The teleological premise of the original post is not universally held. The phrase "...is a problem" is a normative statement, which is just a fancy way of saying 'opinion'. It implies that there is some goal toward which we are striving, and that this goal is good.
Bitcoin is a protocol; it is not a way of life. Losing sight of this fact got some people into a world of trouble last time we saw an explosion of moneypunkery two decades ago.
Although I look forward to the day when the value of Bitcoin finds its level, so that we can get down to the real business of doing real business, I don't grouse about the prospect of having to start filing FATCA forms with my income tax returns, should my political masters demand that of me, and should the USD price of Bitcoin stay on its current track.
One might want Bitcoin to be useful for microspending that clears instantaneously, and I might want a pony. One's desire is not the same thing as an ontological necessity.
Maybe this is not a problem, per se, but a transition.
Bitcoin used to look like a fraction of a penny. It now looks as though it could end up more like a bar of gold, the highest and best use of which is locking it away in a vault. Bitcoin is divisible, gold bars are divisible. Bitcoin is ill-suited to hand-to-hand retail transactions, gold is ill-suited to hand-to-hand retail transactions. Both have value to enough market participants for us to find them interesting.
Whether one sees a problem here is a matter of personal preference.
or maybe you have just misunderstood the post. there is in fact a problem. You know when people use to think the sun revolved around the earth? Astromony, and the mathematical equations got out of hand and everything just seemed like a mess. Then it was suggested that the earth revolves around the sun and VIOLA everything suddenly started to make sense, and the proper equations and what not could be resolved....
What does this have to do with bitcoin then? Well atm. the founder decided on a unit that seems very random, yet others built new denominations on top of that. But because bitcoin is deflationary the new denominatons had to be fractions of this original unit. Of course im talking about the BTC which is called Bitcoin atm. The equivalent of believing the sun revolves around the earth. But, the smallest atomic amount of bitcoin should be called bitcoin and not satoshi because it would change everything.
we would suddenly be able to come up with better denominations that does not involve crazy fractions with up to 8 decimal places that only really serves to clutter and confuse. So, if we started denominating wallets in atomic units of bitcoin AND in fact called this unit BITCOIN then the proper denominations would reveal themselves. A person having 100.000.000 atomic units of bitcoin would also have 100 Megabitcoin. Do you see how intuitive it is, compared to working down from BTC and having the denominations become fractions, calling them very bad names like milibitcoin and microbitcoin and even satoshi. The reason i believe they are bad names is because first of all milibitcoin and microbitcoin does not sound very empowering, and you have to remember that bitcoin is deflationary, so eventually most prices will be in microbitcoin or milibitcoin and this just doesent make sense imo. the worst thing is if the name on the atomic bitcoin is not changed, then most prices would eventually be in satoshis. Imagine buying soda, in the grocery store, that would be 3 satoshis lets say. Then you want to purchase a car and that will be 100 microbitcoin. It just doesent relate to each other. Thats why the smallest atomic amount of bitcoin should be called BITCOIN, and then the denominations should build on this, so that in the future small items will be priced in you gussed it, bitcoin, and larger more expensive items priced in Kilobitcoin (K฿), or even Megabitcoin(M฿) etc.
