Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.214.175 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.214.175; envelope-from=voisine@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-ob0-f175.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 15:35:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CACq0ZD6EJnG4iwehfcFU-4AhBiNdtyf7eE9iGW8d6rv6327Eug@mail.gmail.com>
From: Aaron Voisine <voisine@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] "bits": Unit of account
Precedence: list

I'm also a big fan of standardizing on microBTC as the standard unit.
I didn't like the name "bits" at first, but the more I think about it,
the more I like it. The main thing going for it is the fact that it's
part of the name bitcoin. If Bitcoin is the protocol and network, bits
are an obvious choice for the currency unit.

I would like to propose using Unicode character U+0180, lowercase b
with stroke, as the symbol to represent the microBTC denomination,
whether we call bits or something else:
 http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/0180/index.htm

Another candidate is Unicode character U+2422, the blank symbol, but I
prefer stroke b.
http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/2422/index.htm

Aaron

There's no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole
government working for you -- Will Rodgers

> On Apr 21, 2014 5:41 AM, "Pieter Wuille" <pieter.wuille@gm...> wrote:
>
>>On Apr 21, 2014 3:37 AM, "Un Ix" <slashdevnull@...> wrote:
>>
>> Something tells me this would be reduced to a single syllable in common
>> usage I.e. bit.
>
> What units will be called colloquially is not something developers will
> determine. It will vary, depend on language and culture, and is not
> relevant to this discussion in my opinion.
>
> It may well be that people in some geographic or language area will end up
> (or for a while) calling 1e-06 BTC "bits". That's fine, but using that as
> "official" name in software would be very strange and potentially confusing
> in my opinion. As mentioned by others, that would seem to me like calling
> dollars "bucks" in bank software. Nobody seems to have a problem with
> having colloquial names, but "US dollar" or "euro" are far less ambiguous
> than "bit". I think we need a more distinctive name.
>
> --
> Pieter