Topic: A difference of opinions at the Bitcoin Foundation regarding the XBT proposal? - page 3. (Read 5043 times)

Agreed. How can bitcoin be a success if people doesnt know what it is?

I have over 20 years experience working on FX systems, and I strongly advise that the primary objective here, with the standards authorities, is:

[An official ISO code] = 100 satoshis.

If Bitcoin is to remake the mainstream financial world, this will give it a massive advantage, but obtaining any other official standard will be of little benefit in comparison.


If we can get two currency codes, that would be excellent. However, the standards people would want to see them alphabetically contiguous, so XBT:XBU could fly, but XBI:XBT is improbable.

I concur. There should be only two currency codes, and at the extremes, no half measures to confuse the fuck out of average people. The largest unit, 1 BTC=XBT, and the smallest subunit, 1 satoshi/0.00000001 BTC=XST.

We need to lock in the smallest subunit, the furthest point of divisibility. If 1 XST ends up being exchanged to $0.01 USD, then 1 XBT will be equal to $1,000,000 USD.

Clients should allow setting XBT or XST as the default display (with appropriate warnings), and pricing can be displayed both ways in the global marketplace. No changes in the way TXs are constructed in the background would be necessary.

I'd like to propose 1 XST = 1 satoshi.



Many people will now protest that "XST" bears no resemblance with our "brand name" Bitcoin.

To those I will respond:
The Chinese currency Renminbi bears no resemblance with "CNY" either, even though the latter is its official ISO 4217 code.
So, as the most populous country in this world is able to cope with that, the rest of the world can understand it, too.


The advantages of using satoshi are (at least) threefold:
The unit "satoshi" is unambiguously defined, the term has developed naturally, and it is universally accepted, even by those who prefer a different unit.

These are three important properties for standardisation.

What's actually wrong with XBT=1BTC (100m sats), since we could popularise usage of millibitcoin (BTC0.001)? It's easier to comprehend by average Joe, since it's closer in value to $1. So the chewing gum would be mBTC0.98, which looks better than 0.00098 or 980.

With XBT=100 sat, the brand/name of "bitcoin" would suffer a serious blow. If all the major players start using terms "XBT" or "bits", there would be no practical use for "Bitcoin". In terms of brand awareness, we would have to start from scratch. Loads of people worldwide heard of 'bitcoin' (even if they don't fully realise what it is), if the name is changed (and also the exchange rate etc) they probably wouldn't even know that XBT (bit) and Bitcoin relate to the same thing.

Have you made up a problem to warn people about?

If not, show where someone has made a 1 million x error please.

If so, why make up imaginary problems when there are lots of real ones?

I'm on the working group. There are lots of options for units to go with an ISO 4217 currency code. Would XBT = 100M satoshis (1 bitcoin) be better than XBI = 100 satoshis (1 bit)?

If XBT = 1 bitcoin, I don't foresee people writing 0.00098 XBT to describe the cost of bubblegum. People _might_ write 980 XBI though.

I think we need more community input on this choice. Can we get two currency codes? Doubtful, but is worth discussing.

Another related idea that I think needs community input is getting a Unicode currency symbol(s). We are all used to using BTC for bitcoin and some are starting to use ƀ for bits...unfortunately, a capital ƀ is Ƀ, which is also used for 1 bitcoin. Nothing like a capitalization error to cost you 1 million times more than you wanted to spend!

Should we try to get Unicode characters for 1 bitcoin and 1 bit? Just bits? Just bitcoin?

A benefit of using 1 bitcoin as a standard is that the symbol µ is separately encoded in Unicode from the Greek letter μ (which case folds to the Greek letter Μ).

Therefore, 1 µXBT and 1 µBTC shouldn't accidentally change value at the whim of a shift key.

I think a wide discussion is needed. Bitcoin is different. It's global. Different cultures would likely have different opinions and we should push for standards that meet all those needs.

This is demonstratably false:

Last time this topic came up "bits" was leading the polls, e.g. this one.
In a more recent poll, "bits" only ranked second, i.e. it is declining in popularity.



(I'm well aware that these polls are not representative. If you have any better evidence, then cite it.)

For me the issue of adoption comes first. Not sure about others but maybe we can just reach a consensus later part. So if i understand correctly, if follow the ISO standard 1 btc will essentially mean 1 000 000 XBT. I don't see an issue here as most people are holding a fraction of a complete coin so the number actually doesn't sound too big

I'm against denominating bitcoin (when XBT=Bitcoin=100 satoshi), but the above could work.

From the quoted article:


So if XBT is registered as 'Bit', 'Bitcoin' could be submitted as 'major unit' and 'satoshi' as 'minor unit'. That's pretty important, otherwise it would be very strange if the word 'Bitcoin' was not mentioned anywhere in the application.


But still think it could cause unnecessary confusion. After all, if XBT=Bitcoin, it's not really stopping anyone from using 'millibits' or 'bits'.

Me too. I started supporting this proposal sometime earlier this year. It still feels right.

It also seems opposition is much less fierce than last time the topic bubbled to attention.


I can't quite get myself to like that.

btw, the "bit proposal" is supported by Gavin now (for whatever that's worth): Gavin Andresen: 'I think everybody should switch to talking in "bits"

I like this too, and think it is the best option.

However, an alternative is to try and get two ISO codes, with XBT for 1 bitcoin and XBU for millionths (which would be used in existing financial systems).

Of course, this will change rapidly in the next few years as adoption/price rises, or it will be irrelevant because the experiment has stagnated/failed.

OK. First, he says that Bitcoin = Bitcoin so that we don't cause confusion. Then, he says that 8 decimal places are still confusing for common people, and that the working group will recommend Bitcoin subunits.

I don't see how that's a contradiction. He still wants to maintain Bitcoin as the main currency, just not use the 8 decimal places as the common subunit.

We still get to name it, but try not to pick a confusing name. Why is that so hard?