[VOTE] ISO Currency Code bringing Bitcoin into the mainstream financial markets

[melvster]

Bitcoin needs an officially recognized currency code to get traction as a valid investment available within mainstream finance. Major benefits would result, which include an even stronger fx rate and a much harder target for central banks to try to kill off.

BTC is fine for an unofficial code, and it may become official if Bhutan registers it on Bitcoin's behalf. This will not be easy, but is do-able in theory. Further investigation shows their minor currency unit is the Chhertum, which means they are very unlikely to give up BTC.

Because Bitcoin is a world currency ideally it should have an X-code to reflect this.
Consider existing ones: XAG (Silver), XAU (Gold), XPD (Palladium) XPT (Platinum). If Bitcoin is "virtual gold" then it needs a code like the other precious metals.

Mainstream financial systems expect to settle with a valid ISO code, and would want to use it in the API with Mt Gox and other exchanges. BTC can run alongside an x-code, because two codes could be treated as valid for Bitcoin, although only the X-code would facilitate inter-system settlement. Ripple are further down the mainstream road in this respect as they have XRP defined which could be forced upon the standards authorities through pressure of widespread usage.

The poll above supports up to three votes per person, so a better ranked list can result, which is ideal as an official letter (from the Bitcoin Foundation perhaps) could offer several alternative codes to the standards authorities.

Background reading:

http://www.xe.com/iso4217.php

Campaign for XBT. A new ISO Currency Code is required for Bitcoin
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=148229.0

X-ISO4217-A3 (revised draft) Published
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=127604.0

3 Letter ISO codes are a bit 20th century.  That said, it's better to have one than NOT have one, but I'm not sure it's worth paying too much for ...

The 21st century way to do things is to give the currency a URL.  At the W3C Payments group we are going to add all the 3 letter ISOs to https://w3id.org/ and we'd probably be happy to add BTC (or other 3 letter code) to that list if you wanted a permanent ID there.

The principle here is that the web plays a role in removing gatekeepers, squatters and high barriers to entry like the ISO system...

[ArticMine]

I vote to keep BTC and use XBT for millibitcoin so that 1000 XBT = 1 BTC. The ISO currency code will be XBT and the mainstream financial markets can use XBT. Early adopters and other Bitcoin users can of course continue to use BTC, if they so wish. There are many examples where an ISO currency code has been changed due to inflation so in reality this is not that new. The only difference is that in this case it is changed among other things due to deflation.

[BitPirate]

^^ That's a pretty smart move...

1 XBT ~= 5 US cents

[Zomdifros]

I think going for BTC is a stupid move which will only delay in getting an ISO Currency Code. I can imagine people voting for BTC since we are so used to it, but this shouldn't be taken seriously.

So now what, is the Bitcoin Foundation going to lobby for XBT? Seems like an excellent job for them.

[grau]

Edit: It would be smart to assign XBT to 100 satoshi, so we have the split discussion out the way for good and retain the name for the change using magnitudes people are used to e.g. 1 $ = 100 cents.

We would have ca. 1 USD = 20,000 XBT or 1,000 XBT = 5 USD cents

Or using the FX codes standards:

USDXBT = 20,000
1000 XBTUSD = 0.05


Using USDXBT as standard reference would express USD weakening as XBT gets stronger, that would be a better message than XBT getting ever more expensive.

[solex]

...So now what, is the Bitcoin Foundation going to lobby for XBT? Seems like an excellent job for them.

Yes, indeed, I will ask them. A letter from the Bitcoin Foundation would carry more weight than from anyone else. However, I now understand that last year SIX rejected a request to give Bitcoin an ISO code, but I don't know where the request came from or the code(s) suggested.

The poll has only been going 8 days yet there is a consensus that an X-code is warranted and XBT is the front-runner of those.

There are several fronts in this war of attrition.

1. Bitcoin's monetary base (in USD) is now over $500 million which can't be ignored, and may even get to 10 figures this year, so a new request to SIX can point this out.

2. Mainstream partner banks of bitcoin firms could be asked to write a letter of support for a Bitcoin ISO code. These letters would be submitted with a new application to SIX, and they would help a lot, as these are the firms which the standards agency is meant to represent.

3. MagicalTux has indicated that Mt.Gox would consider supporting a new ISO code in addition to the existing BTC. If other major Bitcoin firms were to also support XBT as an alternate code then it would have a snowball effect. Every time a mainstream financial company decides to look at using Bitcoin they could be given XBT and told the official application is pending. This would be good enough to get some of them using it anyway,

If enough firms used XBT then the pressure for it to be officially recognized would be overwhelming.

[solex]

The 21st century way to do things is to give the currency a URL.  At the W3C Payments group we are going to add all the 3 letter ISOs to https://w3id.org/ and we'd probably be happy to add BTC (or other 3 letter code) to that list if you wanted a permanent ID there.

The principle here is that the web plays a role in removing gatekeepers, squatters and high barriers to entry like the ISO system...

This is excellent!  If you would check, and hopefully register these for Bitcoin that would be a great start.

XBT Bitcoin ISO currency code (application pending)
BTC Bitcoin currency code (informal use)

Please let us know if they would be accepted.

I vote to keep BTC and use XBT for millibitcoin so that 1000 XBT = 1 BTC. ...

ArticMine, BitPirate and grau

Informal ISO codes can be assigned for minor units. USX and GBX are sometimes used for cents and pence, Sometimes USc and GBp, it depends on the data vendors and banks.
XBS could be used for 1 satoshi. However 1 XBT needs to equal 1 BTC.

[grau]

XBS could be used for 1 satoshi, however XBT needs to equal 1 BTC.

I think the purpose of this initiative to open for mainstream.

I can tell from long experience with banking software, that dealing with fractions less than 1/100 for money is a challenge to them!
It is however not to deal with billions.

If we do this change to open for mainstream, then let us define XBT as 100 satoshi. This would fit perfectly with existing infrastructure and familiar to people. 

USDXBT (again using FX market standard conventions) would be about 20,000 now and declining as XBT strengthens expressing nicely that USD falls.

[Zomdifros]

XBS could be used for 1 satoshi, however XBT needs to equal 1 BTC.

I think the purpose of this initiative to open for mainstream.

I can tell from long experience with banking software, that dealing with fractions less than 1/100 for money is a challenge to them!
It is however not to deal with billions.

If we do this change to open for mainstream, then let us define XBT as 100 satoshi. This would fit perfectly with existing infrastructure and familiar to people. 

USDXBT (again using FX market standard conventions) would be about 20,000 now and declining as XBT strengthens expressing nicely that USD falls.

No, we shouldn't complicate things by defining arbitrary standards. One bitcoin should be one XBT.

Solex, compliments for your efforts! I believe that everything that will make Bitcoin more mainstream will significantly strengthen the project and improve the chance that we will be using it fifty years from now.

[solex]

XBS could be used for 1 satoshi, however XBT needs to equal 1 BTC.

I think the purpose of this initiative to open for mainstream.

I can tell from long experience with banking software, that dealing with fractions less than 1/100 for money is a challenge to them!
It is however not to deal with billions.

If we do this change to open for mainstream, then let us define XBT as 100 satoshi. This would fit perfectly with existing infrastructure and familiar to people.  

USDXBT (again using FX market standard conventions) would be about 20,000 now and declining as XBT strengthens expressing nicely that USD falls.

I see where you are coming from. I too have long experience with banking software and I agree a lot of them are limited in this respect, but mostly the 3GL mainframe systems. Newer (21st century) systems are more flexible. In FX trading it is common to quote in pips to 5dp or 6dp, check out oanda.com for example: http://fxtrade.oanda.co.uk/?&stop-geo-ip=yes&country=united%20kingdom&division=fxtrade.oanda.co.uk

They should be able to cope with Bitcoin's decimals.
It would just be too weird to have an ISO code for a value (1/100) which did not equal either the major or minor currency unit.

Solex, compliments for your efforts! I believe that everything that will make Bitcoin more mainstream will significantly strengthen the project and improve the chance that we will be using it fifty years from now.

Thanks!  I agree this is the way forward to help cement Bitcoin's future.

[grau]

XBS could be used for 1 satoshi, however XBT needs to equal 1 BTC.

I think the purpose of this initiative to open for mainstream.

I can tell from long experience with banking software, that dealing with fractions less than 1/100 for money is a challenge to them!
It is however not to deal with billions.

If we do this change to open for mainstream, then let us define XBT as 100 satoshi. This would fit perfectly with existing infrastructure and familiar to people.  

USDXBT (again using FX market standard conventions) would be about 20,000 now and declining as XBT strengthens expressing nicely that USD falls.

I see where you are coming from. I too have long experience with banking software and I agree a lot of them are limited in this respect, but mostly the 3GL mainframe systems. Newer (21st century) systems are more flexible. In FX trading it is common to quote in pips to 5dp or 6dp, check out oanda.com for example: http://fxtrade.oanda.co.uk/?&stop-geo-ip=yes&country=united%20kingdom&division=fxtrade.oanda.co.uk

They should be able to cope with Bitcoin's decimals.
It would just be too weird to have an ISO code for a value (1/100) which did not equal either the major or minor currency unit.

As you are proposing to fit to a 20th century standard, therefore you have to accept its limits.

Yes, FX markets that usually have 1/10000 BUT the accounting and bookkeeping software of banks and others do not.
I guarantee you, since had been working in biggest banks for decades, that they mostly can not deal with money fraction below 1/100, they can however deal with billions.

Please read again, I suggested to use the iso code XBT to be equal 100 satoshi, that means satoshi is the "cent" that does not need a code. 1 BTC would be 1 million XBT.

[molecular]

You have our support for BTC (if we can find someone to talk to in Bhutan) or XBT/XTC. Other names are not much representative of Bitcoin.

Neither is XTC. That is: it's only going to be understood by a small minorty.

[molecular]

Because Bitcoin is a world currency ideally it should have an X-code to reflect this.
Consider existing ones: XAG (Silver), XAU (Gold), XPD (Palladium) XPT (Platinum). If Bitcoin is "virtual gold" then it needs a code like the other precious metals.

Not sure, I'm thinking "is worldwide, isn't a metal".

But Bitcoins are made from bitium. That's a metal.

[solex]

Yes, FX markets that usually have 1/10000 BUT the accounting and bookkeeping software of banks and others do not.
I guarantee you, since had been working in biggest banks for decades, that they mostly can not deal with money fraction below 1/100, they can however deal with billions.

Please read again, I suggested to use the iso code XBT to be equal 100 satoshi, that means satoshi is the "cent" that does not need a code. 1 BTC would be 1 million XBT

You are right that an ISO code is needed for accounting systems which only support 1/100, because precision cannot be lost through rounding on Bitcoin amounts. However, this needs yet another code, like XBH for 100 satoshi.
There is too much inertia in the marketplace for quoting the fx rate between Bitcoin and fiat currencies as 1:1 and I can't see people changing that. So front-office systems will need to translate the ISO code on executions for back-office accounting systems.

So for Bitcoin to be acceptable in all computer systems then it seems that these are needed:

XBT = 1 BTC
XBH = 100 satoshi

And IT teams just need to work with those depending on the systems they have.  Sounds reasonable?

[grau]

Yes, FX markets that usually have 1/10000 BUT the accounting and bookkeeping software of banks and others do not.
I guarantee you, since had been working in biggest banks for decades, that they mostly can not deal with money fraction below 1/100, they can however deal with billions.

Please read again, I suggested to use the iso code XBT to be equal 100 satoshi, that means satoshi is the "cent" that does not need a code. 1 BTC would be 1 million XBT

You are right that an ISO code is needed for accounting systems which only support 1/100, because precision cannot be lost through rounding on Bitcoin amounts. However, this needs yet another code, like XBH for 100 satoshi.
There is too much inertia in the marketplace for quoting the fx rate between Bitcoin and fiat currencies as 1:1 and I can't see people changing that. So front-office systems will need to translate the ISO code on executions for back-office accounting systems.

So for Bitcoin to be acceptable in all computer systems then it seems that these are needed:

XBT = 1 BTC
XBH = 100 satoshi

And IT teams just need to work with those depending on the systems they have.  Sounds reasonable?

Introducing a new code is already a big change. Having two new codes is probably too much.

Since you recognized that accounting systems require divisibility by not more than 100, it is straightforward that such unit should be the main unit carrying the only ISO code.

It is however usual to prepare financial reports in thousand scale of the currency unit such as thousand USD or million USD.
In the Bitcoin economy that would be thousand XBT or million XBT, the later happens to equal BTC.

Honors to your initiative, that I believe fosters adoption. Please do not stop half-way, but define it in a way that makes adaption to existing systems and market conventions really easy. Remember it has to be easy for the rest of the world not us who are already used to Bitcoin's oddities.

[solex]

Since you recognized that accounting systems require divisibility by not more than 100, it is straightforward that such unit should be the main unit carrying the only ISO code.

grau, your input has been invaluable, thanks!

You have the identified the crucial factor which prevents Bitcoin from becoming integrated into mainstream finance, and that is the 8 decimal places of precision required which is beyond 99.9% of the world's accounting systems.
The debate about numerical representation of dollar amounts is interesting reading:
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/61872/use-float-or-decimal-for-accounting-application-dollar-amount

Further, because over 80% of the world's financial transactions are processed in COBOL systems the inertia of maximum 2dp currency amounts is impossible to overcome in the next 20 years, at least. This explains it well: http://www.itworldcanada.com/news/programmings-second-oldest-profession/144636

So, I concur, XBT alone would be sufficient as an ISO code for Bitcoin if it defines 100 satoshi or one millionth of a BTC. This means that Bitcoin amounts and transactions can be easily and quickly supported in the world's mainstream financial systems.

BTC is fine as an informal code for customer-facing usage, just as YEN is used instead of JPY. However, the extra step of multiplying/dividing by 10^6 will need doing as well for conversion to/from XBT by these systems for subsequent processing.

I believe this is the essential part of the next proposal to SIX to get Bitcoin its ISO recognition.

[grau]

I am glad to have your support. I believe your proposal helps mainstream adoption.

May I add an other suggestion to bring XBT even closer to conventions of mainstream financial markets:

FX (foreign exchange) markets use the convention XXXYYY (where XXX and YYY are ISO currency codes) to refer to an FX cross. The direction is given by the order.
Example: USDCHF means 1 USD in CHFs - or how many CHF you get for 1 USD. similarly EURUSD is 1 EUR in USD or how many USD you get for 1 EUR.

Since you could either quote USDCHF (currently about 0.94) or CHFUSD (currently about 1.06) this would drive everybody nuts trying to figure what you mean.
Therefore there is a market convention for every currency pair a particular direction is preferred for quoting.

Nearly all currencies are quoted on mainstream markets as USDXXX  (main exception is EURUSD and EURXXX crosses in Europe).

Aligning to that USDXXX majority, market standard quote would be USDXBT that is 1 USD in XBT currently about 20,000.

The beauty of this quote would be that if XBT strengthens it would sink. The message would be USD is falling and not BTC is getting ever more expensive.


Remark:
It would also be simpler for a customer to interpret a price in XBT, it would (currently) be roughly : forget the last 4 digits (likely 0s) and divide by 2 and you have dollars.
I also think that as XBT appreciates it gets cumbersome for customer to deal with prices in decimals below 0.01 but they will have no problems with ten thousands.

[solex]

grau, I understand the rationale of this suggestion, but here I think we have to agree to disagree.

You are discussing currency rankings for standardized cross-rate quoting, which has an interesting history.

The first properly quoted currency pair was GBPUSD, still known as cable, for which real-time quotes became possible in the 1800s when a telegraph cable was laid across the North Atlantic. Because sterling was the reserve currency at the time this rate was 1 GBP = n USD. Despite the USD becoming reserve currency the rate convention remained the same, and even the Australian and New Zealand dollars were ranked above the USD when they were invented and split off from sterling in the 1960s. GBP remained top ranked until Jan 1st 1999 when the euro became a currency (for financial transactions). The EU wanted EURXXX so that all currencies were quoted to 1 euro. Some banks in London rebelled, led by RBS, tried to make an exception for GBPEUR, but the market won out and they failed. So the euro elbowed sterling off the top rank.

Enter Bitcoin. In 2009 Bitcoin was first issued and the convention of BTCXXX has resulted, the market always quotes other currencies to 1 BTC. So Bitcoin has elbowed the euro off the top rank. I think this is how it should be as Bitcoin has gone from the world's weakest to strongest currency (per unit purchasing power) on its own merits!

This means that the XBTUSD rate would be .000047 at present, which is unwieldy today, but they may be 1:1 in 20 or 30 years time!

[moni3z]

I vote for no 'mainstream acceptance' then we don't end up taken over by wallstreet speculators.
Bitcoin will get where it wants to go eventually no reason to force it at every chance you get and wind up with everything crushed by regulators and gigantic banks. There's also a copyright on "X coin" so XBT might have problems

[jubalix]

YOUR CRAZY THEY LAST THING YOU WANT IT BTC RECONIZED AS AN OFFICAL CURRENCY< MAKES YOU SUBJECT TO A WHOLE RAFT OF LAWS>>>>

BITCOIN WILL SURVIVE AND THRIVE ON MERIT

YOU WANT TO MAKE IT GOV FIAT