Bitcoin is Stupid and Does Not Deserve an Emoji (blog post)
Bitcoin is Stupid and Does Not Deserve an Emoji (blog post)
35 crypto companies got together to make a change dot org petition called "Bitcoin Deserves an Emoji".
F that
You're viewing a single thread.
I don't mind there being an emoji for cryptocurrency. It's a relevant thing in modern society whether we like it or not, so there's no reason it should be excluded. But just not Bitcoin, specifically. Even though Bitcoin is the one that kicked off crypto, it's still a brand name, which would result in auto-rejection according to the Unicode Consortium's guidelines.
If there was a more general-purpose icon/symbol that could represent cryptocurrency in general, that'd be more appropriate. But it can't be Bitcoin.
The problem with having cryptocurrency as emoji is agreeing on the specification how it should be drawn, and also make it different enough from already existing emojis such as coin 🪙. It is not exactly a tangible thing.
Just make it the B symbol they use in the coin? None of the others would exist in their current fashion, without Bitcoin anyway.
Bitcoin is a brand name there which means they can't do that. Also if bitcoin deserves its own symbol (and I don't think it necessarily does) then all the cryptocurrencies such as ethereum also deserve one.
an emoji for cryptocurrency
💩🪙
I mean it has its issues but a non regulated currency not controlled by a government is cool imo
Its supposed benefits are vastly overshadowed by their only practical application: allowing online crime to flourish.
Criminals use what works. So therefore that means that crypto actually does its job as a real currency that cannot be controlled. Criminals also have a habit of using auto mobiles, guns, computers, shoes, etc.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ drug users gotta get their drugs
I suppose you don't use cash then. Come on, there is almost no online crime anyway
I can buy almost everything with cash but with shitcoins I can only pay ransom. And the FBI probably won't agree there's virtually no online crime.
Semi-legal activities such as donating to wanted individuals, purchasing non regulated non illegal to ship medicine, purchasing digital goods (such as commissioned art) from countries that were banned by SWIFT (Russia).
I don't think it should have an emoji either, but how does this rule apply to real currencies being emojis? I mean there is dollar banknote 💵 and yen banknote 💴 and euro banknote 💶 as separate emojis, not just a general money one. And honestly, even most of the emojis referencing anything that has to do with money uses dollar signs, i.e. $. Were these rules made after these emojis were already added?
It probably falls under faulty comparison:
https://unicode.org/emoji/proposals.html#Faulty_Comparison
Their guidelines change, and it’s possible these emoji were added with old guidelines. They can’t remove old emoji, which means specific buildings like Tokyo Tower🗼is an emoji, even if they prohibit the addition of specific buildings nowadays.
I saw this get brought up a lot. I think the difference is that currency symbols generally don't refer to a specific currency. USD and AUS both use the $ symbol, for example. "Dollar" and "American Dollar" aren't the same thing since other types of dollars exist, and the symbols are still technically multi-purpose, whereas the ₿ symbol technically refers only to Bitcoin.
That's my theory on the reasoning, at least.
They already have that, 💩
💩🪙
Poopmoon?
Its a coin emoji, but its one of those emoji that get rendered wildly different depending on which device (and software version) you’re viewing it on
Wait it is a coin! What the what!
Hah, poop coin! For me it's like realistic moon without face, just like Samsung quality moon photo.
It makes a lot more sense to implement this the way country flags are implemented in Unicode.
Why in the world would you have "emojis" as part of Unicode anyway?
We already have a way to have endless "emojis" without administrative stupidity, it's called JPEG.
If you need to show text as that, we've had smileys since 90s.
Hmm, why do we need a corporation to be arbitter of the written language anyway ? If they want to use it, they should just use it.If they can't because of some central authority then Unicode is is to be abolished and replace with a system where you can usev wherever squiggle that you want and nobody gets a second opinion. You just do it.
Would you rather send an entire JPEG over text message for an emoji? Or just 4 bytes of unicode right inline where you want it? Unicode having a standard set of emoji is actually incredibly useful and reduces complexity. I guess it would disincentivize 👏 emoji 👏 spam 👏 to use JPEGs tho.
Just send the file hash and only download a copy if you don't have it.
I'd send :-} and :-\ and =P and D= instead of an emoji. As the founding fathers intended.
You do that. 👍
There's even more use cases that come up, like being able to use emoji and other fancy symbols anywhere unicode is supported. So you can even program with them. People have taken that idea to the extreme just for fun: https://www.emojicode.org/
Other special symbols are a different thing. For APL language or others.
They are useful, provided you have them on your keyboard or you have configurable extra keys.
Symbols specifically for emoji - I mean, people can do what they want with code space, even if I'd rather see another obscure alphabet standardized there. Medieval Armenian or Russian musical notation, for example. Something real .
I wouldn't think Bitcoin has, or can, be trademarked or copyrighted, as it is an open-source protocol/technology where even the creator is unknown?
Either way there isn't a generic symbol for cryptocurrency. This emoji will go the way of the save icon, where in a couple generations most people will have no idea what it relates to, but know that it's a symbol for cryptos.
I wouldn't think Bitcoin has, or can, be trademarked or copyrighted, as it is an open-source protocol/technology where even the creator is unknown?
It's still the name of a specific product/service. The issue is partly trademark/copyright, but also partly a matter of neutrality. The Unicode Consortium want to ensure that they're not directly or indirectly endorsing any specific products. If they added a Bitcoin logo, then you'd see every other crypto lining up to get their logos permanently installed on every person's devices, too. Free advertising for life on 99.99% of phones would be hard to pass up.
I mean, we have a symbol for effectively any currency that anyone can or wants to fill out the paperwork for and can demonstrate the basics of "this is a meaningful symbol with more than transient relevance".
They added ₿ in 2016.
So, if there's already a symbol in Unicode, the petition doesn't make any sense. They should ask Google and Apple to display the symbol in the emoji list, with a control character to force it as emoji.
Surely the Tokyo tower is a specific product then? 🗼It costs money to visit, aren't the other towers jealous?
https://unicode.org/emoji/proposals.html#Faulty_Comparison
The Tokyo Tower🗼(a specific building) does not justify adding the Eiffel Tower.
Many historical emoji violate current factors for inclusion. Once an emoji is encoded it cannot be removed from the Unicode Standard.
It was added when Unicode Consortium had different guidelines. They don’t accept specific buildings anymore.
Under automatically declined:
Specific buildings, structures, landmarks, or other locations, whether fictional, historic, or modern.
It's a specific type of thing, but it's not a brand. Nobody owns the trademark for Bitcoin. Anyone can buy, sell, or mine Bitcoin. It's no more a specific product than dollars are a specific product.
If they added a Bitcoin logo, then you'd see every other crypto lining up to get their logos permanently installed on every person's devices, too.
Is there a problem with that? This isn't "advertising", these are unicode symbols. There are unicode symbols for all kinds of things. Every currency has unicode symbols, why not cryptocurrencies?
The creator of bitcoin is as unknown as batman's identity. The folks at the center of the main blockchain companies and stuff like that all know pretty well who created it, they just play along with the story.
if this is true, there would be some evidence
Oh, there is. But while they keep this game up, there's still plausible deniability for everything.
if you can't present evidence, then you're just spreading uncertainty and doubt.