@murchandamus I actually have a draft email written as I knew it was procedure but didn't have the right email on hand. If you could send me the right one I'll send it.

I've addressed your feedback! Thank you for taking a look!

You can find information on the BIP Process in BIP 2. The email address is [email protected].

You can find information on the BIP Process in BIP 2. The email address is [email protected].

hm... That's the email I sent to but I got a response back that it didn't go through from gmx... I'll try sending again.

Perhaps it's because I'm not a part of the group and I don't know how to add my gmx to the group yet. I'll look into it.

awesome, committed changes. I think the email went out too. I added my gmx to the group and sent again and I didn't get a failure notice.

oh missed your first comment. It's meant to be a list but each reason is a sentence. How would you suggest I format?

I also added a section on how it's analogous to the traditional currency systems today in the rationale

Maybe this proposal helps to justify doing so in the future, even though I believe we don't have such a common currency symbol for satoshis.

While I have proposed a couple symbols myself in the past, I would like to second that it should probably remain out of scope for this proposal, as debates about a satoshi symbol tend to consume other topics and not converge.

I'm good with it now. Just waiting on more review and feedback! Thanks for all the comments so far.

Actually before proceeding I want to address this comment on the mailing list

From Lucas André:

Maranatha!

I propose a small addition that could improve this, particularly for users relying on assistive technologies (like our boi Hal Finney once did).

Specifically, I suggest adding a short section on accessibility and voice/UI guidance. Your proposal does a solid job, but it doesn't yet cover how these should be handled in screen readers, voice assistants, or accessible interfaces. Below is a proposed section that could be added under "specification" or introduced as a new non-normative section.

To ensure clarity and inclusiveness in UIs and assistive technologies, the following recommendations apply:

Pronunciation:
The abbreviation "sat" should be pronounced as /sæt/, and "sats" (plural) should be pronounced as /sæts/ (rhyming with "cats") by screen readers and voice assistants. "Satoshi" (singular) is pronounced /səˈtoʊʃi/. "Satoshis" (plural) is pronounced /səˈtoʊʃiz/.

Singular vs. Plural:
"1 sat" should be read as "one satoshi" and "100 sats" as "one hundred satoshis" to preserve correct pluralization and meaning. When reading aloud:

"1 sat" → "one satoshi" → /wʌn səˈtoʊʃi/
"100 sats" → "one hundred satoshis" → /wʌn ˈhʌndrəd səˈtoʊʃiz/

Readable Formats:
Prefer full terms in accessibility modes (e.g., "satoshis" instead of "sats"), and group digits to assist parsing (e.g., "12,345" instead of "12345").

Contextual Labels:
Interfaces should use clear alt-text or aria-labels such as: alt="Transaction fee: 14 satoshis per virtual byte". This enables screen readers and other assistive technologies to accurately interpret and communicate the content.

If this makes sense, I'd be happy to help refine it or adjust to fit the structure if necessary.

References:
https://www.internationalphoneticalphabet.org/
https://tophonetics.com/

Peace,
Lucas.

Link to mailing list comment

While this is a great suggestion I'm on the fence as to whether or not this makes the BIP too verbose. Please let me know your thoughts. Sorry I'm addressing this comment last minute!

While this is a great suggestion I'm on the fence as to whether or not this makes the BIP too verbose. Please let me know your thoughts. Sorry I'm addressing this comment last minute!

I don’t think this is too verbose, feel free to put it in.

I'm sorry about all the bad commits... I can't seem to get the readme correct.

Also, @murchandamus if you'd like to suggest how I should format the addition of information for users with assistive technologies, that would be great

Alright Everyone. Take a look see! I've added Accessibility Considerations and fixed some small punctuation errors ht/ @macedogm

I would not oppose merging as it is, but I don't think the assistive tech additions contribute to the proposal. They are quite general comments/recommendations that apply to the good design of all human interfaces, not only bitcoin-related. Although important, they dilute the main contribution which is formally defining bitcoin subunits.

Sorry I didn't seem this earlier, the pace of change in this proposal is quite swifty.

@edilmedeiros I shared this concern but asked earlier and @murchandamus said he didn't think it was too verbose and to go ahead and add it if I would like to. So I did. I'd love to see this merged ❤️

a very nit but some sections have a space line between the heading and the content while others do not

a very nit but some sections have a space line between the heading and the content while others do not

Good catch. I added a space line after each heading. It seemed other BIPs mostly have it this way.

Regardless of any pending changes, I would kindly ask for this to be merged in it's current form as we are indeed starting to get very nit on suggestions. That is of course unless any reviewers have a big pending issue with it's current form.

Sorry, the unrelated on-going community debate has taken a big chunk of my time in the past week. Another review of this proposal is on my todo list but may take another few days.