There is no reason no reason to use XBT over BTC

my countries code is GBP.. but i will always use 'quid' £ pound as words when describing the currency. ill leave GBP for the wall street guys to use.

we should not be trying to get bitcoin into wall street. we should be getting wall street into bitcoin

Following the existing standard would make sense if Bitcoin was of the same type the standard was created to cover. Putting cryptocurrencies under/within the existing standard for fiat currency symbols implies that it is of the same type. But cryptocurrencies are a whole new technology, a vastly different invention, the purpose of which is to replace the old type of currency that requires trust, middlemen, authorization/permission, transfer limits, transfer fees, ridiculous delays, participation in a debt-generating usurious fractional-reserve scam, etc.

And what do you mean by disrespecting Bhutan? The Bhutanese ngultrum is represented as BTN (like the TV channel from V for Vendetta), not BTC. Appropriating the Thai bhat symbol, BTC, is perhaps a bit disrespectful though.

Yes, but they are "non-standard" types of currency, hence the X__ assignation. XBT might be acceptable as ticker symbols for mainstream trading sites as they add Bitcoin, but do we want cryptocurrencies to be relegated to some "non-standard" category? Obviously not.

This has of course been discussed before, and some posters have seen the obvious problem with conforming to irrelevant/outdated standards:




Peter Lambert proposes (or states as if obvious) that we "follow the rules" created by the very system that BTC threatens to obsolete. LOL. Then again, it was 2011 when he posted that.

As for Bhutan, now I understand what Sukrim meant. But this would only be relevant if following the conventions of ISO 4217.

Brand name bitcoins just like they brand name gasoline Kluge
It's essentially the same but they can advertise it differently

The point of the discussion is to bring clarity as to the pros and cons of the community using BTC over XBT (as the ISO standard would have it), because some people are using XBT instead of BTC, creating some degree of confusion. A newcomer or businessperson might think: "These Bitcoin people can't even settle on what abbreviation they want to use!"

To settle on one or the other seems like a wise/clever thing to do.

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

So why XBT and not XBC?

@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.