Topic: BTC vs. XBT (Read 2507 times)

There is no point of using XBT

Labels are for legacy systems. They don't seem to have a problem with paper gold like GLD being traded like AU. It's their problem. If a sovereign defines Bitcoin as a commodity (i.e. China) then it's BTC, if a currency (i.e. Germany) then XBT. It would be interesting to have to pay a conversion fee when moving it between markets.

Interesting! Peter Lambert, check this out and see if it makes more sense to you than the old ISO 4217 standard.


Not quite QED, but an interesting idea. The only problem is that it adds unnecessary complexity. Why not have one universal symbol for the same currency/commodity/thing/idea?

BTC is a commodity.
XBT is a currency.
QED

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

Seems to have fizzed out a bit, but this proposal would allow you to use "BTC", "LTC" etc. while still conforming to a standard.

Again, the accepted standards you refer to were not designed for cryptocurrencies nor with cryptocurrencies in mind. ISO 4217 was created for a purpose whose scope (200 nation-states + X__ for commodities etc) is too small to encompass cryptocurrencies.

Using XBT would also mean that other cryptocurrencies must also conform to ISO 4217, so Litecoin might be XLT or XLC. Can you imagine all cryptocurrency symbols starting with an X? Terrible idea. This would also limit the number of cryptocoin symbols to about 660 (26^2-16). Your argument was more valid in 2011 before the altcoin explosion.

It's also about perception. When people see XBT, XLT, XDO, XPC, XPP, XAR, XQK (dogecoin, primecoin, ppcoin, auroracoin, quark), etc etc, they get an unconscious impression that these are somehow "less" than the non-X ones. When, in fact, the point we're trying to make is that they are "more", better.

And, if you grant the argument that cryptocurrencies will eventually replace fiat currencies due to rendering them technologically obsolete, then placing cryptocurrency symbols under the same standard used to represent the obsolete currencies is placing them under the same umbrella, which is counterproductive in fact and submissive in principle.

Only if we want to conform to a standard that was not designed for cryptocurrencies nor with cryptocurrencies in mind (because they didn't exist).

 
The X is applied to everything

Guess LTC would be
XLT
Powercoin
XPT
Namecoin
XNC
SexCoin
XXX (Xsc)  

Stuck with the X lol



In normal usage, like where you would use $, BTC is fine. For places like exchanges where USD would be used, the term XBT should be used to conform with accepted standards.

Are you saying gold and silver are less significant than government fiat? X means non-government, therefore universal. Therefore, these should be regarded as more significant.

In normal usage, like where you would use $, BTC is fine. For places like exchanges where USD would be used, the term XBT should be used to conform with accepted standards.

I put "non-standard" in quotes because I knew it wasn't the best term. Perhaps "non-government issued and therefore less significant" would be a better descriptor. The first part is what the X means and the second part is the impression it gives.

But that's just one reason why XBT is a bad idea, as I have pointed out. Perhaps you can point out some of the benefits of using XBT over BTC?


Only if we want to conform to a standard that was not designed for cryptocurrencies nor with cryptocurrencies in mind (because they didn't exist).

lol

Any one using XBT over BTC ?!

Well i guess it is they problem, not normal people.

I guess I would prefer it to be XBTC but I guess they need to be three letters and Bitcoin is not an element on the table so it has more letters

XBTC  (Too short)
XBTC (Too Long)
XBT (Guess we are stuck with it)

XBT does not indicate anything about "non-standard". In fact, it is the opposite, it indicates following the established international standards. XAU is gold, XAG is silver, those are not non-standard currencies, they are just currencies that were not issued by any national government. Likewise, bitcoin was not issued by a national government, so its code should start with X.

Think you are correct I meant in terms of a liquid exchange the fungibility of gasoline should not matter rather bureaucratic regulations can make the same product become slightly different to address superficial concerns, perhaps that was a bad example in that case I mean the difference between shell gasoline husky gasoline Amoco gasoline Texaco when you go to a gas station.

What I was trying to illustrate was that bitcoin could be branded differently if different companies advertised different things about them, or do you not see any brand value attached towards it. I read label as brand.

That said I think I misread your response

I read your post as a marketing question not as people will buy BTC over XBT if your point was the name is different but they are the same thing then I agree with you, if the question was if different firms were selling escrowing or holding bitcoin and individuals had a choice then I think some premiums may be given to certain firms and organizations over others.

This is observable with the difference in rates among different exchanges although probably to a fairly insignificant level as other factors such as liquidity fees and ease of transferring assets come into play.

The most valuable factor of course being the Security aka the X as we saw with Mtgox the bitcoins are only as valuable as the amount remaining.

In other words I think branding is important in this case, if not naming.

Personally XBT or BTC I prefer BTC since it's the more familiar name and the one that's been in use for years.

XBC is taken.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Unit_of_Account_9

@SoF, that's not even remotely relevant to the discussion, then, since it has nothing to do with branding, but with differing state regulations on gasoline where some refiners and manufacturers are more inclined to cater to certain markets with particular regulations.

I got you, then, mostly. I don't see why anyone would try fighting the momentum and trying to use "XBT" in normal communications in the same way few people call the Baht a "THB."  (by the way, THB on Google with my particular location and search history [which has included the Baht] -- only one of the first five results is specifically for the Thai Baht, while the first result is for a bagel store)

Trying to use "XBT" just seems utterly futile at best, and, as you mention, confusing at worst if there becomes a significant amount of usage, perhaps outside of large, conventional currency exchanges which may accept BTC in the future (though Bitcoin's obviously very unique here, and maybe I am underestimating the impact of having multiple "official" abbreviations). I don't see why common-use vernacular should ever change to conform to some ISO ruleset, though, which is pretty much never done. We have "alkaline AA" batteries, not "LR6." Nobody would know what the Hell you were talking about if you went into a Target and asked if they carry "LR6s." I'd guess they'd point you over to their gun selection.

Exactly what I was getting at, who decides first and second letter in first word vs. first letter of each word?

For example if the name was coinkiller would it be XCI or XCK?

So why XBT and not XBC?

XBT for international markets, BTC for crypto markets

How exactly are they deciding on the 2 letters to use after the X?