Quote from: Wary on September 16, 2014, 08:09:52 AM

Quote from: Jaymax on September 15, 2014, 04:24:18 PM

What's good, is that it's based on "b". It's intuitive in 3 ways:
1. "b" - for bit
2. Related with bitcoin ("B" and "b")
3. Related in right way ("B" for bigger unit and "b" for smaller one).

What's not so good is the graphical view of the symbol:
1. There is no standard ASCII symbol for it.

This is a GOOD THING. Why co-opt something with entrenched historical meaning for something totally new? Generally, I think all the uses of various existing UNICODE B's and b-shaped symbols is daft. It's not hard to get something added into unicode if we can show it's being used. The Bitcoin B-double-bar was under discussion previously; the only reason it's not already part of the unicode char set is that the person making the case for it never responded to the unicode committee's questions.

Quote

2. The vertical bars have different width. IMO, if they were the same width it would be more laconic, more harmonic and easier to draw.

I think it's more important to make it resonate with the B-double-bar, which has different stroke widths for the vertical bars and the stem.