I don't agree that polls about currency symbols in this forum are necessarily damaging though -
I guess 'damaging' is a bit of a strong word - but I think it helps entrench the shallow 'oh that looks good enough' choice. Using an existing glyph out there on websites does the same I guess. ..I don't see the big disadvantage of using "BTC" or an image in the meantime until we make it into the Unicode standard - I'm more interested in the long-term viability of Bitcoin and just recycling a symbol which is already in use will always be a poor compromise in my opinion.
Agreed. With the #-B variants we already have proposals for really compelling glyphs (in terms of appearance as well as inherent representation of Bitcoins foundations). I'm working on a font representation of the glyph right now which can hopefully serve as a starting point for further discussion and finally a well structured poll for a long-term new symbol.
Nice. It's easy to throw up a poll with existing glyphs.. but creating good looking fonts is tricky I believe. I'd like to see what the community can come up with that is unique to bitcoin - and then it might be good to have a sticky poll. |
|
|
|
|
"I think we're getting somewhat close to the point where we stop seeing new miners "
I have a suspicion this is wrong.
There must be tens of millions (at least) of people who for some reason don't have access to a way to deposit funds to the exchanges (or don't want to for privacy reasons.. secret from spouse etc).
I suspect many such people will join mining pools with fairly average GPUs and generate very small BTC balances - especially if pools lower their payout threshold.
Whether all this low end mining adds up to much.. I don't know.. I just suspect that for some people, even though they may only end up with a balance on the order of millicoins, it'll be something they'll get into if bitcoin continues to get publicity and mindshare.
Once other ways of earning bitcoin, through work, local trade etc become possible - I guess those low end miners too may drop off. It could be a long time though.
|
|
|
|
This is one of the most thought provoking articles I've seen on bitcoin in a while. I hadn't thought of it in terms of opening up direct programmatic manipulation of money. |
|
|
|
Thanks for putting up a poll. It was hard to tell that this symbol is overwhelmingly preferred from the other post. Just think if you only allowed 1 vote...
I don't think this poll gives validity to 'overwhelmingly preferred' either. For starters - it would make more sense to give an indication of what the existing symbols are currently used for. Would ฿ get quite as many votes if it was mentioned alongside that this is already the symbol for the Thai Baht? What is the rationale for the options given? There are clearly others such as ƀ (not that I'd vote for that either) A proper poll wouldn't be conducted in this forum anyway I guess.. as bitcoinporn mentioned.. it'll probably just crop up again here in a mashed around form. These polls are damaging in my opinion because they are so 1 dimensional. It focuses on what looks good/familiar, without adequate consideration of the long term possibility of getting a genuinely unique-to-bitcoin glyph into the standards. A difficult feat for sure - but better for bitcoin I reckon. Boycott all existing glyphs for now and just use BTC until we get our own! |
|
|
|
|
lol.. well there goes my theory that casascius was throwing out this little puzzle to demonstrate how easy and convenient it is to import the keys from paper wallets!
|
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure some of you are overcomplicating the key import process.
If it's hidden in 'plain sight' - you probably don't need to hash it etc and use python or shell scripts.
Just work out which letters to read off e.g 1st and last letter of each word?
And follow the instructions on bitbills to import.
The impossible part for me is running a bitcoind that has the 'importprivkey' command.
The paper wallet thing looks interesting.. once the gui allows key import.
|
|
|
|
I was mainly using all that to make a point that gold is no better than bitcoins.
Which you failed to do. There is a striking difference between BGC and BTC. The BGC has a minimum lower value of whatever size chunk of gold a coin represents whereas a BTC has a minimum lower value of zero. |
|
|
|
|
I think I'm gonna have to give up. I can't find a website that imports private keys - and bitcoind crashes on my one working linux box.
Someone try importing TssgcsBChginpnst
Just a guess!
|
|
|
|
|
Can it currently be retrieved without linux?
|
|
|
|
Let's say I am an owner of gold and a seller of gold certificates. People would like to use gold, but it's hard to buy and sell things with it. I am honest; and trusted (people already buy my certificates).
snip
This would be utterly pointless. If people have to rely on a central counterparty to redeem their certificates for gold (or anything else - people have proposed that share registries might be maintained in a bitcoin block chain but again that would be pointless) that central counterparty might as well maintain the database of who owns what. There's no benefit to having a complicated distributed database like bitcoin for that when all the risk is already concentrated in a central counterparty. If your central counterparty is going got cheat you then they will. If the government forces the central counterparty to take some action then they will. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference if the central counterparty keeps the records of who owns what in a simple spreadsheet. But the central party doesn't record who owns what - it needs to be trusted only in so far as it issues certificates (or bitgoldcoin) only up to the value of what they hold in their vaults. As the OP stated, you have the advantage of being able to transfer it to whoever you want via the internet. That the central party needs to be trusted, or can be shut down by governments is a disadvantage compared to bitcoin - sure - but presumably it's the transferability, non-revocability, and double-spending protection that is the benefit. It's not so great from a purely libertarian perspective, nor from the point of view robustness and points of failure/attack - but it's a far cry from utterly pointless. |
|
|
|
ignoring some minor differences about how the coins/gold was introduced to the chain, we've gotten to a point where bitgold is equivalent to bitcoins.
Perhaps I'm not following your point exactly.. but wouldn't the trading value of these hypothetical bitgold coins be linked to whatever value gold is trading at? ie if 1 bitgold coin = 1 ounce .. then 1 bitgold coin (1 BGC) will always be valued at at least* whatever 1 ounce is trading at. The value bitgold coins are traded at may be at a premium for the convenience factor of easy transferability provided by the blockchain based system.. and presumably this premium could fluctuate just as wildly as bitcoins. You've pegged* the base value only. Now.. whether or not the underlying gold actually exists - if people trust it's backed by that gold then sure.. the lower value remains pegged to the gold price. This is where I don't understand your claim to equivalence to bitcoins. Bitcoins don't have any such pegging system and so have no lower bound. *regarding lower value peg: I say 1 BGC would be 'at least' valued at whatever gold unit it represents - but I guess there could be certain unlikely situations where it's less because people really would prefer to have the physical stuff.. e.g plausible rumours that the internet is about to collapse, imminent alien invasion,government crypto crackdown, a very effective virus running around stealing BGC or wikileaks releases the fact that your gold has been zapped. |
|
|
|
Hands up how many kiwis on the forum.
Born there.. but defected to Australia as a baby. (I don't recall why I convinced my parents to leave - but I must have had good reasons) New Zealand has traditionally been a testing ground for New Technology.
How do you mean? That global companies use you as market guinea pigs for products they're worried might actually be hare-brained? I know we tested a few british nukes on ourselves a while back.. pretty sure you guys took a different stance. Here in Aus, it seems we sometimes get used as a dumping ground for tech product that isn't selling well somewhere else because it's slightly crappy or there is a better model out. Maybe you get the same crap as us but they tell you it's the newest tech  |
|
|
|
As much as I love the new #-B combination, I'm not sure it works on a small scale:  I hope someone more talented is able to make a better looking version with 10 pixel height, because this is a must-have for a proper new symbol. Apart from that, I think the #-B is a great idea: It has similarity to other currency symbols, is distinct from any existing symbol and most importantly: it incorporates the symbol for the foundation of the Bitcoin system! Please, somebody make this scale and lets propose this as a new Unicode character! mm.. it is hard at that scale. I tried with the hash at the base: 1.00  icon size at 16x16 comes out a little better:  .. should probably leave it to the pros. |
|
|
|
|
I vote: forget about the glyph for now.
Use a sexy .png something like the image above, or the letters BTC.
Go for a proper unicode character once the bitcoin economy has some serious scale to it.
|
|
|
|
|
hmm.. ears vs legs... tough call.
The one with legs looks like it goes faster!
|
|
|
|
It's probably fine to use the Baht (฿), just as many in countries that officially use the cifrão (two slashes) will use the paso/dollar (one slash) for convenience. None the less, it's still valuable to have a distinct, meaningful glyph/logo, whether or not it can be typed on a keyboard today.  I think MtGox's ฿TC looks amateur. This hash B thing does rock. Would be nicer in my opinion if the hash were at the bottom of the B.. as if to say bitcoin is *based* on hashes.. but either way - I like it. |
|
|
|
For some system (e.g a multiplayer game) where very small transactions are the norm - everything might be denominated in µBTC or satoshi.
Oh, so the context seems to be relevant. How much do you weigh: 70 kg or grams? How far to the moon: 380000 mm? What's the global debt: 39 terradollars or micro? If we consistently stick with orders of three (10^n3), we'll be fine. And SI is appropriate for bits: kilo, mega, and thus milli, micro, nano, pico... Yes.. different contexts is the right way to think about it. If bitcoin were widespread and software available in mobile phones, the preferred unit in parts of rural Africa might easily already be in mBTC. Agreed that SI is nicest. Satoshi are an artifact of the 10^-8 divisibility of bitcoin which has a certain quaint appeal, but ideally it would just have been nano. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is disruptive enough as is - mainly I hope, in ultimately good ways.
The logistics of a currency symbol being incorporated into every single computer that is already in everyone's home, not going to happen. ... There is no way to properly handle this situation There is a proper way. The longer and more patient way that would ultimately gain bitcoin more respect. It's been done for the Euro, the Indian Rupee and others. See this article for a glimpse at how seriously countries take it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7923825.stm I am nearly fully sure that no country is going to be okay with a swiping of their old relic to make way for new world order.
Indeed not.. Oh wait, now I'm sounding like one of the kooks
Well.. a bit, yeah.. I don't understand the impatience to get the symbol, let alone one that gives none of the status that a new bitcoin-specific one would give. Work on getting the currency accepted by merchants and at least tolerated by nations and the rest will follow. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
