Unpopular opinion: No need for satoshi symbol. Stick with Bitcoin, BTC, and ₿.

What’s being debated is really a deflation-driven re-denomination, but there is lots of precedence for inflation-driven re-denominations:New Franc (France),New Peso (Mexico),New Shekel (Israel),New Lira (Turkey),New Taiwan Dollar,Brazil’s many interesting new-denominations,probably many more I’m unfamiliar with.In a world where satoshis / sats are a useful pricing denomination, it would be clear from context whether denomination is “sats” (new) or “Bitcoin” (old) since there’s eight orders of magnitude difference.During times of transition (now) there is confusion, but trying to introduce a new named “currency” (since it has a symbol) will only increase that confusion.Also, I think it’s unclear whether the future “new Bitcoin” denomination should be sats vs bits/μBTC vs mBTC, and if either of the latter are the case, the sats denomination is all the more confusing.Another analogy would be stock splits. When a company does a e.g. 7:1 stock split, it doesn’t get a new symbol.My bias is that Bitcoin should be simple for new users and general public, and a new symbol for “sats” feels like a re-branding that dilutes mindshare and increases confusion.That’s why I think successful re-denominations and stock-splits are useful analogies. As are the perils of re-branding consumer products, with the opposite implication.Think the best counter-argument (to this unpopular opinion) is that the general public has lots of experience with fractional denominations, with the Latin-derived “cent” being the most common. But even here I think there is trouble because:While the general public is aware cents, in many countries there are fractional denominations which are only used by specialists and don’t have a symbol. For example in the US the lowest denomination established by law is the “mill” which is one-tenth of a cent and one-thousandth of a USD. Aren’t sats (especially now) more like these specialist denominations?In most countries, the general public does not use a symbol for “cent”, which is sometimes ¢, and instead just abbreviates the word (“25c.”) or uses a decimal in written contexts (“0.25”).For everyone passionate about adoption and use of sats, I think it makes more sense to just use “s.” (as an analogue to cents) when working with sats (adding BTC / ₿ if unclear whether you’re talking about Bitcoin), and as Bitcoin use transitions to a new base denomination (whether it is mBTC, bits, or sats), that can become “new Bitcoin” (consensus-driven re-denomination).EDIT: typos via /r/Bitcoin http://bit.ly/2TkjpA9