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?

Quote from: Swordsoffreedom on March 13, 2014, 04:26:46 PM

XBT (Guess we are stuck with it)

Only if we want to conform to a standard that was not designed for cryptocurrencies nor with cryptocurrencies in mind (because they didn't exist).