The Bitcoin community is actively debating Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP-177), introduced by John Carvalho, CEO of Synonym, on April 23, 2025. The proposal aims to redefine Bitcoin’s base unit by renaming “satoshis” (sats), the smallest unit of Bitcoin (1 BTC = 100,000,000 satoshis), to “bitcoin.” Under BIP-177, 1 satoshi would equal 1 bitcoin, meaning 1 BTC would be equivalent to 100 million bitcoins.
This change would eliminate decimal points in Bitcoin’s display, presenting values as integers (e.g., 0.00001000 BTC becomes 10,000 bitcoins) to simplify user experience and reduce cognitive load, especially for newcomers. Proponents, including Jack Dorsey, argue that “satoshis” confuse new users unfamiliar with the term and the conversion (1 BTC = 100M sats). Displaying integers (e.g., 2,000 bitcoins instead of 0.00002 BTC) could make transactions more intuitive, aligning with everyday currency use.
By removing decimals, BIP-177 aims to lower the entry barrier, making Bitcoin more accessible for micro-payments and promoting its use in daily transactions. The proposal aligns the user interface with Bitcoin’s integer-based ledger, reducing the perception of Bitcoin as a decimal-based system. With Bitcoin’s price around $104,000, displaying smaller units as whole numbers could mitigate “unit fear,” where high prices deter new users.
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 17 (June 9 – Sept 6, 2025) today for early bird discounts. Do annual for access to Blucera.com.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Register to become a better CEO or Director with Tekedia CEO & Director Program.
Critics oppose abandoning “satoshi,” named after Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, arguing it creates a cultural barrier and erases a nod to Bitcoin’s origin. Opponents, including Swan Bitcoin CEO Cory Klippsten and Byte Federal’s Michelle Weekley, argue that satoshis are as intuitive as cents in a dollar. Redefining 1 BTC as 100M bitcoins could confuse users, suggesting Bitcoin’s supply has inflated or its value has crashed (e.g., 1 bitcoin = $0.00105 at current prices).
Transitioning to the new nomenclature could cause logistical issues, requiring updates across wallets, exchanges, and documentation. Critics like Bitcoin advocate Psifour argue that sats already serve the purpose without redefinition. A similar 2017 proposal, BIP-176, suggested “bits” (1 bit = 100 satoshis) but was rejected. Critics note that BIP-177’s approach, while more radical, risks similar rejection due to community resistance.
No consensus-critical changes have been made to Bitcoin since the Taproot upgrade in November 2021, and BIP-177, being a display change, requires voluntary adoption by wallets and exchanges, not a protocol update. If adopted, BIP-177 could make Bitcoin more user-friendly, particularly for small transactions, but risks short-term confusion and pushback from traditionalists. It does not alter Bitcoin’s 21 million coin supply or underlying economics.
Critics warn of market perception issues, as retail investors might misinterpret the change as a value drop, potentially affecting price volatility. The proposal’s success depends on community consensus and adoption by major platforms, a process that could take over a year with interim dual-display measures. The debate reflects Bitcoin’s ongoing challenge of balancing technical purity, cultural heritage, and mass adoption as its price and use cases evolve.
The implications of BIP-177, which proposes renaming “satoshis” to “bitcoin” with 1 BTC equaling 100 million bitcoins, span user experience, adoption, market dynamics, and Bitcoin’s cultural and technical landscape. Displaying Bitcoin as integers (e.g., 10,000 bitcoins instead of 0.0001 BTC) could make small transactions more intuitive, especially for micro-payments like tipping or in-game purchases. This aligns with everyday currency use, potentially lowering the learning curve for new users.
With Bitcoin’s price around $105,206, smaller units displayed as whole numbers could make Bitcoin feel more accessible, encouraging adoption among retail users wary of high per-coin costs. Redefining 1 satoshi as 1 bitcoin risks confusing users accustomed to satoshis as the smallest unit. For example, 1 bitcoin would be worth ~$0.00105, which could be mistaken for a value crash or supply inflation, deterring new users.
Retail investors might misinterpret the change as a devaluation (e.g., 1 BTC = 100M bitcoins sounds like a massive supply increase), potentially causing short-term market volatility or sell-offs. Platforms would need to update interfaces, pricing displays, and APIs. Inconsistent adoption (e.g., some exchanges using old vs. new units) could create pricing discrepancies or trading errors.
BIP-177 doesn’t alter Bitcoin’s 21 million coin supply or economics, so long-term market fundamentals remain unchanged. However, public perception could temporarily skew sentiment. Renaming “satoshi” removes a tribute to Bitcoin’s creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, which many in the community view as a core part of Bitcoin’s identity. This could alienate traditionalists and create a cultural rift.
The debate, amplified by figures like Jack Dorsey and critics like Cory Klippsten, highlights tensions between usability and tradition. Lack of consensus could stall adoption, as seen with the rejected BIP-176 (“bits”) in 2017. In regions with less crypto familiarity, “bitcoin” as a small unit might resonate better than “satoshi,” but in established crypto communities, resistance could be strong due to ingrained terminology.
As a non-consensus-critical change, BIP-177 requires wallets, exchanges, and merchants to voluntarily update. Partial adoption could lead to inconsistent user experiences (e.g., some platforms showing “bitcoins” and others “sats”). A suggested dual-display phase (showing both units) could mitigate confusion but prolong implementation, requiring significant coordination across the ecosystem. Full adoption might take over a year.
Developers must update codebases, documentation, and user interfaces, incurring costs and potential bugs. Smaller platforms might lag, creating ecosystem fragmentation. If successful, BIP-177 could make Bitcoin more competitive with fiat for everyday use, especially in high-inflation economies or for cross-border micro-transactions, by making small amounts feel more tangible.
Approval could embolden future UI-focused BIPs, fostering a more flexible Bitcoin ecosystem. Conversely, rejection might reinforce resistance to non-critical changes, preserving Bitcoin’s conservative ethos. Paired with technologies like the Lightning Network, which enables fast micro-transactions, BIP-177 could enhance Bitcoin’s role as a global payment system, though its impact depends on overcoming initial resistance.
Poorly communicated changes could fuel misinformation, with bad actors claiming Bitcoin’s supply has inflated, damaging trust. If major players (e.g., Coinbase, Binance) adopt BIP-177 but others don’t, users might face inconsistent experiences, undermining the proposal’s goal of simplicity. Community focus on BIP-177 could divert attention from more pressing upgrades, like privacy enhancements or scaling solutions.
BIP-177 could streamline Bitcoin’s usability and boost adoption by making it more intuitive, but it risks short-term confusion, market misperceptions, and cultural pushback. Its success hinges on clear communication, coordinated implementation, and community consensus, with long-term benefits tied to overcoming these initial hurdles.