Re: Gavin Andresen Proposes Bitcoin Hard Fork to Address Network Scalability

Quote from: iluvpie60 on October 22, 2014, 05:36:37 PM

Quote from: jbreher on October 22, 2014, 04:55:39 PM

I can point to any number of formally adopted international standards adopted by accredited standards organizations which are unanimous on the SI system of prefixes. As a serious question, can you point to the same for your financial-based prefix system you describe above?

As a serious answer, I was giving a history lesson on what the correct notation is before it was bastardized by other organizations not too long ago. There isn't any room to argue on this as it is historically accurate.

http://www.accountingcoach.com/blog/what-does-m-and-mm-stand-for

http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/181917/mixing-use-of-k-for-thousands-and-mm-for-millions

http://www.bankersonline.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=94526

Thanks for the references. I can see there that there is some sentiment there for M=1000, MM=1000000. However, none of these seems to rise to the level of an accredited international standards organization - such as the American National Standards Institute, British Institute of Standards, [International Standards Organization], or similar - each of which have standardized the use of SI prefixes. Further, your bankersonline reference seems to indicate that the traditional financial prefixes may be an anachronism on its way to disuse.

However, tradition is a strong force. I'll leave the bankers to their traditional units. I just worry the potential of magnitude errors as these two systems clash. Indeed the bankersonline link you provided already alludes to such a problem.

To those not interested, sorry for the sidebar. I'll drop this line of inquiry.