Talk:Bitcoin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleBitcoin was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 14, 2010Articles for deletionDeleted
August 11, 2010Deletion reviewEndorsed
October 3, 2010Deletion reviewEndorsed
December 14, 2010Deletion reviewOverturned
January 26, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
April 4, 2015Good article nomineeListed
July 26, 2015Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 3, 2019, and January 3, 2024.
Current status: Delisted good article


XBT lol?[edit]

absolutely no one calls it that, and any references to it are basically dead. XBT most definitely doesn't deserve to be the 5th word on the Bitcoin entire page.

googling XBT, 8 of the 10 results are for a scam shitcoin called XBIT with the symbol XBT , so youre also helping a shitcoin make money scamming.


no one calls BTC XBT

whatever scammer from XBIT got y'all to put that up there is living a better life because of the free exposure.

141.151.92.241 (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the note to show only Bloomberg as the current user of XBT. I would like some input from other editors as to whether listing the XBT code so prominently makes sense these days. It's not even close to popularity with the BTC code. Vgbyp (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it is odd, it is a very old term that is no longer used (I dont have a bloomberg terminal). I think everyone uses BTC and we should drop the jargon that bloomberg is using. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NYSE ETF rigged[edit]

Why is there no section on how the ETF whales are rigging the price since January 10. Since the Jan 10 approval of ETFs, the NYSE is forced to keep it high to sell ETFs to customers. ABNs (all but New York) push the price down every day after NYSE closes. NYC is the biggest whale so they correct the price when NYSE opens. Zindra Lord (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That can be added to the article if there are RS reports on this. Do you know any? Vgbyp (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the price right at the market close is common in mark to market positions as it changes the cost for the market makers overnight, particularly the short interest fee. I doubt you are going to find WP:RS for this, but if you can, please let us know. My WP:OR musings certainly are not ok for inclusion the article, I just point them out to let you know they are not unusual. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Spergerrand" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Spergerrand has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 15 § Spergerrand until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on changing article variant to Oxford spelling to align with whitepaper[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
(non-admin closure) There was a relatively low turnout to this RfC. However, the numerical majority (4:1) is clearly in favor of retaining the current engvar. Those voting yes did not explicitly cite a policy but their arguments echo MOS:TIES whereas those voting no primarily cited MOS:RETAIN. I find that there is consensus to maintain the current engvar (American English). If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article's ENGVAR be changed to Oxford spelling? Getsnoopy (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Context[edit]

It seems like the article variant was arbitrarily set as American English in this edit, which could've been confused been confused with Oxford spelling because of its widespread use of the -ize suffix at the time. Moreover, given that Satoshi used Oxford spelling in the original Bitcoin whitepaper, it would be a good homage to have this article match that to symbolize Bitcoin's international nature (akin to Oxford spelling's international nature, as it is used by the UN & ISO, for example).

Polling (English variety)[edit]

That edit from back in 2017 didn't appear to have been arbitrary at all. Such templates are commonly added to document existing consensus, per MOS:RETAIN.
Further, this is not formatted as a proper WP:RfC.
Lastly, Wikipedia articles should absolutely not be an "homage", and non-neutral proposals like this are not appropriate, per WP:RFCNEUTRAL
Grayfell (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that it could've easily been argued that the consensus was Oxford spelling at the time. Getsnoopy (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the formatting. Getsnoopy (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not insert your comments into the middle of someone else's, as your edits removed the signature and made it impossible for other editors to know who said what without going into the page history. Talk pages are intended to be a record of the conversation. If strictly necessary, you can use quotes to respond to specific points. See WP:INTERPOLATE. Grayfell (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC does probably also fail rfcbrief as well. However, I do support the change. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the formatting, so it's OK now. Getsnoopy (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No - (Summoned by bot) Simply haven't seen any real argument why it should change. Not enough of a connection between this subject and a particular location to override what's been in place for at least 7 years. To be clear, if it were a different template and someone proposed adding the American English template, I'd also oppose. Fighting over WP:ENGVARs is not a good use of time IMO, except when there's an obvious connection. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 11:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No - (Summoned by bot) there are no strong ties between Bitcoin and any national variety of English so there is no reason to change a stable article - and this would apply regardless of what variety was stable. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No - (Summoned by bot) I don't think there are sufficient MOS:TIES to British English to override MOS:RETAIN. TheSavageNorwegian 17:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No — Per previous comments, MOS:RETAIN applies. Grayfell (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2024[edit]

Please remove this sentence: 

In September 2021, the Bitcoin Law made bitcoin legal tender in El Salvador, alongside the US dollar.[4]

and replace it with this one: 

In September 2021, the Bitcoin Law made bitcoin legal tender in El Salvador, alongside the US dollar,[4] and required businesses to accept it.[113]

Legal tender is anything that must be accepted when there's a debt, but as that article says, In some jurisdictions legal tender can be refused as payment if no debt exists prior to the time of payment (where the obligation to pay may arise at the same time as the offer of payment). For example, vending machines and transport staff do not have to accept the largest denomination of banknote. However, source 113 says that this isn't the case in El Salvador: According to this law, not only bitcoin must be accepted as a means of payment for taxes and outstanding debts, but also all businesses are required to accept bitcoin as a medium of exchange for all transactions. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is really needed because the third sentence after that one in the same paragraph states: "businesses refused to accept it despite being legally required to." I don't think it makes sense to repeat this twice inside the same paragraph. Vgbyp (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. PianoDan (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"...requires increasing quantities of electricity"[edit]

This passage is misleading: "Consensus between nodes is achieved using [...] mining, that requires increasing quantities of electricity". Its reads like the increasing electricity consumption is a requirement of the protocol, which is false. It requires electricity, the demand of which is increasing due to factors outside the protocol. I don't know how to reword it. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bitcoin&oldid=1222073510"