Jack Dorsey Throws Weight Behind ’Bits’ Over ’Sats’ as Bitcoin Naming War Heats Up

Twitter-founder-turned-crypto-evangelist Jack Dorsey just dropped a grenade in the Bitcoin lexicon debate—backing ’bits’ instead of ’sats’ for smaller denominations. Because what the world’s most volatile asset needs right now is more terminology chaos.

The move comes as Bitcoin maximalists and newbs clash over how to describe fractions of a coin—while conveniently ignoring the fact that neither term will make your portfolio stop bleeding red.

Dorsey’s endorsement could tilt the scales, but let’s be real: Wall Street still calls it all ’magic internet money’ anyway.

Mixed reactions trail Bitcoin’s BIP 177

The proposal has triggered enthusiasm and concern within the crypto community.

Twitter founder and Bitcoin advocate Jack Dorsey backed the change, saying that the term “sats” creates a psychological barrier for new users.

According to him:

“‘sats’ is definitely the wrong term and is stopping everyday people from acquiring and spending Bitcoin.”

JAN3 CEO Samson Mow also supports a rebase to bits but recommends waiting until bitcoin hits dollar-satoshi parity. At that point, he suggests adding two additional decimal places, called “satcents,” to enhance granularity.

He stated:

“Bitcoin will just be synonymous with money, so there won’t be a need for sats.”

However, not everyone agrees with the MOVE as they cite concerns about BTC’s broader security and understanding within the wider community.

Yu Xian, the founder of blockchain security firm Slowmist, warned that the change could lead to misinterpretation and technical confusion for noobs in the industry.

Xian furthered:

“If this bip177 passes, some lousy platforms might mess up and foolishly record 1 bitcoin as 1 BTC. You’ve got to believe, the more basic the security issue, the more likely it is to happen… Of course, related scams might pop up too.”

Despite the concerns, Carvalho insists critics haven’t truly engaged with the content of BIP 177.

He said:

“Most of the people that are scared of BIP 177 haven’t actually read it and are not even attempting to refute the actual motivations within it.”