overcoming the initial resistance.
Badly communicated changes could feed disinformation, the bad players saying that Bitcoin’s supply has swelled, damaging. If the main actors (for example, Coinbase, Binance) adopt the BIP-177, but others not, users could face incoherent experiences, undergoing the objective of the proposal for simplicity. Emphasis on the community on the BIP-197 could divert the attention of more pressing upgrades, such as improvements in confidentiality or scaling solutions.
BIP-197 could rationalize the conviviality of Bitcoin and stimulate adoption by making it more intuitive, but it risks short-term confusion, erroneous perceptions of the market and a cultural decline. Its success depends on clear communication, coordinated implementation and community consensus, with long -term advantages linked to overcome these initial obstacles.
