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-...
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?
Daniel Pocock daniel@pocock.com.au writes:
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?
On 12/11/12 10:14, Timo Juhani Lindfors wrote:
Daniel Pocock daniel@pocock.com.au writes:
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
On 12 November 2012 09:29, Daniel Pocock daniel@pocock.com.au wrote:
- 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.
On 12/11/12 10:44, David Gerard wrote:
On 12 November 2012 09:29, Daniel Pocock daniel@pocock.com.au wrote:
- 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?
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?
On 12 November 2012 10:08, Daniel Pocock daniel@pocock.com.au wrote:
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
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)
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.
On 12/11/12 11:17, David Gerard wrote:
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."
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.
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 On Nov 12, 2012 11:33 AM, "Daniel Pocock" daniel@pocock.com.au wrote:
On 12/11/12 11:17, David Gerard wrote:
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."
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@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
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
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Sam Liddicott sam@liddicott.com wrote:
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
On Nov 12, 2012 11:33 AM, "Daniel Pocock" daniel@pocock.com.au wrote:
On 12/11/12 11:17, David Gerard wrote:
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."
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@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
On 17/11/12 19:25, Mike Dupont wrote:
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.
On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Sam Liddicott sam@liddicott.com wrote:
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
On Nov 12, 2012 11:33 AM, "Daniel Pocock" daniel@pocock.com.au wrote:
On 12/11/12 11:17, David Gerard wrote:
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."
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@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
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,
On 12/11/12 12:38, Heiki "Repentinus" Ojasild wrote:
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.
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%
On 12 November 2012 10:17, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
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)
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...
- 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.
Daniel Pocock daniel@pocock.com.au writes:
- 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.
- 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.