Get live statistics and analysis of Ageesen's profile on X / Twitter

When 1 Bitcoin = $1.0M USD, 1 Satoshi will be 1 Cent ($0.01) - almost 15x the price from today. In the time leading up to this, and after, there will be many more discussions and debates about the requirements of sub-satoshi transaction values becoming native to the protocol and/or pushed to overlaying infrastructure such as exchanges, wallets, L2s, services, ecommerce, retail, etc. PROTOCOL CHANGES A protocol-level change would require a hard fork but has the benefit of extending the timeframe remaining on the block subsidy (mining rewards), widely expected to go to 0 around 2140. Implementing nanosats (1 sat = 1 billion nanosats | 1:1,000,000,000) is currently the smallest sub-satoshi denomination possible, as increasing decimal places with a hard fork would increase the number of halving periods. Bitcoin only has 33 halvings programmed in, but a hard fork to nanosats as the base unit would increase the number of halving periods to 63. There is a hard-coded limit of 64 periods in Bitcoin currently, put in place to keep certain data types (such as nSubsidy) in the code as int64 (instead of int128, which is more process-intensive). This can technically be changed as well in the future, but for now nanosats is the ideal option, if any. Another benefit of a protocol-level change via hard fork is that the maximum amount of bitcoin to ever be in circulation would get much closer to exactly 21M coins. Popularly believed and promoted as being 21,000,000 BTC (because it's easy to say), but in reality only approaching that value at exactly 20,999,999.97690000 BTC to be in circulation in 2140 as of the current code, a nanosat unit adoption on the protocol layer would increase the final amount to 20,999,999.99999999996010000 BTC around 2260. Possible future upgrades as computing becomes more efficient could increase the int64 limit to int128 (currently possible) to even further beyond, thereby increasing the block subsidy and halvings indefinitely. We would always get closer to the 21M BTC asymptote, but never exactly get to it with these possible upgrades. This means that miners would always keep getting paid some amount for securing the protocol with most of their revenue coming from transaction fees. INFRASTRUCTURE CHANGES Infrastructure-level changes would not require any changes with the Bitcoin protocol at all. Service providers such as Cryptocurrency exchanges, wallets developers, marketplaces, data providers, and others could adopt millisats (1:1,000), microsats (1:1,000,000), or nanosats as preferred/required, but on-chain transactions would still be limited by the satoshi unit. Some service providers and software already support sub-satoshi values, and this is expected to increase dramatically as the fiat price of Bitcoin continues to rise and micropayment demand balloons between people, AI, and automated services. Another infrastructure category that will need to play an important part in the adoption and usage of sub-satoshi values will be additional layer solutions such as Lightning, Liquid, and others. If the demand for low-value transactions stays on layers built on top of Bitcoin rather than on-chain directly, a larger proportion of transfers could be denominated in sub-satoshi values (outside of settlement on-chain to Bitcoin). INFRASTRUCTURE -> PROTOCOL Infrastructure changes will be seen and used by everyday users long before a protocol-level change is seriously considered or even required. With the amount of inflows coming into BTC today, and the expected increase in demand in the near future (5-10 years), we could see a $1,000,000 USD price of Bitcoin sooner than most think. This would only bring cent/satoshi parity in the US. Other countries would have long lost their lowest denomination unit parity against the almighty sat. Infrastructure providers in the Bitcoin industry should seriously start considering sub-satoshi research & development plans as soon as possible, if they haven't already.

This old timer at the store started a conversation with me after seeing the Bitcoin Hat.   Him: “Oh you like Bitcoin huh? Me: “Like?  I loooooove it!” Him: “I'm a financial advisor, stay away from that crap, it's used for nefarious reasons and is a scam.” Me: “I guess the biggest hedge funds in the world and banks should all close down their Bitcoin products then huh?” Him: “Oh they just want to make their piece of the gains.” Me: “If it's used solely for nefarious reasons then why would they risk it all on providing Bitcoin products?” Him: “Uh, uh, uhhhh just stay from that garbage it's a ponzi and you will lose your money, or worse!” Me: “Thanks!  Time to go smash buy some more BTC!” Him: “Uh, uh, uhhhh what? I said stay away from it, it is used for crime!” Me: “As long as financial advisors like you keep giving bad financial advice, and as long as people have the same uninformed opinion about it as you, there's plenty of gains left in Bitcoin!  You know what?  On second thought, might as well grab 3x as much as I thought I should earlier.   Thanks again!” Him: “Uh, ah, uh, ahhhhhh.” Me: (Walk away whistling Super Mario Bros theme….)

Those of you holding .io domains should be a bit worried. The British Indian Ocean Territory will be handed over to Mauritius, and will cease to exist. IANA / ICANN rules state that domains associated with countries that do not exist must be expired within a 5 year time period. They may pull some stunt at the last minute to keep them going (there is a lot of money and brand identity on the .io ccTLD), but if you look at historic actions, this likely won't happen. So say bye bye to .io domains, and watch their value tank (increase short term?). Web2 Problems.

BCH is not Bitcoin, and BTC is not Bitcoin Core. That's like me calling you by a name other than the one you told me to call you by and obviously fraud. Although trademarks and ownership of the Bitcoin name should not be enforceable, that doesn't mean it's a free-for-all.

These traditional investors are looking at bitcoin the wrong way. It is not just money, an asset, a commodity, or an enabling technology. It is a movement. Of course it looks like "rat poison squared" to you.

Those of you holding .io domains should be a bit worried. The British Indian Ocean Territory will be handed over to Mauritius, and will cease to exist. IANA / ICANN rules state that domains associated with countries that do not exist must be expired within a 5 year time period. They may pull some stunt at the last minute to keep them going (there is a lot of money and brand identity on the .io ccTLD), but if you look at historic actions, this likely won't happen. So say bye bye to .io domains, and watch their value tank (increase short term?). Web2 Problems.

When 1 Bitcoin = $1.0M USD, 1 Satoshi will be 1 Cent ($0.01) - almost 15x the price from today. In the time leading up to this, and after, there will be many more discussions and debates about the requirements of sub-satoshi transaction values becoming native to the protocol and/or pushed to overlaying infrastructure such as exchanges, wallets, L2s, services, ecommerce, retail, etc. PROTOCOL CHANGES A protocol-level change would require a hard fork but has the benefit of extending the timeframe remaining on the block subsidy (mining rewards), widely expected to go to 0 around 2140. Implementing nanosats (1 sat = 1 billion nanosats | 1:1,000,000,000) is currently the smallest sub-satoshi denomination possible, as increasing decimal places with a hard fork would increase the number of halving periods. Bitcoin only has 33 halvings programmed in, but a hard fork to nanosats as the base unit would increase the number of halving periods to 63. There is a hard-coded limit of 64 periods in Bitcoin currently, put in place to keep certain data types (such as nSubsidy) in the code as int64 (instead of int128, which is more process-intensive). This can technically be changed as well in the future, but for now nanosats is the ideal option, if any. Another benefit of a protocol-level change via hard fork is that the maximum amount of bitcoin to ever be in circulation would get much closer to exactly 21M coins. Popularly believed and promoted as being 21,000,000 BTC (because it's easy to say), but in reality only approaching that value at exactly 20,999,999.97690000 BTC to be in circulation in 2140 as of the current code, a nanosat unit adoption on the protocol layer would increase the final amount to 20,999,999.99999999996010000 BTC around 2260. Possible future upgrades as computing becomes more efficient could increase the int64 limit to int128 (currently possible) to even further beyond, thereby increasing the block subsidy and halvings indefinitely. We would always get closer to the 21M BTC asymptote, but never exactly get to it with these possible upgrades. This means that miners would always keep getting paid some amount for securing the protocol with most of their revenue coming from transaction fees. INFRASTRUCTURE CHANGES Infrastructure-level changes would not require any changes with the Bitcoin protocol at all. Service providers such as Cryptocurrency exchanges, wallets developers, marketplaces, data providers, and others could adopt millisats (1:1,000), microsats (1:1,000,000), or nanosats as preferred/required, but on-chain transactions would still be limited by the satoshi unit. Some service providers and software already support sub-satoshi values, and this is expected to increase dramatically as the fiat price of Bitcoin continues to rise and micropayment demand balloons between people, AI, and automated services. Another infrastructure category that will need to play an important part in the adoption and usage of sub-satoshi values will be additional layer solutions such as Lightning, Liquid, and others. If the demand for low-value transactions stays on layers built on top of Bitcoin rather than on-chain directly, a larger proportion of transfers could be denominated in sub-satoshi values (outside of settlement on-chain to Bitcoin). INFRASTRUCTURE -> PROTOCOL Infrastructure changes will be seen and used by everyday users long before a protocol-level change is seriously considered or even required. With the amount of inflows coming into BTC today, and the expected increase in demand in the near future (5-10 years), we could see a $1,000,000 USD price of Bitcoin sooner than most think. This would only bring cent/satoshi parity in the US. Other countries would have long lost their lowest denomination unit parity against the almighty sat. Infrastructure providers in the Bitcoin industry should seriously start considering sub-satoshi research & development plans as soon as possible, if they haven't already.

This old timer at the store started a conversation with me after seeing the Bitcoin Hat.   Him: “Oh you like Bitcoin huh? Me: “Like?  I loooooove it!” Him: “I'm a financial advisor, stay away from that crap, it's used for nefarious reasons and is a scam.” Me: “I guess the biggest hedge funds in the world and banks should all close down their Bitcoin products then huh?” Him: “Oh they just want to make their piece of the gains.” Me: “If it's used solely for nefarious reasons then why would they risk it all on providing Bitcoin products?” Him: “Uh, uh, uhhhh just stay from that garbage it's a ponzi and you will lose your money, or worse!” Me: “Thanks!  Time to go smash buy some more BTC!” Him: “Uh, uh, uhhhh what? I said stay away from it, it is used for crime!” Me: “As long as financial advisors like you keep giving bad financial advice, and as long as people have the same uninformed opinion about it as you, there's plenty of gains left in Bitcoin!  You know what?  On second thought, might as well grab 3x as much as I thought I should earlier.   Thanks again!” Him: “Uh, ah, uh, ahhhhhh.” Me: (Walk away whistling Super Mario Bros theme….)