Topic: A difference of opinions at the Bitcoin Foundation regarding the XBT proposal? (Read 5043 times)

^ Everything here is sensible ^


No. The purpose of an ISO is to help make bitcoin amounts easily represented in the world's non-bitcoin, existing, mainstream/legacy financial/accounting systems.
A 2dp code achieves this best. In fact, 99% of them expect it.

Yes, everyone needs to be considered. The only clean solution here, to make it right for everyone, is to hide the ISO 4217 code in the back-end whenever possible, and display to the user whatever their locale settings are. The average wallet software should allow this kind of flexibility.
This way the ISO code would become a pure technicality for low layer applications. It makes sense to use the same unit as used in the blockchain / by the protocol then, doesn't it?


How is that any different than µBTC?

MOST people are used to 2 decimal place currencies. So by your own comment, they need to be considered.

And satoshis are too ridiculously small to be useful.

As the wikipedia article mentions:

This is simply wrong:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_4217

There are hundreds of millions of people who use currency which is not subdivided into hundredths. Why would they want to adopt two decimal places, just because bitcoin?

An international standard needs to treat all peoples equally. I think we should choose the lowest common denominator (i.e. the smallest possible denominational unit) as a compromise between the diverse financial traditions.

I don't even think this should be a debate. Every ISO currency makes use of 2 decimal places.

OP has missed the entire point. The number of digits after the decimal is currently defined as 8. This could change at a later date to 10 or more digits, to support a world in which the exchange rate (or other factors) calls for finer delineations.  If/when that happens, the magic "2 digits to the right" that OP is after will go away anyways.

The number of digits to the right of the decimal is in many ways arbitrary. Changing it is unlikely to prove controversial.

However, the location of the decimal is absolutely not arbitrary and is extraordinarily unlikely to ever change. If you have 1.1 Bitcoin today, you will (barring spending) have 1.1 Bitcoin tomorrow. This is the base promise of Bitcoin. 1.1 will not become 1,100 any more than 21 million will become 21 billion.

With this in mind, 1 XBT = 1 Bitcoin seems to be the only logical choice.

In any event, XBT is very unlikely to replace "Bitcoin" in everyday verbal usage. If you want the world to begin speaking in uBTC/mBTC/bitc, price your merchandise accordingly.

Biodom, good news for you. Jon Matonis resigned.


https://twitter.com/jonmatonis/status/527846975769956352

Numbers larger than 999 are generally presented with commas for readability. There is no convention for digit separators for numbers less than zero. So your comparison should be

BTC99.15 = XBT 99,150,000
BTC1.456 = XBT 1,456,000
BTC0.025 = XBT 25,000
BTC0.00286 = XBT 286

Only the last two of these numbers is in the range of realistic daily transactions (e.g. song download or lunch), which are the transactions the display unit should be optimized for.

Then people will get even more confused I think.. 100million will be 1 btc, while 1million seems more logical. I say we go with 1000 mbtcs = 1 btc, not too large not too small, just perfect.

This seems like a *storm in a teacup* to me.

No-one is asking anyone to change the way that their preferred Wallet displays things - the idea of an XBT code is just for *standards compliance* so whatever is *normal practice* is of course what should be used for that (do most people concern themselves with XAU when talking about gold?).

Having 2 decimal places for the ISO standard makes sense, and it doesn't affect the conversion or other factors.

Just for perspective, there are 1000000 Zimbabwean Dollar notes, so having values like 1000000XBT to represent 0.01BTC isn't too far-fetched.

But there are a few currencies worth only 1/100s(even the JPY) or even 1/10000s of the mighty USD, so why not the other way round?
This argument is not viable.

I tried to compile an overview of possible choices for an ISO 4217 application, and assigned codes for easy reference.
Here's the list, ordered alphabetically:


[BI2] — Apply for 1 XBI = 100 satoshis, with one subunit and two decimal places.

[BT2] — Apply for 1 XBT = 100 satoshis, with one subunit and two decimal places.

[BT8] — Apply for 1 XBT = 100000000 satoshis, with various subunits and eight decimal places.

[BU2] — Apply for 1 XBU = 100 satoshis, with one subunit and two decimal places.

[ST0] — Apply for 1 XST = 1 satoshi, with no subunits and zero decimal places.

[UB2] — Apply for 1 XUB = 100 satoshis, with one subunit and two decimal places.



I think it would be beneficial if we work through the list of choices and discuss the pros and cons of each item individually.

Here are my thoughts:

There is a serious problem with variant [BT2] because the currency code XBT is already used on a lot of sites with the definition 1 XBT = 100 million sats. When the ISO committee sees that the proposed unit is grossly incompatible with current practice, they will certainly reject the application.
This means that all those sites would have to switch to the new definition 1 XBT = 100 sats before we can submit the application. This switch would require a huge organisational effort. There would need to be consensus for a specific "switch date", when the old definition (1 XBT = 100 million sats) gets replaced with the new definition (1 XBT = 100 sats). Given Bitcoin's decentralised nature, it would be hard (if not impossible) to find consensus for any particular date.
And even if the switch is successful, people would wonder how to pronounce the unit XBT: Those people who traded on sites that just switched would certainly perceive this as a stock split, and thus call it "new bitcoin" (versus "old bitcoin" with previous definition). The "bits" proponents, on the other hand, would call it "bit", while still refering to 1 million bits as a "bitcoin".
Some people would accept this re-definition, others won't. I think it is likely that this will create a schism in the Bitcoin community. It is also likely that certain players will use this situation to spread fear, uncertainity, and doubts about Bitcoin.
Even if all of the above difficulties are successfully handled, this would slow down the standardisation process for additional — I guess — six to twelve months.

A much more frictionless approach would be [BT8]. In this case the standardisation process would be quickest, because the code XBT is already widely employed and it would be (comparably) easy to convince the ISO people to officialise this de-facto standard.
The big disadvantage here are the eight decimal places. Most financial software allows a maximum of four decimal places. Eight is too many. It is also very inconvenient for human users, thus requiring any front-ends to support a customised (non-ISO) display.

The options [BI2], [BT2], [BU2], and [UB2] have in common that they would give preference to one of the many names for 100 satoshis, which means that the other groups would be dissatisfied and flamewar against it. Finding a consensus here seems to be very difficult, maybe impossible. This would also slow down the standardisation process for some time, because one needs to wait for consensus to emerge.
The advantage here is that quite a lot of currencies (especially in western cultures) use two decimal places, too, which means that this would make Bitcoin more familiar to users of these currencies.

Lastly, the option [ST0] doesn't have a "B" in it, which requires people to understand the distinction between a currency (like "Sterling", "Renminbi") and its unit (like "pound", "yuan"). This proposal has the advantage that there are no naming issues, and no conflicting meanings, i.e. the standardisation process would be frictionless. It wouldn't create any kind of schism in the community. It also has a kind of intellectual purity because values are expressed in exactly the same format as they are transmitted by the protocol and stored in the blockchain, i.e. plain integers.
The disadvantage here is that prices will often be expressed in thousands of satoshis, probably written as "k sat" (with the "k" being postfixed to the number) or "ksat" (with the "k" being prefixed to the unit).

the term "bits" is not important in the ISO code discussion. The benefit of ISO currency codes that they provide a standard for inter-system communication, financial data storage and transmission from computer to computer around the world. ISOs do not need to be seen by the public. People use US$ informally instead of USD, and A$ instead of AUD.

People who want to see BTC and the existing Bitcoin amounts 1.23456789 on their screens, can still do so, even if this amount is stored as XBT 1234567.89 in an accounting system.

Reading what Jon Matonis has written, makes me think that he needs to talk more with IT people who work on accounting and payment systems.


Sorry, no, just personal experience from interacting with standards people during securities issuance.

Essentially, yes, but you don't have to call these units bits "officially".

Because if it is a commodity, then there are commodities priced as high or higher per unit (gold, platinum, etc.)
However, there are no currency units priced in hundreds of US dollars.
My argument was to refute opinions based on prior anecdotes (how everyone laughed at Italy, whether we will measure bitcoins in grams or Zimbabwe-all provided by Mr. Matonis in one go)

Does anyone has actual knowledge regarding ISO application?
Do we know for sure that it is possible?
Who will prepare/submit the application? Bitcoin Foundation?

Also, how does the approval process work? Is it:

1) There are very specific criteria, if those are met - application is automatically approved' or
2) Approval/decline is solely an ISO's decission (even if criteria are met, they can reject the application)?


In either case, if the criteria are currently met (such as Bloomberg/Reuters reporting, exchanges, international payments and recognition) - these are met by the bitcoin in it's present shape (8 decimals), not by 'bits' or bitcoin=100 satoshis.

I can't imagine ISO approving application for XBT=bitcoin=100 sat based on multiple factors, including Bloomberg reporting on bitcoin, while Bloomberg reports on bitcoin being 100,000,000 sat.

Seems to me that forcing the denomination idea can jeopardise the application.

If you want XBT= bit or bitcoin=100 sat, isn't the correct way of action first to make everyone switch to 'bits' and then apply for the ISO code?

How is this relevant for the definition of “currency”?

Additional comments:
1. having 21 trillion XBT[XBU]/[new]bitcoin/bits=100 satoshi will bring total number of bitcoin major units closer to major nation GDP values and would facilitate:
a. more commerce simply because everyone will have more units. This is is trivial mathematically, but beneficial psychologically.
b. easier understanding from people who are known to be unable to properly process multiple digits after the period in value evaluation.

2. Bitcoin can work toward eventual unity (equality) with the dollar, yan or other major currency (yen to yuan to $ to euro)

3. If bitcoin is a currency, can Mr Matonis provide an example of a currency that is valued at ~$300-400? There is none, of course, so this historical precedent works against bitcoin having 8 digits after the period.

It may be useful to quote Jon Matonis' comment from that article. He has some solid points: