0.001 BTC = "mbit" [em-bit]
0.000 001 BTC = "ubit" [yu-bit]
0.000 000 001 BTC = "nbit" [en-bit]
There is no intrinsic value in having a 1e-2 denomination (i.e. bitcent), this will just add unnecessary confusion to an SI-style system which has the convenience of using SI prefixes milli-, micro-, nano-, etc.. If there is an 1e-3 denomination (i.e. mbit), it is easy to express the equivalent of a "bitcent" as 10 mbit, e.g. That is to say, there is no advantage of efficiency in adopting a bitcent. If you were to adopt a bitcent/centibit, why not a decibit (i.e. 0.1 BTC?) - things become very mushy.
PS. There should be no problem with representing subdivisions of BTC with "bit" (i.e. mbit) in terms of confusion with data bits, as data bits are atomic (i.e. non-divisible: there is no such thing as 0.001 bits (microbits) in computing). [That said, data-rates could be expressed which might invoke "microbit", such as 100 microbits per second, but such a slow data-rate would be uncommon; and this practice is not done "in the wild".]
I like this approach because:
1) it promotes open standards (SI units)
2) it is easy to say ("I'll buy that for an mbit") but there is a possible confusion between "em" and "en" phonemes though
3) the rapid deflation of a bitcoin is such that 0.01BTC is going to be arbitrary in the near term so call it 10mbits instead
Is there a page on the Bitcoin Wiki to promote this as the proposed standard?
