Quote from: KingOfTrolls on November 03, 2014, 02:45:16 PM

Quote from: 101111 on November 03, 2014, 12:52:54 PM

Quote from: teukon on November 03, 2014, 10:53:23 AM

Not at all. "satoshi" is a much better established term than "bit" in this context.

That's not the issue. We're not debating over which is more established. We're looking forward and debating what may be.

This example use case illustrated how it is difficult to establish "bit" because it is already established that small amounts of bitcoin are satoshis. Looking forward, this means that establishing "bit" will always be an up-hill battle because satoshi isn't magically going to go away.

Quote from: 101111 on November 03, 2014, 12:52:54 PM

Yes of course they do, but bitcoin is not at issue, and in most contexts neither is satoshi.

Yes, "bit" is what makes the issues.

Quote from: 101111 on November 03, 2014, 12:52:54 PM

Quote from: teukon on November 03, 2014, 10:53:23 AM

Also, notice the order used here: "1 bit = 1 satoshi", not "1 satoshi = 1 bit".

You might even notice I was the one who quoted it.

You quoted it, but you didn't even notice that it implies that the speaker is already familiar with satoshis and confused by "bits".

Quote from: 101111 on November 03, 2014, 12:52:54 PM

Quote from: teukon on November 03, 2014, 10:53:23 AM

"satoshi" was not pushed in the way that "bit" was. The first suggestion that "satoshi" might refer to 0.000 000 01 BTC was made over 3 years ago and slowly and naturally became adopted because it was a useful term which resonated with those that would use it. There were no leagues of "satoshis" threads where people denounced the term, came up with various alternatives. There was no crowd of SI proponents claiming "10 nans" to be superior.

Now you're just being silly. Have you ever actually looked at the bits proposal? Do you know what you are talking about?

A quick glance at teukon's recent posts reveals that you are talking bullshit.

Quote from: 101111 on November 03, 2014, 12:52:54 PM

Sorry but this is all just quasi-religious, irrational nonsense.

The weaknesses of "bits" won't go away by ignoring them.

Quote from: 101111 on November 03, 2014, 12:52:54 PM

If you can't come up with a use case just say so.

Remember how this discussion started? You were making the initial claim that "bits" is easier to use:

Quote from: 101111 on October 28, 2014, 02:40:34 PM

We want to get bitcoin out of the lab, so to speak. It needs to be much easier to use, and the question you should be asking, is not what do you want, but what makes better sense for the (hopefully) billions of future adopters, many of whom may be far less numerate than the average bitcoiner, and much more comfortable with a conventional 1,000.00 currency format.

To which I responded:

Quote from: KingOfTrolls on October 30, 2014, 12:40:54 AM

Do you think 1,000.00 is easier to understand than 100,000 for the next billion adopters?

Causing you to ask for use cases:

Quote from: 101111 on October 31, 2014, 02:57:31 AM

On usability, if you want to argue that, put up some use cases to demonstrate your point.

Because you were making the initial claim, the burden of proof is on you!

Well done, you've so well managed to justify irrational quasi-religious nonsense with your own illogical twists that in the process you've dug yourself in so deep you're locked in a psychotic delusion.

Any further attempt at rational discourse here is simply a waste of time.