petition: official currency code for Bitcoin (BTC?)

[Daniel Pocock]

Somebody has started a petition to get an ISO 4217 currency code for
Bitcoin recognised by the ISO authorities:

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



There is some background info in these forums (and contact details if
you want to write a formal submission to the ISO as well as signing the
petition):

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=123600.msg1327579#msg1327579



It would be interesting to know the FSF Europe position with respect to
Bitcoin - can anyone comment? Has there been any initiative in any
European country to have Bitcoin recognised or to confirm its legal status?

[Timo Juhani Lindfors]

Post by Daniel Pocock
It would be interesting to know the FSF Europe position with respect to
Bitcoin - can anyone comment? Has there been any initiative in any
European country to have Bitcoin recognised or to confirm its legal status?

I'm bit puzzled, what has bitcoin to do with FSFE?

[Daniel Pocock]

Post by Timo Juhani Lindfors

Post by Daniel Pocock
It would be interesting to know the FSF Europe position with respect to
Bitcoin - can anyone comment? Has there been any initiative in any
European country to have Bitcoin recognised or to confirm its legal status?

I'm bit puzzled, what has bitcoin to do with FSFE?

A few things:

- the software is open and free

- the concept is conducive to distributed e-commerce, service orientated
business models - which is probably a good thing for free software
developers who want some independence from traditional hierarchy

- people seem to be crying out for a clarification of the legal and
policy issues - and as usual, vested interests are creating FUD that
needs to have a balanced response

[David Gerard]

Post by Daniel Pocock
- people seem to be crying out for a clarification of the legal and
policy issues - and as usual, vested interests are creating FUD that
needs to have a balanced response

This creates the impression that it's only vested interests who
consider the whole idea a pump-and-dump scam. And that's not the case
at all.

As Richard Dawkins says to creationists, "debating me would look good
on your CV, debating you would not look good on mine." Bitcoin would
love an FSF-related imprimatur (and FSFE counts); feeding the vested
interests of the early Bitcoin adopters and their wish to con people
into buying their coins may not be in FSFE's best interests.


- d.

[Daniel Pocock]

Post by David Gerard

Post by Daniel Pocock
- people seem to be crying out for a clarification of the legal and
policy issues - and as usual, vested interests are creating FUD that
needs to have a balanced response

This creates the impression that it's only vested interests who
consider the whole idea a pump-and-dump scam. And that's not the case
at all.

Actually, as a long term investment, it could be argued that anything is
a pump-and-dump scam. Even gold has had `bubbles', although the counter
argument is that buying gold in a bubble is better than having your
money evaporate in a bad bank (`bad bank' should be an oxymoron or
contradiction of course, but just Google for `bad bank' and see how many
times it comes up in the news these days)

However, if you put aside the `investment' arguments and look at it as a
means of payment, how does it stack up? In the long run, is it better
to pay 6-7% in a combination of fees and exchange rate commission when
using a credit card for foreign currency purchases, or is it better to
use something like Bitcoin?

Post by David Gerard
As Richard Dawkins says to creationists, "debating me would look good
on your CV, debating you would not look good on mine." Bitcoin would
love an FSF-related imprimatur (and FSFE counts); feeding the vested
interests of the early Bitcoin adopters and their wish to con people
into buying their coins may not be in FSFE's best interests.

I don't want to belittle your point of view - it is always good to look
at any new inventions with a critical eye, especially when money is
involved. But what do you see as safer alternatives to Bitcoin?

[David Gerard]

Post by Daniel Pocock
Actually, as a long term investment, it could be argued that anything is
a pump-and-dump scam.

This is the fallacy of argument from worse consequences.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as

Post by Daniel Pocock
However, if you put aside the `investment' arguments and look at it as a
means of payment, how does it stack up? In the long run, is it better
to pay 6-7% in a combination of fees and exchange rate commission when
using a credit card for foreign currency purchases, or is it better to
use something like Bitcoin?

It's certainly true that we could do with a means of funds transfer
that isn't subject to the skimming and interference of the credit card
companies and PayPal. Rick Falkvinge has written a bit on why he likes
BitCoin for this purpose, and what its problems are; those interested
in the topic should read:

http://falkvinge.net/2011/05/29/why-im-putting-all-my-savings-into-bitcoin/
http://falkvinge.net/2011/06/04/bitcoins-four-hurdles-part-one-usability/
(and parts two, three and four)

Post by Daniel Pocock
I don't want to belittle your point of view - it is always good to look
at any new inventions with a critical eye, especially when money is
involved. But what do you see as safer alternatives to Bitcoin?

This is the politician's fallacy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism "We must do
something; This is something; Therefore, we must do this." Your
question does not imply an answer of "FSFE must therefore lend its
good name to Bitcoin."


- d.

[Daniel Pocock]

Post by David Gerard

Post by Daniel Pocock
I don't want to belittle your point of view - it is always good to look
at any new inventions with a critical eye, especially when money is
involved. But what do you see as safer alternatives to Bitcoin?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism "We must do
something; This is something; Therefore, we must do this." Your
question does not imply an answer of "FSFE must therefore lend its
good name to Bitcoin."

Actually, I don't think that was my question at all.

To put it in context, if you were making a new physical currency, you
could go to a chemist and ask him is it better to use silver or sodium.
The chemist may well tell you that sodium is too soft for coins. He
would likely go on to explain that it is highly reactive and likely to
explode in your pocket, while silver is durable and reacts with few
things. A geologist may tell you that silver is rare, also making it a
good choice. Neither the chemist or geologist is telling you to invest
your life savings in silver though, they are just giving scientific facts.

In the same spirit, I think that organisations concerned with free
software do have some contribution to the debate, e.g. to answer
questions like whether it is better to have critical technology (e.g.
the payments system) built on transparency (open source and open
standards). A further step may be to classify the qualities of such
systems to help people distinguish the better ones, just as a geologist
can tell you about the relative scarcity of gold vs silver, without
actually endorsing a particular financial model or giving anything that
could be perceived as investment advice.

[Sam Liddicott]

Aye.

I think there is little reason to suppose that a group of people (mostly)
united in matters of software freedom would share a common view on bitcoin.

I don't think it is the business of FSFE or FSF to make a comment on
bitcoin but further getting a consensus among members may not be possible
anyway.

Sam

Post by Daniel Pocock

Post by David Gerard

Post by Daniel Pocock
I don't want to belittle your point of view - it is always good to look
at any new inventions with a critical eye, especially when money is
involved. But what do you see as safer alternatives to Bitcoin?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism "We must do
something; This is something; Therefore, we must do this." Your
question does not imply an answer of "FSFE must therefore lend its
good name to Bitcoin."

Actually, I don't think that was my question at all.
To put it in context, if you were making a new physical currency, you
could go to a chemist and ask him is it better to use silver or sodium.
The chemist may well tell you that sodium is too soft for coins. He
would likely go on to explain that it is highly reactive and likely to
explode in your pocket, while silver is durable and reacts with few
things. A geologist may tell you that silver is rare, also making it a
good choice. Neither the chemist or geologist is telling you to invest
your life savings in silver though, they are just giving scientific facts.
In the same spirit, I think that organisations concerned with free
software do have some contribution to the debate, e.g. to answer
questions like whether it is better to have critical technology (e.g.
the payments system) built on transparency (open source and open
standards). A further step may be to classify the qualities of such
systems to help people distinguish the better ones, just as a geologist
can tell you about the relative scarcity of gold vs silver, without
actually endorsing a particular financial model or giving anything that
could be perceived as investment advice.
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
Discussion at fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20121117/fdac195b/attachment.html>

[Mike Dupont]

Interesting points here!
Well if the founders of BC might stand to gain alot on the adoption of
it, would it not make sense to create a FSFBT that the fsfe would
stand to gain from? could the fsfe not use the same software to use as
exchange?
just some random ideas.
mike

Post by Sam Liddicott
Aye.
I think there is little reason to suppose that a group of people (mostly)
united in matters of software freedom would share a common view on bitcoin.
I don't think it is the business of FSFE or FSF to make a comment on bitcoin
but further getting a consensus among members may not be possible anyway.
Sam

Post by Daniel Pocock

Post by David Gerard

Post by Daniel Pocock
I don't want to belittle your point of view - it is always good to look
at any new inventions with a critical eye, especially when money is
involved. But what do you see as safer alternatives to Bitcoin?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism "We must do
something; This is something; Therefore, we must do this." Your
question does not imply an answer of "FSFE must therefore lend its
good name to Bitcoin."

Actually, I don't think that was my question at all.
To put it in context, if you were making a new physical currency, you
could go to a chemist and ask him is it better to use silver or sodium.
The chemist may well tell you that sodium is too soft for coins. He
would likely go on to explain that it is highly reactive and likely to
explode in your pocket, while silver is durable and reacts with few
things. A geologist may tell you that silver is rare, also making it a
good choice. Neither the chemist or geologist is telling you to invest
your life savings in silver though, they are just giving scientific facts.
In the same spirit, I think that organisations concerned with free
software do have some contribution to the debate, e.g. to answer
questions like whether it is better to have critical technology (e.g.
the payments system) built on transparency (open source and open
standards). A further step may be to classify the qualities of such
systems to help people distinguish the better ones, just as a geologist
can tell you about the relative scarcity of gold vs silver, without
actually endorsing a particular financial model or giving anything that
could be perceived as investment advice.
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
Discussion at fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
Discussion at fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

[Daniel Pocock]

Post by Mike Dupont
Interesting points here!
Well if the founders of BC might stand to gain alot on the adoption of
it, would it not make sense to create a FSFBT that the fsfe would
stand to gain from? could the fsfe not use the same software to use as
exchange?
just some random ideas.
mike

Microsoft or Apple could also start a p2p currency and deploy it to
every end user... I just hope the free software community agrees on some
solution before the big players do so.

Post by Mike Dupont

Post by Sam Liddicott
Aye.
I think there is little reason to suppose that a group of people (mostly)
united in matters of software freedom would share a common view on bitcoin.
I don't think it is the business of FSFE or FSF to make a comment on bitcoin
but further getting a consensus among members may not be possible anyway.
Sam

Post by Daniel Pocock

Post by David Gerard

Post by Daniel Pocock
I don't want to belittle your point of view - it is always good to look
at any new inventions with a critical eye, especially when money is
involved. But what do you see as safer alternatives to Bitcoin?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism "We must do
something; This is something; Therefore, we must do this." Your
question does not imply an answer of "FSFE must therefore lend its
good name to Bitcoin."

Actually, I don't think that was my question at all.
To put it in context, if you were making a new physical currency, you
could go to a chemist and ask him is it better to use silver or sodium.
The chemist may well tell you that sodium is too soft for coins. He
would likely go on to explain that it is highly reactive and likely to
explode in your pocket, while silver is durable and reacts with few
things. A geologist may tell you that silver is rare, also making it a
good choice. Neither the chemist or geologist is telling you to invest
your life savings in silver though, they are just giving scientific facts.
In the same spirit, I think that organisations concerned with free
software do have some contribution to the debate, e.g. to answer
questions like whether it is better to have critical technology (e.g.
the payments system) built on transparency (open source and open
standards). A further step may be to classify the qualities of such
systems to help people distinguish the better ones, just as a geologist
can tell you about the relative scarcity of gold vs silver, without
actually endorsing a particular financial model or giving anything that
could be perceived as investment advice.
_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
Discussion at fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

_______________________________________________
Discussion mailing list
Discussion at fsfeurope.org
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

[Heiki &quot;Repentinus&quot; Ojasild]

Hey,

Personally I am of the opinion that FSFE should support an open
crypto-currency. However, I am also of the opinion that BitCoin is not
suitable as the early adopters would benefit rather handsomely at the
expense of everyone else if BitCoin were universally adopted, and that
seems contradictory to the idea of Free Software, of emancipating
users.

P.S. If you pay 6% or 7% for foreign currency payments to your bank,
get a new one. Seriously. They are robbing you.


Cheers,

[Daniel Pocock]

Post by Heiki &quot;Repentinus&quot; Ojasild
Hey,
Personally I am of the opinion that FSFE should support an open
crypto-currency. However, I am also of the opinion that BitCoin is not
suitable as the early adopters would benefit rather handsomely at the
expense of everyone else if BitCoin were universally adopted, and that
seems contradictory to the idea of Free Software, of emancipating
users.

I agree that is one aspect of Bitcoin that needs to be thoroughly
compared to the alternatives. One alternative that was mentioned is to
distribute coins through a random lottery system rather than `mining'
with a GPU. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=55184.0

However, it could also be argued that these people took a big risk and
invested to bring about some kind of technology revolution, and the
`profit' they make from appreciation is rewarding them. Even so, the
profit they make in absolute terms is insignificant when compared to the
profits that banks make from the `fractional reserve' mechanism.

Post by Heiki &quot;Repentinus&quot; Ojasild
P.S. If you pay 6% or 7% for foreign currency payments to your bank,
get a new one. Seriously. They are robbing you.

My estimate of 6-7% also includes the fees incurred by the merchant,
which are hidden from you at the point of sale.

E.g.
exchange commission = 1%
foreign transaction fee = 2-3%
cost to merchant (included in prices) = 2-3%
total = 5-7%

[David Gerard]

Post by David Gerard
It's certainly true that we could do with a means of funds transfer
that isn't subject to the skimming and interference of the credit card
companies and PayPal. Rick Falkvinge has written a bit on why he likes
BitCoin for this purpose, and what its problems are; those interested
http://falkvinge.net/2011/05/29/why-im-putting-all-my-savings-into-bitcoin/
http://falkvinge.net/2011/06/04/bitcoins-four-hurdles-part-one-usability/
(and parts two, three and four)

On a slightly different issue to currency code advocacy, but relevant
to Falkvinge's essays above, this also strikes me as an interesting
development:

http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/442274/wordpress_accept_bitcoins_due_paypal_credit_card_blocks/

- WordPress.com accepting bitcoins specifically because of problems
with credit cards and PayPal.

The FSF accepts bitcoin donations. The EFF does not accept bitcoin
donations, considering them legally dubious. Wikimedia considered it
and decided the EFF not accepting them was sufficient reason not to
dive in.

The FSFE is in a different legal environment, but bitcoins may be
worth looking into if a sufficient number of American organisations
(nonprofit and commercial) start accepting them.

(And note I'm saying all that as someone quite sceptical of Bitcoin.)


- d.

[Timo Juhani Lindfors]

Post by Daniel Pocock
- the software is open and free

Ok, I thought most of the mining was nowadays done using graphics cards
and that there was no free software solution for that.

Post by Daniel Pocock
- the concept is conducive to distributed e-commerce, service orientated
business models - which is probably a good thing for free software
developers who want some independence from traditional hierarchy

I don't think I know enough about the subject to really comment on this
one. I just hope FSFE doesn't get unnecessary enemies by promoting
bitcoin.