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).