BTC vs. XBT

[Syke]

So why XBT and not XBC?

XBC is taken.

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

[Swordsoffreedom]

@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.

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.

[Peter Lambert]

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.

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.

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.

[Swordsoffreedom]

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.

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.

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)

[BitOnyx]

Any one using XBT over BTC ?!

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

[cozk]

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

lol

[btcusury]

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.

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.

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 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?

XBT (Guess we are stuck with it)

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).

[Peter Lambert]

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

[Swordsoffreedom]

XBT (Guess we are stuck with it)

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)  

Stuck with the X lol

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.

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.

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.

[btcusury]

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

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.

[Sukrim]

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.

[cbeast]

BTC is a commodity.
XBT is a currency.
QED

[btcusury]

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.

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

Conventional currencies are normally identified via ISO 4217 codes, typically alpha-3 codes such as 'EUR' and 'CNY'. The IFEX Project has proposed X-ISO4217-A3 as an IANA-managed registry of currencies and currency-like commodities not backed by the political recognition of a conventional nation-state that do not fall within the classical purview of the ISO, for example digital currencies.  Since reliable inter-system identification of any financial asset type is a requirement for reliable communication, and conventional foreign exchange liquidity with conventional currencies is often perceived as a soft-requirement for digital currency adoption, X-ISO4217-A3 should assist the digital currencies community with the development of a ecosystems supporting both conventional and emerging asset types: exchanges, hosted wallets, banks, etc.

BTC is a commodity.
XBT is a currency.
QED

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?

[cbeast]

BTC is a commodity.
XBT is a currency.
QED

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.

[ns12123]

There is no point of using XBT