<p>I remember seeing an old idea but unfortunately I didn't bookmark it and now I'm struggling to find the source again. Maybe someone will remember it and be able to point me to the source?</p>
<p>It was something like:</p>
<p>Have a consensus (SF) rule that allows swapping 1-sat for a 0-sat UTXO which has the number of fractions recorded as something like <code>&lt;fracSats&gt; OP_DROP</code> appended to the Script, e.g. 1-sat would convert to a 0-sat with <code>100 OP_DROP</code> for 1/100 subdivision. Then, rules would enforce that these fracs add up correctly within the scope of the TX.</p>
<p>From PoV of old nodes, it would be a bunch of 0-sat inputs creating a bunch of 0-sat outputs, valid by consensus but currently prohibited by relay rules.</p>
<p>When someone collects 100 fracSats on the input side, they'd get a 1 full sat back on the output side, I don't remember how this was supposed to work without violating consensus of old nodes, maybe the UTXO would still be 0 but miners would copy the UTXOs locking bytecode in coinbase TX and credit it with 1 sat.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-04-03T17:26:30.707Z
That doesn’t sound economically viable. Why would you spend dozens to hundreds of sats to create an output worth a fraction of a sat?
Murch
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-04-03T18:44:21.663Z
Viable or not, I want to find the source of this idea.
bca-0353f40e
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-04-04T14:19:56.447Z
I know this is not what you are looking for, but c-lightning implements mili-satoshi: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/69700/what-is-a-millisatoshi-i-thought-satoshi-is-the-smallest-unit which is probably a more reasonable implementation of this even though I have heard it causes its own slew of issues.
Poseidon
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-17T09:31:19.107Z
Perhaps this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5330102.0
Lee
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-17T10:35:15.777Z
Nice find, the one I can't find was along the same lines, yeah! I think what I remember seeing was older and I think it tried to specify transitions from/to regular sats to/from subdivided sats.
bca-0353f40e
<consensus><bip><divisibility>
Looking for Source of an Old Idea About Subdividing Satoshis
bca-0353f40e
# Looking for Source of an Old Idea About Subdividing Satoshis

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-04-03)

I remember seeing an old idea but unfortunately I didn't bookmark it and now I'm struggling to find the source again. Maybe someone will remember it and be able to point me to the source?

It was something like:

Have a consensus (SF) rule that allows swapping 1-sat for a 0-sat UTXO which has the number of fractions recorded as something like `<fracSats> OP_DROP` appended to the Script, e.g. 1-sat would convert to a 0-sat with `100 OP_DROP` for 1/100 subdivision. Then, rules would enforce that these fracs add up correctly within the scope of the TX.

From PoV of old nodes, it would be a bunch of 0-sat inputs creating a bunch of 0-sat outputs, valid by consensus but currently prohibited by relay rules.

When someone collects 100 fracSats on the input side, they'd get a 1 full sat back on the output side, I don't remember how this was supposed to work without violating consensus of old nodes, maybe the UTXO would still be 0 but miners would copy the UTXOs locking bytecode in coinbase TX and credit it with 1 sat.

**Tags:** consensus, bip, divisibility

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: That doesn’t sound economically viable. Why would you spend dozens to hundreds of sats to create an output worth a fraction of a sat?  
> **username_0**: Viable or not, I want to find the source of this idea.  
> **username_2**: I know this is not what you are looking for, but c-lightning implements mili-satoshi: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/69700/what-is-a-millisatoshi-i-thought-satoshi-is-the-smallest-unit which is probably a more reasonable implementation of this even though I have heard it causes its own slew of issues.  
> **username_3**: Perhaps this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5330102.0  
> **username_0**: Nice find, the one I can't find was along the same lines, yeah! I think what I remember seeing was older and I think it tried to specify transitions from/to regular sats to/from subdivided sats.  

---

## 0 answers

