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 <luke@dashjr.org> 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 <currency-symbol><amount><modifier>, 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).
>