Not necessarily against a new unit of account, but this is unnecessary. The Bitcoin community can't even decide upon what unit of account should be used (it's sats vs bits), and we're going to introduce a new one?

I noticed it is a newbie account making this proposals and I think the face behind this proposals is not a newbie as we think it to be because a newbie can barely come up with such proposals at such early stage for a change or inclusions but I am still curious about it.

OP your proposal is quite alright but I think it would require much deliberation from the community and to be frank reaching a resolve would definitely take time as I see this as it looks unrealistic and unnecessary.

Well yea, didn't notice that lol.

Nakamoto sounds decent because we have Satoshis, but the shortcut "naks" sounds awful. But I don't like "bits" either as "bits" is already a common word that could mean either something like "smaller bits" or  "bits" as in with relation to memory.

Eitherway, I'm not a fan of using either. Sats all the way.

Some of the ideas that backs bitcoin is the consensus about the ideology it portrays and I feel the day we start seeing changes such as the proposed, that’ll be the day you introduce doubt into the system on decentralization as people largely aren’t going to be okay with this and the system is just good as it is. There isn’t any need for a book of account on it.

Bitcoin seeks to be considered on its own and not having its value to be defined by fiat.

While this proposal might seem rational at the time of typing, you could as well recall that bitcoin is highly volatile and the values at which the conversion rate would be equated will continue to have some real sudden changes. That’s not the sort of thing we hope to see. The bitcoin and Satoshi or mBtc as we’ve got is okay for any conversion rate.

As units of 100 satoshis are not used anywhere, I don't think it will catch on. But if it does, feel free to take credit.

We already have BTC and sats which most people use. The term you are proposing already exists as bits or μBTC. We also have mBTC and msats. And a bunch of other units like the finney which already no one uses: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Units#Table_of_all_units

A new unit is unnecessary. A new name for a unit which already has two names is even more unnecessary. It's a NACK from me I'm afraid.

you're right, it's the word "bite", not "bit", but the 2 are pronounced the same 

don't forget that I'm talking about the masses, not insiders. 


In fact, it doesn't matter how we call the unit that defines 100 satoshis. My point is that it's this basic unit that should be used.

Talking in bitcoin is the equivalent of talking in millions of dollars: it's of little interest, unless you're talking about very big amounts.
Talking in satoshis is the equivalent of talking in cents: big numbers for nothing.

An intermediate unit is more interesting to use in everyday life.
If you're going to use an intermediate unit, you might as well use the one for which 1 Unit = 100 sat, and 1 million Unit = 1 btc.

I can't access the document, is it still online?

Personally, I think the unit "Bitcent" is underrated. It's true that it is equivalent to a quite high value of currently around $300 USD. But it is still a number not too far from many everyday purchases (rent, clothing, weekly buys in the grocery, up to small cars all are things between 0.1 and 100 Bitcents). And the term "cent" is established in many currencies, people will immediately know what's meant (1/100 of the main unit). It could be used this way up to the 100-200K, maybe also 300-500K (then the smaller items would be priced 0.01 to 0.1, but this is still a manageable number) price range for BTC/USD. And for everything below we can use satoshis.

Edit: @Christophe_dcy: Got it, thanks for the link correction!

How can renaming Bitcoin to something else to serve as a unit solve the problem of adoption, it's like starting over again, because many people who hasn't yet adopted Bitcoin won't deny that they have heard about the name Bitcoin or read about it and now you would need to explain further about the unit addition and then you have loose their trust before it even begun.

If this was the solution then countries would have changed their currency name to something else to tackle their economical issues, but no it's very fruitless.

Did you actually read the article? I guess not...
If the paper isn't pedagogical enough, I'm sorry. But what you're saying has nothing to do with the underlying thought...