BIP-177 Earthquake in Bitcoin (BTC): If the Vote Passes, Much Will Change – Here’s the Proposal

A new proposal has been making waves in the Bitcoin community: BIP-177. This proposal proposes to redefine the basic unit of Bitcoin, with the smallest unit known as “satoshi” or “sat” in the current system being called “1 Bitcoin.”

The Proposal Removes the Concept of Satoshi: 1 BTC Will Be Equal to 100 Million Bitcoins

In this case, 1 BTC will be equal to 100 million Bitcoins; that is, 1 sat today will now be considered 1 Bitcoin. The current BTC code will not change.

The main idea behind the proposal is to make Bitcoin easier for users to understand and to provide a representation that is more in line with the nature of the Bitcoin protocol. The BIP-177 document published on Github draws attention with the following statements:

“This BIP proposes to use the base unit as the standard unit of measurement by eliminating synthetic decimal places. This will make it easier for users to understand Bitcoin, reduce confusion, and directly match the on-chain values on the screen display.”

Proponents of the proposal say that the current system’s eight decimal places (e.g. 0.00000001 BTC = 1 satoshi) are confusing, as the Bitcoin blockchain actually stores these values as countable whole units, not decimals. The current system simply prefers decimal representations for user experience.

Twitter (X) founder Jack Dorsey also joined these discussions. Dorsey shared on X by simply writing “BIP-177.” This short but meaningful support attracted attention in the community.

If the proposal is accepted, the smallest unit we know today as “1 satoshi” will be called “1 Bitcoin”. The value we currently call “1 Bitcoin” will be equal to 100 million Bitcoins. There will be no change in the technical infrastructure; the only changes will be in the user interface and unit naming.

While some Bitcoin users believe that this proposal will help better explain Bitcoin to the public, others argue that it will increase confusion and that changing terms that have been used for years is unnecessary.

*This is not investment advice.

Source