People need to stop calling Bitcoin "a virtual currency"

[666uazan]

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

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.

[agath]

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.

[Gimmelfarb]

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.

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.

[Biodom]

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.

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.
 

[DubFX]

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.

[littlewizard]

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

[Erdogan]

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.

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.

[BCB]

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

Good find.  Interesting.

[STAyre]

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

[FlowerMatt]

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.

[FlowerMatt]

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

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.

[FlowerMatt]

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

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.

[mamarried]

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.

[RepublicSpace]

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.