TL4 Poker Chips

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

It's certainly a counter-intuitive breakthrough. Even after reading the wiki, I'm not sure what the big benefit is (aside from the enforced double-errorcheck), and how one figures one NEEDS this strange benefit in order to even start seeking ways to achieve it.

Improved error checking of very large lists of numbers is pretty significant.

EDIT: It's easier to see the point when you read the list of disadvantages to single-entry book-keeping:

[quote=Wikipedia] Data may not be available to management for effectively planning and controlling the business.
Lack of systematic and precise bookkeeping may lead to inefficient administration and reduced control over the affairs of the business.
Single-entry records do not provide a check against clerical error, as does a double-entry system. This is one of the most serious defects of single-entry systems.
Single-entry records seldom make provision for recording all transactions. In addition, many internal transactions, such as adjusting entries are often not recorded.
Because no accounts are provided for many of the items appearing in both the Income Statement and Balance Sheet, omission of important data is possible.
In the absence of detailed records of all assets, lax administration of those assets may occur.
Theft and other losses are less likely to be detected.
[/wikipedia]

Recording data that's bunk is pointless. Error checking your data records so they contain actual useful information is critical if you want to do anything with that data other than mindlessly record it and then shred it 7 years later.

The benefit of double-entry book-keeping really can be summed up as "error checking" but in an accounting context, it's like saying the benefits of doctors washing their hands is "reduced infections". It's easy to say, it's only two words, it's HUGE.

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

It's certainly a counter-intuitive breakthrough. Even after reading the wiki, I'm not sure what the big benefit is (aside from the enforced double-errorcheck), and how one figures one NEEDS this strange benefit in order to even start seeking ways to achieve it.

You can lose a lot of money if someone makes a mistake. The error check all by itself is useful. You don't want to pay twice, or fail to collect on an account due. Perhaps more importantly, the system also guards against deliberate "mistakes" -- embezzlement. Those Italian bankers probably invented that, too :) Once you make the shift from thinking of money as physical objects to realizing it's information, you have to be a lot more careful about making sure the information is correct. You won't always have a small physical inventory that you can just count to correct it.

[Finalsora811]

My friend gave me a good idea concerning this. If the poker chips DIDN'T exist back then, I could just use coins made of different metals. So they'd all be relatively the same sizes, but each one would be a different cost. But I don't know the values of each metal back then. Would gold be the most expensive?

[Polydamas]

If you are using coins, you already have visibly distinct tokens of agreed-upon value to gamble with. Exactly what coins, of what metals, are used in your setting is a setting thing, but different metals are just one of many ways to tell coins apart.

The only time this would be a problem is a setting with lots of debasement, where the recipient has to look a coin over, and maybe test its content, before deciding how much it is worth. ("Wow, that really is a penny of Henry VIII! I'll count it as worth tenpence.") But that just adds to the fun of haggling, and the possibility for drunken disputes among gamblers.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Finalsora811

My friend gave me a good idea concerning this. If the poker chips DIDN'T exist back then, I could just use coins made of different metals. So they'd all be relatively the same sizes, but each one would be a different cost. But I don't know the values of each metal back then. Would gold be the most expensive?

There are historical sources for exchange ratios, if you look, but only for certain eras. Gold is almost always the most expensive, followed by silver, followed by copper. I believe tin is actually more expensive than copper (the rarity of tin was what made bronze expensive), but I don't know of its being used as a currency metal.

Bill Stoddard

[ErhnamDJ]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I believe tin is actually more expensive than copper (the rarity of tin was what made bronze expensive), but I don't know of its being used as a currency metal.

I think I've read about tin coins. A quick Google search reveals what looks like tin coins from Burma and Malaysia in use about five hundred years ago.

And I seem to recall reading about some ancient cultures (maybe the Chinese?) using tin as well, but I can't seem to find anything on it with a casual search.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

It's certainly a counter-intuitive breakthrough. Even after reading the wiki, I'm not sure what the big benefit is.

It's significantly faster and more reliable, and doesn't require the subtraction or the concept of negative numbers. It's worth noting that low tech arithmetic was significantly less reliable than later, probably because of the lack of place value and the zero.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by whswhs

I believe tin is actually more expensive than copper (the rarity of tin was what made bronze expensive), but I don't know of its being used as a currency metal.

Apparently Malacca had tin coins?

Just some quick googling.