Topic: BTC into ISO 4217 currency list (letters to ISO, but remember the petition!) (Read 8535 times)

I'm just glad it doesn't matter what these idiots think

Any response from ISO4217 committee ?!

:-)

IF isoificating the BTC symbol is a good idea for publicity reasons, and there are no other drawbacks to doing so, then it might not be a bad idea.

Of course, if we have to do any kind of Faustian bargain, then fuck ISO.

Not such a smart move. Authorised legitimacy is not what Bitcoin needs, and accepting that money does need such authority is what got us into this situation in the first place. The people should agree which money is legitimate, not some committee of self-serving establishment drones.

Carlton does not approve this.  

Edit: Also, I think that creating a trusted and ubiquitous currency WITHOUT authorised legitimacy would help the people of the world to realise how misplaced their trust in established authorities is. I would strongly recommend all who support this action to consider what I am saying. When the tax authorities arrive at your door, and you end up in court when you rightly refuse to submit to having your Bitcoins confiscated, your position will be weakened by a move like this. The prosecution team will have an extra legal argument in their toolkit, and you will wish you never signed the petition.

Please, do not support this measure.

Great initiative!

Edit it and produce a proper bibliography with reference/citation notes, rather than having external references scattered within your letter.
Consider using one of the accepted citation systems. (Harvard?)

Keep it very factual and if possible cite other sources that have been peer reviewed (do a search for such articles)
HC

Please be advised that an ISO alternate registry of currencies and currency-like commodities has just been proposed via the IETF.

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stanish-x-iso4217-a3-00

This approach works around the situation by removing the present effective monopoly of registration via SIX (who it should be noted are closely affiliated with SWIFT, and thus may be reasonably considered to have a possible conflict of interest in this registration).

- Walter / http://ifex-project.org/

I signed this, but that site says 100,000 signatures required. That makes me wonder... how many people are using Bitcoin?

They can't, because change.org can't make change.

(See what I did there?  )

Sadly, no response to the email sent to SIX.

However, things are looking good on that petition, almost 200 signatures now:

http://www.change.org/petitions/six-interbank-clearing-include-a-symbol-for-bitcoin-in-iso-4217

Maybe change.org should pay people in BTC for clicking?

Thanks for replying.. Very interesting..

I agree with two who replied, and you made good points.. Thanks

It is not necessary to `get legality' for Bitcoin itself.  The use of Bitcoin in a particular jurisdiction may be no different to the use of any particular foreign currency.  So, if you live in Venezuala or Argentina (which have exchange controls) than the use of Bitcoin may be no more or less legal than the use of the US dollar.

If you live in a place without exchange controls, such as an EU country, then Bitcoin itself is probably not much different to using any foreign currency (e.g. taking some British pounds into France is not illegal, even though Sterling has no official status in French law).  If a taxi driver in Paris agrees to accept your Sterling because you have no Euro change, that's completely legal, so wouldn't it be the same for Bitcoin?

What is important is for governments to avoid confusion about Bitcoin.  For example, many other forms of digital currency are a form of debt redeemable for a fiat currency at a specified 1-to-1 exchange rate.  Those currencies are strongly regulated because they could be a ponzi scheme if the issuer produced more tokens than they have in reserve.  As Bitcoin doesn't claim to have any reserve or fixed rate of exchange, it shouldn't fall under such regulations: but it is important to make sure that Governments understand the distinction.


These two points contradict each other.  90% of today's fiat money is purely electronic (tangible coins or notes only exist for 10% of the money supply).  Money changers on the street need a way to deal with surpluses and deficits in any particular currency.  The electronic banking system allows them to do that.

If money changers have to deal with surpluses and deficits in Bitcoin and can't do that electronically, they will presumably start charging higher premiums for Bitcoin, or won't touch them at all.

When the money changer in the street is able to pay his rent and power bills using Bitcoin, then it might be a different story.


Many software vendors will include the currency symbol (e.g. gnucash has said they won't include the symbol if it is not in ISO 4217)

the article on shadowlife.cc is highly ideological and its reasoning is flawed.
there are no such things as "the state" or "the banks". there are states and banks, many of them. and each individually might very well have a specific reason to support bitcoin even though it might be detrimental to states or banks as a whole.

After reading some stuff in an article on shadowlife.cc http://shadowlife.cc/2012/11/necessary-conditions-for-the-long-term-success-of-bitcoin/,
I can only agree with those terms :

""
Three hypotheses for the long-term success of Bitcoin

So what does Bitcoin need to succeed in the long-run? In short, it needs no state, no banks, and OTC. The three hypotheses in more detail:

The Bitcoin community should not try to get legality for Bitcoin, we should not ask the state to resolve conflicts in the community.
The Bitcoin community should not focus on interoperability with the traditional banking system.
Widespread availability of over-the-counter (OTC) Bitcoin exchangers is crucial for Bitcoin to succeed in the long-run and give us more freedom.
""

What do BTC gets for being on this ISO list ?  (IMO, just attention, that could lead to some unwanted regulatoions)

I'm I wrong ?

Any tought ?

This is actually a very good response. I concede.

cheap promo. there's an audience to the ISO updates, they might not be aware of bitcoin.

You all who want the ISO to recognize XBC as a currency / ticker symbol are under the delusion that bringing facts to these people will persuade them.

They rejected it the first time, and their rejection was entirely irrational and their excuses had zero factual basis.

What makes you all think that this time will be any different?

What does it matter to you that you have to beg for strangers' approval?

What does it matter if some strangers say "yes, XBC is a thing"?

OP correction.

maybe XBT would be bitcoin code compliant with ISO rules?
since BTx is reserved for bhutan ; )
and yes, great OP

Good post and good initiative!
I might add that Bitcoin is recognized and being displayed at British Museum:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoins-at-the-british-museum-122274