bitcoin/bips
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/bitcoin/bips.git synced 2025-07-21 12:58:14 +00:00
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

Destroyed BIP‐177 is a Disaster! Here's Why the Community Should Reject It (markdown)

404 Panda 2025-05-19 10:27:09 +01:00
parent c6d9965079
commit 6ebb184625
1 changed files with 0 additions and 76 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

76
BIP‐177-is-a-Disaster!-Here's-Why-the-Community-Should-Reject-It.md

@ -1,76 +0,0 @@
You are redifining what a "bitcoin" means from the 100,000,000 base units as its been understood for over a decade now.
You are claiming
- What was called 1 bitcoin (BTC) will now be called 100,000,000 bitcoins.
- What was a satoshi is now being renamed a bitcoin.
That’s going to be extremely confusing for
Anyone holding BTC
Merchants accepting BTC
Exchanges, wallets, educational resources and exsisting systems.
Basically everyone except protocol-level devs or maximalists who already think in sats basicly the ENTIRE ECOSYSTEM!
**Dirty Tricks & Psychological Effects**
This feels like a trick because of the following reasons.
1) **Inflationary optics: **
Saying “I have 100,000,000 bitcoins” sounds drastically different than “I have 1 bitcoin”. It artificially inflates perception of ownership, even if the actual value remains unchanged.
2) **Hiding the price tag:**
If a coffee costs 0.00006785 BTC (~$7), that’s simple. Under the new system? It would be 6,785 bitcoins. That sounds insane. And it’s deliberately obfuscating pricing!
3) **Alienating normies: **
This will terrify and confuse new users. It undermines every educational and branding effort that’s been made since 2009.
Misleading Claims in the BIP
Let’s challenge a few talking points raised.
"Bitcoin is already integer-based under the hood"
Sure, but that’s implementation detail. No one argues that bytes = messages. You don’t rename a kilobyte “1 message” just because messaging apps use bytes under the hood. Decimal places are confusing only if you’ve never used literally any other currency. USD has cents. ETH has wei. No one’s confused by decimal-based prices.
Educational clarity, No. This is educational sabotage. It redefines long-standing units, invalidating years of books, videos, wallets, guides, and mental models.
Yes, this BIP is confusing.
Yes, it's a semantic shell game that plays with unit inflation optics.
Yes, the examples are deliberately framed to make users feel richer.
It would fracture community consensus and create enormous UX pain.
It’s trying to solve a non-problem by breaking everything.
Feel free to tell others this is like renaming a “cent” as a “dollar” and acting like that makes economics simpler.
This proposal should be rejected by the community if they still have half brain.
1. Pattern of Provocation
BIPs are supposed to be serious proposals. But recently, non-consensus, high-drama BIPs like this one:
Touch core identity topics (unit definition, naming)
Stir emotional reactions (like “killing sats” or redefining “bitcoin”)
Don’t offer clear practical benefits, yet propose massive upheaval
This mirrors classic distraction/disruption tactics.
Float something absurd or radical.
Force people to react (especially loud public voices)
Drain community energy debating nonsense.
Sow distrust toward devs or among Bitcoiners.
It dilutes the signal of the BIP process.
John Carvalho’s History — A Pattern of Provocation, Not Consensus
Carvalho has publicly sparred with Bitcoin Core contributors, often criticizing their culture as too closed, too academic, or too slow Prominent educators like Andreas Antonopoulos, dismissing their approach to community building. Developers behind competing ideas (like “bits” or sats-based UX) despite offering little working code of his own
These aren’t intellectual disagreements rooted in code they’re often ego clashes dressed up as reform.
Let’s be honest Carvalho walks a line between “I’m trying to fix things” reformist narrative, and “Let’s burn it all down for attention” troll behavior.
By pushing BIP-177 a radical redefinition of Bitcoin's base unit he continues this tradition. Not engaging with existing consensus (e.g., BIP 176 or established wallet devs)
Ignoring real-world breakage to chase ideological purity
Framing resistance as ignorance, rather than valid disagreement
John Carvalho has spent years being a contrarian on Twitter, arguing with Bitcoin Core devs, dunking on educators, and pushing half-baked ideas. No one asked for this. No one needed it. It doesn’t solve anything.