jbreher
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
|
 |
May 08, 2014, 07:52:33 AM |
|
Yes, I know quite a bit (no pun ... err ...) about binary SI-like prefixes, what with being a frequent contributor to the development of international standards for data processing equipment, and a decades-long proseletyzer for the folly of misusing SI prefixes when 2^(10*n) is really what was meant.
Nevertheless, zib, the proposed unit to denote microbitcoins, is not spelled like the abbreviated form of ZebiBytes, which would be (as you freely admit) ZiB.
On the other hand, it would appear that bit, which seems to be your preferred nomenclature for microbitcoin, has the exact same spelling as the widespread term for binary digit.
Incidentally, while a Zebizib is way huger than the the total world supply of bitcoins, 'bit' is in common parlance for other concepts floating around the BITcoin universe. Whatever point you were trying to make about 'zib' being overloaded is absolutely nonsensical in the face of this.
The funny part is that I'm not even shilling for zib. While I think it is a better term (again due to the overloading issue) than bit, I'll likely keep calling them microbitcoins. Written uBTC and pronounced mikes. Or more likely, perhaps I will, someday when microbitcoins are a value worth even speaking of.
|
