Bitcoin Forum

The Bitcoin Foundation and community as a whole needs to step up to educate regulators to STOP using the derogatory term "virtual currency" as EU banking authority described it.

Bitcoin, litecoin, etc are digital or cryptocurrencies.

Try making just ONE bitcoin yourself and see how "virtual" it is.
It is absolutely certainly requires much more work than minting or printing $1, and I am not even talking about making a $1 by some ledger adjustment at the FED.

I have thought about this some myself. Calling it virtual makes it sound like it isn't real. I prefer crypto currency which sounds real and has much more of a coolness factor.

E-Currency. Ofcourse. E-mail and now E-currency. Digital Works as well but short Version is e-currency. Cryptocurrency sounds too scary for Public adoption, and geeky.. will never be used by the masses. Just as much as People digital mail crypted mail  :D

Virtual is the wrong word. Cryptomoney or cryptocurrency. It is about time that cryptography comes into the limelight.

The problem with using the term "virtual currency" is that it could also be used to describe credit cards and the money people have in their Paypal accounts (which isn't us, right? RIGHT?!). I've been using "cryptocurrencies" and "altcoins" pretty regularly when I talk about it, because when I don't have time for a lengthy explanation, it's easier for me to say, "They're sorta like Bitcoin."

September, 2013, Bitcoin Foundation to Federal Election Commission: "Bitcoins are often referred to as 'virtual currency.' The Bitcoin Foundation prefers the term 'digital currency.' "

https://bitcoinfoundation.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Bitcoin-Foundation-FEC-filing-CAF-Advisory-Opinion.pdf

Virtual currency is a term defined by FinCEN; it encompasses digital currencies, tokens, pre-paid gift cards, etc I suppose...

      …"virtual" currency is a medium of exchange that operates like a currency in some environments, but does not have all the attributes of real currency. In particular, virtual currency does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction. This guidance addresses "convertible" virtual currency. This type of virtual currency either has an equivalent value in real currency, or acts as a substitute for real currency…

http://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.html

The biggest problem with the name virtual currency , for me, is that it suggests that BTC can only be used to internet and web based stuff and business, while we all know that it can be used to physical stores and in day-to-day trades.
Virtual is not an offense since the internet boom.

"Virtual" just reminds me of money in online games, mostly MMOs. It has the connotation that it is one-way (that is, you pay fiat for them but can't convert them back to fiat). They also make you think they can't be used for anything outside of a limited environment, which obviously isn't the case with bitcoin.

I believe OP tried to say that refering to bitcoin as a digital currency will somehow magicaly make it imune to bank/gouvernment bashes.
Virtual or not, it doesnt realy matter, what matters is the point of argument will allways be bitcoin, until regulation is implemented.

People need to stop caring about Bitcoin as a currency, virtual or otherwise. It is far more valuable as a protocol.

I think most people dont understand the difference between digital and virtual.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=FG64U5z4HsiOqgby6YDIDA&url=http://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DRnTQhIRcrno&cd=1&ved=0CBwQtwIwAA&usg=AFQjCNED5Ot0BG5NerrZT5X7XBzAr4vO9A&sig2=olwbfAWn1Yd6AlH410AJMw

This seems like an answer to the problem.

Well I must tell that I was saying about the Bitcoin that it is a "virtual currency" as some people understand this term better than "digital currency" when you want to explain what Bitcoin is.

But nowadays I used to say "cryptocurrency" - is a 'digital currency' really the best choice as Foundation prefers that one or is it just a matter of what we like to say better.

I think both terms seems good.

Crypto currency
Digital currency   - in both cases name include a deep meaning of what it really is.

Maybe we should **join them together and say  Digital crypto currency :)


What do you think about it?

Regards.


**Edited : I wrote "split" instead of "join" :)

I agree and use the terms crypto and digital similarly.

There are dozens of turn of the century crypto / non-crypto digital currencies. (If you want to learn a bitbabout the history, check out my history lectures here: https://www.udemy.com/bitcoin-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-crypto/ )

Thanks for the link.
This seems very interesting.
There is quite a lot to listen and learn for listeners -  good job.

+10 for doing those 6 sections. (I see you are just about to record SECTION 5: Bitcoin Wallets - that will be very interesting I need to ask you a question about those records - PM sent)

I will listen to some of them for sure.

Regards.

I think that arguing about if it is appropriate to say that Bitcoin is a "virtual currency" is a lot like arguing what the definition of "is" is.

It is considered virtual because it only "exists" on the internet (blockchain) and cannot be touched. The term currency is used loosely to mean that it can be used to purchase things. 

I can only take credit for a few of the lectures. The lion's share of the work belongs to Charles Hoskinson.

hmmm never really thought about this.
I guess 'virtual' is more kinda in-game  perhaps... like warcraft or whatever people play these days..

were as 'digital' is more.. well.. not virtual.. and just digital and lives.. errhmm online ?  hmm kinda like the virtual in game money, but more real :p

Really  ::)

What is next?
"I have a dream that ltc, dogecoin, and darkcoin, can all be called crypto coins, and not alt coins."  :)

You're right, it's not just derogatory, it's wrong too. There's absolutly nothing virtual about cryptocurrencies. E-Currency is good term, and even Internet money is ok. But I think maybe the best describing term is cryptocurrency.

Yes, crytocurrency or digital currency is correct term
The term virtual is not very accurate compared to those two.

That is very much true. Virtual currency is a currency used in some facebook game or diamonds in wath ever online game . We are really talking about digital currency, the term virtual is no more valid for BTC

We all know Cryptocurrency is a much more accurate term for bitcoin, but for those who do not, "virtual currency" is an easier concept to grasp. I don't mind which term mainstream media uses, if they think their readers would respond to it.

True but a digital currency is something as easy to get as a virtual one
So this term makes as much sense for mainstream media use.

Honestly, I don't really care. This is playing with semantics. If you want to get technical, crypto-currency, sure. But I don't see what all the fuss is about to be honest. What am I missing?

Seperation required to define World of Warcraft Currency and In Game Tokens Virtual Currency
From Bitcoin and cash based ones Digital Currency/Cryto

Amazing how so many peeps here can be so blind for the future. It's e-currency, rofl, how hard can it be.. its not cryptocurrency  :D 


"hold on, ill send a cryptomail to my friend and ask him"

Indeed. And as it was mentioned before word "virtual" mean something "not real"-virtual.

Bitcoins are 100% real and when you exchange them into $$$ they seems so real too :-)

That's why virtual currency term should be used only in a case where coins are truly virtual and have no real value in the world of economy. 

The "virtual" in "virtual currency" means acting like the corresponding physical object, but having its attributes created and maintained by the operation of software, just like in the terms "virtual reality" and "virtual machine". I don't particularly like the term "virtual currency" because it doesn't really describe any interesting or meaningful distinction between, say, Bitcoins and dollars. One can make physical Bitcoins, and most dollars are virtual.

Calling it virtual sounds like Fiat currencies aren't virtual when in fact they are.

not in dollars, in real value like a house or something. dollars are just cheap paper.

bitcoin is a payment protocol, it is most likely not a currency, virtual or not.

The US dollar is also a digital currency, by the way.

As a regulatory specific term, it looks like FinCEN has already defined it.


As a general term, I don't use it. I use digital or crypto currency.

Virtual currencies in games like WoW do have some level of value, just not very much.

Isn't any currency that can be transferred electronically virtualized to some extent? Being virtual does not affect its use in reality.

I like the term "transparent currency."
This phrase works well with the way the currency is mined/generated and also the presentation of transactions that show on the blockchain.
It can also refer to open source code for the currencies.
I think the general public would understand transparent currency.

Cryptocurrency will never play out and gain adoption in general public which is where the technology needs to go in order to realize it's full potential. Regular users don't even need to know about blockchains, coin algo's, etc. they just want to know that if they need to buy something the currency they are holding will pay for it.

Calling them altcoins will never work either...especially when btc is not the leader anymore.

Ecurrency and digital money are pretty good terms too...but they carry the perception of things like paypal, egold, etc.

Good reminder:
I'm excited about what new things will be developed from the Bitcoin protocol in the next few years.

Actually in money supply terms M0 (the total of all physical USD coins and and bills in circulation) is only a fraction of the total money in existence. The Fed has stopped reporting on the M4 numbers so we don't actually know how many dollars there really are, but it is accurate to say that the vast majority of USD only exit as digitial information on some computer.

hey, i've never heard this one before!! :P ::)

yeah, i can see the arguments, sort of. but it just doesn't seem like a big deal to me. maybe when bitcoin becomes more legitimized, this will be more of an issue to press.

You are fighting the wrong battle.  I personally don't give a shit what anyone calls it as long at they do not criminalize or regulate into the oblivion the ability to cryptographically transfer digital tokens of value from one individual to another.

Similarly I had an account in Euro a few months before they started issuing the physical money to the general public.
Most currencies today are digital.

I also think that "virtual" definition is not correct. When I hear someone talking about bitcoin call it "virtual currency" I always correct them explaining that it can be defined as "digital" or "electronic", not virtual.

totally. i just don't care about all these stupid little semantic questions. i just hope that bitcoin is given the latitude to continue to burgeon in a healthy, decentralized manner.

well, the fact that opinions differ from yours does not mean that they are wrong  :)

Virtual has completely different meaning from digital or crypto.
Virtual currencies are game tokens typically
Exact wording is very important

I consider using the term "virtual currency" in the case of bitcoin inadequate/imprecise/demeaning/jarring etc
"Virtual" strongly suggests that it is NOT real or at least not material.
But, it's just for me, you might have a totally different view.
 

This is actualy a good point raised that i never thought about virtual currency really makes me imagine something virtualy created with almost no value at all.

I did some research:
According to wikipedia, A virtual currency or virtual money has been defined in 2012 by the European Central Bank as "a type of unregulated, digital money, which is issued and usually controlled by its developers, and used and accepted among the members of a specific virtual community". The US Department of Treasury in 2013 defined it more tersely as "a medium of exchange that operates like a currency in some environments, but does not have all the attributes of real currency".

According to the definition, virtual currency is opposite with the real currency released by countries.

On the other hand, digital currency is defined as:
Digital currency is a form of virtual currency or medium of exchange that is electronically created and stored. Some digital currencies, such as Bitcoin, are cryptocurrencies. Like traditional money these currencies may be used to buy physical goods and services but could also be restricted to certain communities such as for example for use inside an on-line game or social network.

As a result, digital currency is defined as the currency which is electronically created and stored, which is opposite with traditional paper based currency.

As a result, maybe there is no controversy because the two have different categories definition

I like to use good words to support understanding. So I like to be a word nazi for my own understanding and when i discuss.

But I agree that it does not matter much for the future of bitcoin. I think it will succeed even if the masses are in the fog about bitcoin, just as they are in the fog about how our current money works.

Good find.  Interesting.

I would argue government currencies are analog but have a digital representation. BTC is true digital.

Actually if you really wanted to be pedantic and look at the actual meanings of the words you are throwing around you could conclude that neither is really analog, but BTC are a lot closer to being analog than USD.

USD usually only come in fractions of at least a hundredth. Every transaction is a multiple of a single cent. This is clearly a digital value.
BTC on the other hand are at least in theory infinitely divisible. Of course in practice you would still store the actual values in a digital representation, but compared to the Dollar they are a lot closer to being at least pseudo-analog.

To get a real analog currency you would have to use gold, silver or perhaps salt as a currency. Technically you would still run into trouble if you go down to microscopic scales or single atoms, but for practical purposes this would be an analog currency.

How could BTC more analog than dollars? BTC was born in digital. It has source code. There is programmable functionality in every single BTC. It can only exist in digital.

BTC is closer to an analog signal, because it can, because of its theoretically divisibility, taken on arbitrary values.