Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WgPtY-0004dH-RX for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 03 May 2014 02:41:44 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.219.48 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.48; envelope-from=bendavenport@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa0-f48.google.com; Received: from mail-oa0-f48.google.com ([209.85.219.48]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1WgPtX-0005XU-QX for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sat, 03 May 2014 02:41:44 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id i4so5332479oah.21 for ; Fri, 02 May 2014 19:41:38 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.48.106 with SMTP id k10mr20446587oen.20.1399084898325; Fri, 02 May 2014 19:41:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.76.11.168 with HTTP; Fri, 2 May 2014 19:41:38 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201405030238.11625.luke@dashjr.org> References: <201405030238.11625.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Fri, 2 May 2014 19:41:38 -0700 Message-ID: From: Ben Davenport To: Luke Dashjr Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134cf20601c4904f875d679 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (bendavenport[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 0.0 LOTS_OF_MONEY Huge... sums of money X-Headers-End: 1WgPtX-0005XU-QX Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] moving the default display to mbtc X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 03 May 2014 02:41:45 -0000 --001a1134cf20601c4904f875d679 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Luke, My point is that you never apply the prefixes to the currency unit itself. We don't spend kilodollars or megadollars. Ben On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Luke Dashjr wrote: > On Saturday, May 03, 2014 12:54:37 AM Ben Davenport wrote: > > My only addition is that I think we should all stop trying to attach SI > > prefixes to the currency unit. Name me another world currency that uses > SI > > prefixes. No one quotes amounts as 63 k$ or 3 M$. The accepted standard > at > > least in the US is , i.e. $63k or $3M. > > That may not be accepted form everywhere, but in any case it's an > informal > > format, not a formal one. The important point is there should be one base > > unit that is not modified with SI prefixes. And I think the arguments are > > strong for that unit being = 100 satoshi. > > Huh? Your examples demonstrate the *opposite* of your point. 'k' and 'M' > *are* > the SI prefixes. People *do* use 63k USD, $63k, and $3M. I'll be the first > one > to admit SI is terrible, but I don't understand your argument here. > > Luke > > P.S. Note that SI units haven't actually ever been adopted, except by > force of > law. "Name me ... that uses SI" is a silly thing to say, since virtually > all > naturally-or-freely-adopted units of any measure have been based on a > number > that factor to twos and threes (not fives, like decimal). > --001a1134cf20601c4904f875d679 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Luke,

My point is that you never apply = the prefixes to the currency unit itself. We don't spend kilodollars or= megadollars.

Ben


On Fri, May 2, 2014 at 7:38 PM, Luke Das= hjr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
On Saturday, May 03, 2014 12:54:37 AM Ben Davenport wrote:<= br> > My only addition is that I think we should all stop trying to attach S= I
> prefixes to the currency unit. Name me another world currency that use= s SI
> prefixes. No one quotes amounts as 63 k$ or 3 M$. The accepted standar= d at
> least in the US is <currency-symbol><amount><modifier&g= t;, i.e. $63k or $3M.
> That may not be accepted form everywhere, but in any case it's an = informal
> format, not a formal one. The important point is there should be one b= ase
> unit that is not modified with SI prefixes. And I think the arguments = are
> strong for that unit being =3D 100 satoshi.

Huh? Your examples demonstrate the *opposite* of your point. 'k&#= 39; and 'M' *are*
the SI prefixes. People *do* use 63k USD, $63k, and $3M. I'll be the fi= rst one
to admit SI is terrible, but I don't understand your argument here.

Luke

P.S. Note that SI units haven't actually ever been adopted, except by f= orce of
law. "Name me ... that uses SI" is a silly thing to say, since vi= rtually all
naturally-or-freely-adopted units of any measure have been based on a numbe= r
that factor to twos and threes (not fives, like decimal).

--001a1134cf20601c4904f875d679--