Topic: BTC into ISO 4217 currency list (letters to ISO, but remember the petition!) - page 2. (Read 8535 times)
November 10, 2012, 09:25:43 AM
Well written new peer!
November 10, 2012, 09:05:11 AM
Nicely written OP. I too am quite interested to see the how they respond to this.
November 10, 2012, 08:01:16 AM
ISO would be interesting and give organizations pause to think about its application with this certification.
November 10, 2012, 07:55:32 AM
The "BTC" code will be used because it is useful, not because the ISO endorses it.
The choice of BTC as the code may not be ideal, as it does not respect the ISO format. However, the emerging use of this psuedo-symbol which doesn't respect the ISO pattern is one example of why the ISO should have acted preemptively to register a currency symbol.
Quote
And the ISO will not endorse it unless it is already past the tipping point anyway.
Actually, what are the official criteria for recognition of a currency on the ISO list? If the criteria themselves are wrong, then maybe the ISO itself needs to look at it's definition of the word `currency', as SIX may only be able to work within ISO policy guidelines.
Also, I notice someone has now kicked off a petition, great idea:
http://www.change.org/petitions/six-interbank-clearing-include-a-symbol-for-bitcoin-in-iso-4217
November 10, 2012, 07:20:58 AM
Great research.
Their former reasons have without doubt been proved to be unvalid.
Will be interesting to see what their action will be.
Their former reasons have without doubt been proved to be unvalid.
Will be interesting to see what their action will be.
November 10, 2012, 07:01:52 AM
Very intresting, an ISO mark would be taken serious by many sceptics,
Very currious about the out come of it..
Very currious about the out come of it..
November 10, 2012, 06:34:50 AM
I've tweaked the conclusion paragraph as you suggested. Thanks for the feedback.
Yup - that's seems better to me - I've send a report message to the mods (not sure if that's actually the right protocol though) - hopefully one of them will notice and move this for you.
Whitelisted and moved.
Note that I can't merge topics in Bitcoin Discussion - I'll have to PM theymos about this.
November 10, 2012, 06:33:47 AM
I've tweaked the conclusion paragraph as you suggested. Thanks for the feedback.
Yup - that's seems better to me - I've sent a report message to the mods (not sure if that's actually the right protocol though) - hopefully one of them will notice and move this for you (perhaps best to also post a link to this topic in the Whitelist Requests topic).
November 10, 2012, 06:28:57 AM
consider removing the "undermine" part (just sticking to the facts and technicalities should be enough).
I've tweaked the conclusion paragraph as you suggested. Thanks for the feedback.
November 10, 2012, 06:10:24 AM
Good stuff!
I think this has been very well worded - but I would maybe consider removing the "undermine" part (just sticking to the facts and technicalities should be enough).
Cheers,
Ian.
I think this has been very well worded - but I would maybe consider removing the "undermine" part (just sticking to the facts and technicalities should be enough).
Cheers,
Ian.
November 10, 2012, 06:00:48 AM
There is a thread about getting BTC (or possibly some other 3 letter code for Bitcoin) added to the official ISO 4217 list
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/suport-bitcoin-currency-code-btc-in-iso-4217-7205
Previous attempts to have BTC listed were rejected, but I believe new evidence has emerged during 2012 that contradicts the arguments used to reject BTC in 2011
Can people comment on this?
Here is the submission I have sent requesting registration of the BTC (or equivalent) symbol in ISO 4217:
To: [email protected]
Dear Sir,
I understand you administer the official ISO 4217 list of currency codes
I understand you have previously received requests to register the
currency code for Bitcoin, BTC, which is in widespread use in the public
domain.
I also understand you have previously denied such requests with the
following statements:
"1. The currency code is not linked to any country code.
2. The currency code is considered a 'private currency' and not used for
tender in any country.
3. There will be no international payments denominated in Bitcoin
therefore an ISO currency code for the Bitcoin is not applicable.
4. The Institution responsible for the Bitcoin does not appear to be
recognized internationally or have any official status. Neither Reuters
or Bloomberg provides market data related to its use. "
I would like to ask you to consider new evidence concerning the status of
Bitcoin:
a) the list ISO 4217 includes the currency codes XAU, XAG, XPD and XPT
for the precious metals. These are not linked to any country code, so
this contradicts your assertion (1) above.
b) although XAU and XAG are specified in the United States constitution,
XPD and XPT are not widely acknowledged as a currency and have no
significant historic use as a currency. XPD and XPT are not tender in
any country, yet you have allowed them in ISO 4217, this contradicts
your assertion (2) above.
c) many web sites appear to accept payments denominated in Bitcoin. As
the world wide web is an international communication network, this
facilitates international payments. This appears to contradict your
point (3) above.
d) XAU and the other precious metals are backed by physical properties
that distinguish them from other natural elements. Consequently the
alchemists of yesteryear could never succeed in turning lead into gold,
just as no institution or government could decree that some other
substance was gold. This demonstrates that the involvement of a
government or institution is not an essential criteria for a currency to
be recognised as such. Bitcoin is not simply a digital currency or a
digital record of a debt, it is a cryptographic currency, and its
nature is based on the rules of mathematics rather than the good faith
and credit of its inventor or an issuer. The integrity of the Bitcoin
is based on the integrity of the algorithm alone and the involvement of
any government or institution would be superfluous. This contradicts
your point (4) above.
e) ETH Zurich, an institute that you are no doubt aware of as your own
organisation is rooted in Switzerland, recently made a comprehensive
study of the security and integrity of the Bitcoin currency. Their
report is published here and is a clear acknowledgment of the fact that
Bitcoin is in widespread use:
http://www.ethlife.ethz.ch/archive_articles/120924_Neuer_Globe_Bitcoin_fw/index_EN
f) The European Central Bank recently published a study on digital forms
of cash, and Bitcoin was the most significant element of their report,
published here:
http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemes201210en.pdf
g) The North American Clearing House Association recently invited the
CEO of BitInstant to speak at their `Annual Global Payments Forum'
http://paritynews.com/web-news/item/322-world-operates-on-an-inferior-monetary-system-says-bitinstant
h) Bitcoin is widely reported in official media outlets, including the
Economist, Financial Times, Wall Street Journal and news reports from
Reuters and Bloomberg. For these organisations to report market data
for a symbol, it appears the symbol needs to be registered first (for
example, a stock symbol or an ISO currency symbol is not assigned by
Reuters themselves). This further contradicts your point (4) above.
I hope you will re-examine the status of Bitcoin in greater depth and
come to the conclusion that the registration of the currency code
(either BTC or an equivalent code) is consistent with the registration of other non-fiat currencies
such as XAU and is in the public interest.
Sincerely,
GDP (gross digital product)
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/suport-bitcoin-currency-code-btc-in-iso-4217-7205
Previous attempts to have BTC listed were rejected, but I believe new evidence has emerged during 2012 that contradicts the arguments used to reject BTC in 2011
Can people comment on this?
Here is the submission I have sent requesting registration of the BTC (or equivalent) symbol in ISO 4217:
To: [email protected]
Dear Sir,
I understand you administer the official ISO 4217 list of currency codes
I understand you have previously received requests to register the
currency code for Bitcoin, BTC, which is in widespread use in the public
domain.
I also understand you have previously denied such requests with the
following statements:
"1. The currency code is not linked to any country code.
2. The currency code is considered a 'private currency' and not used for
tender in any country.
3. There will be no international payments denominated in Bitcoin
therefore an ISO currency code for the Bitcoin is not applicable.
4. The Institution responsible for the Bitcoin does not appear to be
recognized internationally or have any official status. Neither Reuters
or Bloomberg provides market data related to its use. "
I would like to ask you to consider new evidence concerning the status of
Bitcoin:
a) the list ISO 4217 includes the currency codes XAU, XAG, XPD and XPT
for the precious metals. These are not linked to any country code, so
this contradicts your assertion (1) above.
b) although XAU and XAG are specified in the United States constitution,
XPD and XPT are not widely acknowledged as a currency and have no
significant historic use as a currency. XPD and XPT are not tender in
any country, yet you have allowed them in ISO 4217, this contradicts
your assertion (2) above.
c) many web sites appear to accept payments denominated in Bitcoin. As
the world wide web is an international communication network, this
facilitates international payments. This appears to contradict your
point (3) above.
d) XAU and the other precious metals are backed by physical properties
that distinguish them from other natural elements. Consequently the
alchemists of yesteryear could never succeed in turning lead into gold,
just as no institution or government could decree that some other
substance was gold. This demonstrates that the involvement of a
government or institution is not an essential criteria for a currency to
be recognised as such. Bitcoin is not simply a digital currency or a
digital record of a debt, it is a cryptographic currency, and its
nature is based on the rules of mathematics rather than the good faith
and credit of its inventor or an issuer. The integrity of the Bitcoin
is based on the integrity of the algorithm alone and the involvement of
any government or institution would be superfluous. This contradicts
your point (4) above.
e) ETH Zurich, an institute that you are no doubt aware of as your own
organisation is rooted in Switzerland, recently made a comprehensive
study of the security and integrity of the Bitcoin currency. Their
report is published here and is a clear acknowledgment of the fact that
Bitcoin is in widespread use:
http://www.ethlife.ethz.ch/archive_articles/120924_Neuer_Globe_Bitcoin_fw/index_EN
f) The European Central Bank recently published a study on digital forms
of cash, and Bitcoin was the most significant element of their report,
published here:
http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemes201210en.pdf
g) The North American Clearing House Association recently invited the
CEO of BitInstant to speak at their `Annual Global Payments Forum'
http://paritynews.com/web-news/item/322-world-operates-on-an-inferior-monetary-system-says-bitinstant
h) Bitcoin is widely reported in official media outlets, including the
Economist, Financial Times, Wall Street Journal and news reports from
Reuters and Bloomberg. For these organisations to report market data
for a symbol, it appears the symbol needs to be registered first (for
example, a stock symbol or an ISO currency symbol is not assigned by
Reuters themselves). This further contradicts your point (4) above.
I hope you will re-examine the status of Bitcoin in greater depth and
come to the conclusion that the registration of the currency code
(either BTC or an equivalent code) is consistent with the registration of other non-fiat currencies
such as XAU and is in the public interest.
Sincerely,
GDP (gross digital product)
Jump to: