A very strong and direct rebuttal of Krugman's recent comments:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1347791-krugman-missed-bitcoin-s-value

and maybe a good opportunity for people to add comments of their own

Sadly, no response to the email sent to SIX.

However, things are looking good on that petition, almost 200 signatures now:

http://www.change.org/petitions/six-interbank-clearing-include-a-symbol-for-bitcoin-in-iso-4217

Maybe change.org should pay people in BTC for clicking?

It is not necessary to `get legality' for Bitcoin itself.  The use of Bitcoin in a particular jurisdiction may be no different to the use of any particular foreign currency.  So, if you live in Venezuala or Argentina (which have exchange controls) than the use of Bitcoin may be no more or less legal than the use of the US dollar.

If you live in a place without exchange controls, such as an EU country, then Bitcoin itself is probably not much different to using any foreign currency (e.g. taking some British pounds into France is not illegal, even though Sterling has no official status in French law).  If a taxi driver in Paris agrees to accept your Sterling because you have no Euro change, that's completely legal, so wouldn't it be the same for Bitcoin?

What is important is for governments to avoid confusion about Bitcoin.  For example, many other forms of digital currency are a form of debt redeemable for a fiat currency at a specified 1-to-1 exchange rate.  Those currencies are strongly regulated because they could be a ponzi scheme if the issuer produced more tokens than they have in reserve.  As Bitcoin doesn't claim to have any reserve or fixed rate of exchange, it shouldn't fall under such regulations: but it is important to make sure that Governments understand the distinction.


These two points contradict each other.  90% of today's fiat money is purely electronic (tangible coins or notes only exist for 10% of the money supply).  Money changers on the street need a way to deal with surpluses and deficits in any particular currency.  The electronic banking system allows them to do that.

If money changers have to deal with surpluses and deficits in Bitcoin and can't do that electronically, they will presumably start charging higher premiums for Bitcoin, or won't touch them at all.

When the money changer in the street is able to pay his rent and power bills using Bitcoin, then it might be a different story.


Many software vendors will include the currency symbol (e.g. gnucash has said they won't include the symbol if it is not in ISO 4217)

There is now a new thread on this topic, much more up to date:

  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123600.0

and a petition has been started on change.org to get the ISO to act:

  http://www.change.org/petitions/six-interbank-clearing-include-a-symbol-for-bitcoin-in-iso-4217

The choice of BTC as the code may not be ideal, as it does not respect the ISO format.  However, the emerging use of this psuedo-symbol which doesn't respect the ISO pattern is one example of why the ISO should have acted preemptively to register a currency symbol.


Actually, what are the official criteria for recognition of a currency on the ISO list?  If the criteria themselves are wrong, then maybe the ISO itself needs to look at it's definition of the word `currency', as SIX may only be able to work within ISO policy guidelines.

Also, I notice someone has now kicked off a petition, great idea:

http://www.change.org/petitions/six-interbank-clearing-include-a-symbol-for-bitcoin-in-iso-4217

I've tweaked the conclusion paragraph as you suggested.  Thanks for the feedback.

There is a thread about getting BTC (or possibly some other 3 letter code for Bitcoin) added to the official ISO 4217 list
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=7205.0

Previous attempts to have BTC listed were rejected, but I believe new evidence has emerged during 2012 that contradicts the arguments used to reject BTC in 2011

Can people comment on this?



Here is the submission I have sent requesting registration of the BTC (or equivalent) symbol in ISO 4217:


To: office@currency-iso.org

Dear Sir,

I understand you administer the official ISO 4217 list of currency codes

I understand you have previously received requests to register the
currency code for Bitcoin, BTC, which is in widespread use in the public
domain.

I also understand you have previously denied such requests with the
following statements:



"1. The currency code is not linked to any country code.
2. The currency code is considered a 'private currency' and not used for
tender in any country.
3. There will be no international payments denominated in Bitcoin
therefore an ISO currency code for the Bitcoin is not applicable.
4. The Institution responsible for the Bitcoin does not appear to be
recognized internationally or have any official status. Neither Reuters
or Bloomberg provides market data related to its use. "



I would like to ask you to consider new evidence concerning the status of
Bitcoin:

a) the list ISO 4217 includes the currency codes XAU, XAG, XPD and XPT
for the precious metals.  These are not linked to any country code, so
this contradicts your assertion (1) above.

b) although XAU and XAG are specified in the United States constitution,
XPD and XPT are not widely acknowledged as a currency and have no
significant historic use as a currency.  XPD and XPT are not tender in
any country, yet you have allowed them in ISO 4217, this contradicts
your assertion (2) above.

c) many web sites appear to accept payments denominated in Bitcoin.  As
the world wide web is an international communication network, this
facilitates international payments.  This appears to contradict your
point (3) above.

d) XAU and the other precious metals are backed by physical properties
that distinguish them from other natural elements.  Consequently the
alchemists of yesteryear could never succeed in turning lead into gold,
just as no institution or government could decree that some other
substance was gold.  This demonstrates that the involvement of a
government or institution is not an essential criteria for a currency to
be recognised as such.  Bitcoin is not simply a digital currency or a
digital record of a debt, it is a cryptographic currency, and its
nature is based on the rules of mathematics rather than the good faith
and credit of its inventor or an issuer.  The integrity of the Bitcoin
is based on the integrity of the algorithm alone and the involvement of
any government or institution would be superfluous.  This contradicts
your point (4) above.

e) ETH Zurich, an institute that you are no doubt aware of as your own
organisation is rooted in Switzerland, recently made a comprehensive
study of the security and integrity of the Bitcoin currency.  Their
report is published here and is a clear acknowledgment of the fact that
Bitcoin is in widespread use:
http://www.ethlife.ethz.ch/archive_articles/120924_Neuer_Globe_Bitcoin_fw/index_EN

f) The European Central Bank recently published a study on digital forms
of cash, and Bitcoin was the most significant element of their report,
published here:
http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemes201210en.pdf

g) The North American Clearing House Association recently invited the
CEO of BitInstant to speak at their `Annual Global Payments Forum'
http://paritynews.com/web-news/item/322-world-operates-on-an-inferior-monetary-system-says-bitinstant

h) Bitcoin is widely reported in official media outlets, including the
Economist, Financial Times, Wall Street Journal and news reports from
Reuters and Bloomberg.  For these organisations to report market data
for a symbol, it appears the symbol needs to be registered first (for
example, a stock symbol or an ISO currency symbol is not assigned by
Reuters themselves).  This further contradicts your point (4) above.

I hope you will re-examine the status of Bitcoin in greater depth and
come to the conclusion that the registration of the currency code
(either BTC or an equivalent code) is consistent with the registration of other non-fiat currencies
such as XAU and is in the public interest.

Sincerely,

GDP (gross digital product)

and this is number 5

Ok, 60 people have read it now, so I've added `do not read' to the subject, hopefully I'll be able to comment in other areas of the forum real soon now after my 5 posts and 4 hours to pass the newbie catcher

I can't believe it, 48 people have read this topic already.

3 more posts and then I am allowed to make replies to real topics

As this is a newbie topic, I have to make five posts for my account to work properly, this is my first post

I would like to reply to the thread about getting an official ISO code, but someone needs to unrestrict my account.

Here are the comments I would like to add to the thread:

SIX has refused to register BTC, giving various reasons, such as the lack of any formal government backing for the currency.

Nobody in that thread has noticed that XAU and other codes have no official government or institution backing them, but they exist in the ISO 4217 list.

Also, the ISO list is administered by SIX, the Swiss exchange.  ETH Zurich, one of Switzerland's top universities, recently studied bitcoin security in depth, a clear acknowledgement that bitcoin is notable.

Even more, European Central Bank has recently published a detailed study acknowledging bitcoin as a form of cash.

These details belong in that thread as they provide strong counter-arguments against SIX's initial refusal to list BTC officially.

Another alternative would be for ISO 4217 to be split into `fiat' symbols and non-fiat (e.g. BTC and XAU, XAG, etc).