Bitcoin Forum

The XBT initialism places Bitcoin on the same list as the government-backed fiat currencies, by conforming to the ISO 4217 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_4217) standard (X__ is reserved for non-government-backed currencies, e.g. XAU for gold). So using XBT instead of BTC is to tacitly place Bitcoin within the system that cryptocurrencies are in the process of obsoleting.

Using XBT would also mean that altcoins 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).

So why do some people use XBT over BTC? What's the reasoning?

There is no reason no reason to use XBT over BTC

XBT would be so much cooler if it was used for XzibitCoin B)

Nothing to get worked up over. If it smooths Bitcoin's integration with others' labeling systems, it's no big deal; use what you like anyways. There's plenty of room for both (most people don't refer to gold as XAU in casual conversation.)

my countries code is GBP.. but i will always use 'quid' £ pound as words when describing the currency. ill leave GBP for the wall street guys to use.

we should not be trying to get bitcoin into wall street. we should be getting wall street into bitcoin

There are still a lot of single humans out there, that own more money than all "BTC" are worth. The process you talk about might very well still take decades, even at current pace. Until then, not disrespecting Bhutan (a great country by the way) might be a nice thing to do.

Following existing standards is not a bad thing to do.

Following the existing standard would make sense if Bitcoin was of the same type the standard was created to cover. Putting cryptocurrencies under/within the existing standard for fiat currency symbols implies that it is of the same type. But cryptocurrencies are a whole new technology, a vastly different invention, the purpose of which is to replace the old type of currency that requires trust, middlemen, authorization/permission, transfer limits, transfer fees, ridiculous delays, participation in a debt-generating usurious fractional-reserve scam, etc.

And what do you mean by disrespecting Bhutan? The Bhutanese ngultrum is represented as BTN (like the TV channel from V for Vendetta), not BTC. Appropriating the Thai bhat symbol, BTC, is perhaps a bit disrespectful though.

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.

the old system though is about alot of bureaucracy and paying fee's to get accepted into special government "members clubs". bitcoin is about freedom.

we should avoid trying to get into these members clubs and get the members to prefer the freedoms of bitcoin rather then staying in they over-ruling and paperwork based financial system.  

i like the vertical lines of bitcoin and if that disrespects thailand. then australia has been disrespecting america for 100 years :D

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.

This has of course been discussed before, and some posters have seen the obvious problem with conforming to irrelevant/outdated standards:




Peter Lambert proposes (or states as if obvious) that we "follow the rules" created by the very system that BTC threatens to obsolete. LOL. Then again, it was 2011 when he posted that.

As for Bhutan, now I understand what Sukrim meant. But this would only be relevant if following the conventions of ISO 4217.

Pointless discussion: we have the Internet. I didn't know many currency codes until I Googled them. It takes 5 seconds to do at most. "BTC currency code" -- You want to buy Bitcoin on a conventional, large exchange in the future, that's all it takes.

I really doubt anyone will give half a damn that some organization has labeled Bitcoin as coming from "X," partially because I doubt more than .001% of people will even know what the Hell "X" means.

Brand name bitcoins just like they brand name gasoline Kluge
It's essentially the same but they can advertise it differently

Brand-name gasoline??? That's gotta be a European thing. :D

The point of the discussion is to bring clarity as to the pros and cons of the community using BTC over XBT (as the ISO standard would have it), because some people are using XBT instead of BTC, creating some degree of confusion. A newcomer or businessperson might think: "These Bitcoin people can't even settle on what abbreviation they want to use!"

To settle on one or the other seems like a wise/clever thing to do.

Nice try Kludge :)
I was thinking American and was alluding towards boutique fuels in particular gasoline
http://www.api.org/policy-and-issues/policy-items/alternatives/us_gasoline_requirements

Here is a times article on the topic
http://business.time.com/2007/05/31/boutique_gas_and_high_prices/

How exactly are they deciding on the 2 letters to use after the X?

XBT for international markets, BTC for crypto markets :)

So why XBT and not XBC?

Exactly what I was getting at, who decides first and second letter in first word vs. first letter of each word?

For example if the name was coinkiller would it be XCI or XCK?

@SoF, that's not even remotely relevant to the discussion, then, since it has nothing to do with branding, but with differing state regulations on gasoline where some refiners and manufacturers are more inclined to cater to certain markets with particular regulations.

I got you, then, mostly. I don't see why anyone would try fighting the momentum and trying to use "XBT" in normal communications in the same way few people call the Baht a "THB."  (by the way, THB on Google with my particular location and search history [which has included the Baht] -- only one of the first five results is specifically for the Thai Baht, while the first result is for a bagel store)

Trying to use "XBT" just seems utterly futile at best, and, as you mention, confusing at worst if there becomes a significant amount of usage, perhaps outside of large, conventional currency exchanges which may accept BTC in the future (though Bitcoin's obviously very unique here, and maybe I am underestimating the impact of having multiple "official" abbreviations). I don't see why common-use vernacular should ever change to conform to some ISO ruleset, though, which is pretty much never done. We have "alkaline AA" batteries, not "LR6." Nobody would know what the Hell you were talking about if you went into a Target and asked if they carry "LR6s." I'd guess they'd point you over to their gun selection.

XBC is taken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Unit_of_Account_9

Think you are correct I meant in terms of a liquid exchange the fungibility of gasoline should not matter rather bureaucratic regulations can make the same product become slightly different to address superficial concerns, perhaps that was a bad example in that case I mean the difference between shell gasoline husky gasoline Amoco gasoline Texaco when you go to a gas station.

What I was trying to illustrate was that bitcoin could be branded differently if different companies advertised different things about them, or do you not see any brand value attached towards it. I read label as brand.

That said I think I misread your response

I read your post as a marketing question not as people will buy BTC over XBT if your point was the name is different but they are the same thing then I agree with you, if the question was if different firms were selling escrowing or holding bitcoin and individuals had a choice then I think some premiums may be given to certain firms and organizations over others.

This is observable with the difference in rates among different exchanges although probably to a fairly insignificant level as other factors such as liquidity fees and ease of transferring assets come into play.

The most valuable factor of course being the Security aka the X as we saw with Mtgox the bitcoins are only as valuable as the amount remaining.

In other words I think branding is important in this case, if not naming.

Personally XBT or BTC I prefer BTC since it's the more familiar name and the one that's been in use for years.

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 guess I would prefer it to be XBTC but I guess they need to be three letters and Bitcoin is not an element on the table so it has more letters

XBTC  (Too short)
XBTC (Too Long)
XBT (Guess we are stuck with it)

Any one using XBT over BTC ?!

Well i guess it is they problem, not normal people.

lol

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?


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).

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.

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).

 
The X is applied to everything

Guess LTC would be
XLT
Powercoin
XPT
Namecoin
XNC
SexCoin
XXX (Xsc)  ;D

Stuck with the X lol



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.

http://www.ifex-project.org/

Seems to have fizzed out a bit, but this proposal would allow you to use "BTC", "LTC" etc. while still conforming to a standard.

BTC is a commodity.
XBT is a currency.
QED

Interesting! Peter Lambert, check this out and see if it makes more sense to you than the old ISO 4217 standard.



Not quite QED, but an interesting idea. The only problem is that it adds unnecessary complexity. Why not have one universal symbol for the same currency/commodity/thing/idea?

Labels are for legacy systems. They don't seem to have a problem with paper gold like GLD being traded like AU. It's their problem. If a sovereign defines Bitcoin as a commodity (i.e. China) then it's BTC, if a currency (i.e. Germany) then XBT. It would be interesting to have to pay a conversion fee when moving it between markets.

There is no point of using XBT :)