Quote from: Peter Lambert on March 13, 2014, 08:02:39 PM

Quote from: btcusury on March 13, 2014, 07:09:15 PM

Quote from: Peter Lambert on March 13, 2014, 12:50:50 PM

Quote from: btcusury on March 12, 2014, 10:00:28 PM

Quote from: franky1 on March 12, 2014, 11:50:50 AM

bitcoin should not migrate to conform to the 'old type' of system i agree fully. but the old type of system is not about fiat. after al there are codes for wheat, poultry gold.. all of which are not fiat.

Yes, but they are "non-standard" types of currency, hence the X__ assignation. XBT might be acceptable as ticker symbols for mainstream trading sites as they add Bitcoin, but do we want cryptocurrencies to be relegated to some "non-standard" category? Obviously not.

XBT does not indicate anything about "non-standard". In fact, it is the opposite, it indicates following the established international standards. XAU is gold, XAG is silver, those are not non-standard currencies, they are just currencies that were not issued by any national government. Likewise, bitcoin was not issued by a national government, so its code should start with X.

I put "non-standard" in quotes because I knew it wasn't the best term. Perhaps "non-government issued and therefore less significant" would be a better descriptor. The first part is what the X means and the second part is the impression it gives.

But that's just one reason why XBT is a bad idea, as I have pointed out. Perhaps you can point out some of the benefits of using XBT over BTC?

Are you saying gold and silver are less significant than government fiat? X means non-government, therefore universal. Therefore, these should be regarded as more significant.

In normal usage, like where you would use $, BTC is fine. For places like exchanges where USD would be used, the term XBT should be used to conform with accepted standards.

Again, the accepted standards you refer to were not designed for cryptocurrencies nor with cryptocurrencies in mind. ISO 4217 was created for a purpose whose scope (200 nation-states + X__ for commodities etc) is too small to encompass cryptocurrencies.

Using XBT would also mean that other cryptocurrencies must also conform to ISO 4217, so Litecoin might be XLT or XLC. Can you imagine all cryptocurrency symbols starting with an X? Terrible idea. This would also limit the number of cryptocoin symbols to about 660 (26^2-16). Your argument was more valid in 2011 before the altcoin explosion.

It's also about perception. When people see XBT, XLT, XDO, XPC, XPP, XAR, XQK (dogecoin, primecoin, ppcoin, auroracoin, quark), etc etc, they get an unconscious impression that these are somehow "less" than the non-X ones. When, in fact, the point we're trying to make is that they are "more", better.

And, if you grant the argument that cryptocurrencies will eventually replace fiat currencies due to rendering them technologically obsolete, then placing cryptocurrency symbols under the same standard used to represent the obsolete currencies is placing them under the same umbrella, which is counterproductive in fact and submissive in principle.