Talk:Bitcoin

Nomenclature convention

See this thread. KLP (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Acceptance section

Trying to move on to content issues, I'd like to discuss what to do with the Acceptance section. To me, this portion of the article was written as a justification and rationale for the notability of the concept by using the example of many different groups using Bitcoins as a form of currency. While I'm not against using some examples of people actually using the concept, this is just a little over the top. At the very least the current form is just a mess and sort of backfires even in terms of readability.

I'm not sure entirely how to fix this, or if this whole section perhaps ought to be simply removed. The basic concept that Bitcoins have been accepted in a large number of places certainly seems to be reasonable, but at the same time this shouldn't have to be an advertisement for everybody using Bitcoins either. As a way to mention some early adopters, perhaps, or to give a couple of key examples, but I think it is a little over the top for somebody to be included on this list simply because in some forum they state "yeah, we accept Bitcoins as payment".

What criteria ought to be established for inclusion here, or is that even a proper question at all? I'm even questioning that any specific company ought to be referenced, but I'm open to at least including a couple of key examples or to use perhaps some sort of verified "first user" of Bitcoins as a sort of historical context. The Wikipedia guidelines that I can use here is WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMOTION, but that doesn't shed too much light on this particular issue. The fact that this can become spam is more the point, such as how the reference to the EFF donations are now being used as a drive-by edit. Something does need to change in this section and it shouldn't remain as-is. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the question is valid. I think it would be appropriate to either mention 2-3 of the most notable early adopters, or to simple say "a number of companies have adopted Bitcoins" and provide 3-4 refs for the most notable companies. The latter approach is less likely to lead to spam issues. It's a normal thing when trying to reach the notability standard to add everything you can, but once you're close, better to trim the weaker references out, and I don't think the refs in this section add much. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Two more sources

Irish Times: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2010/1126/1224284180416.html. Jakarta Post: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/08/31/power-the-people.html. This is scraping the barrel. Fences&Windows 22:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

List of sources

This is a list of sources assembled to help with the claim that it is notable:

• http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2010/1126/1224284180416.html
• http://modeledbehavior.com/2010/06/30/bitcoin-and-the-wild-west/
• http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/07/11/1747245/Bitcoin-Releases-Version-03
• http://www.24hgold.com/english/news-gold-silver-a-rally-in-bitcoin.aspx?article=3161543576G10020&redirect=false&contributor=Jon+Matonis
• http://themonetaryfuture.blogspot.com/2010/03/bitcoin-peer-to-peer-electronic-cash.html
• http://quezi.com/13527 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultra two (talk • contribs) 22:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
• http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/commentary/is-it-time-for-digital-only-dollars — Preceding unsigned comment added by L3lackEyedAngels (talk • contribs) 19:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
• http://lwn.net/Articles/414452/

Most of these links are blog articles and useless for notability claims. The general notability guideline requires sources to be "reliable sources". I'm not sure whether 24hgold qualifies as "significant coverage" either; Slashdot certainly doesn't. -- intgr [talk] 07:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Currency

Genjix, I like most of your changes, however, I miss the currency infobox. I intend to bring it back. 68.9.27.45 (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I saw that. I commented it because it felt too clustered so I've moved the graph over to the left. Genjix (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Limbo assessments

Article incubation assessment

1. Does the article establish notability of the subject ?

   A. It meets the general notability guideline:

   B. It meets any relevant subject specific guideline:

2. Is it verifiable?

   A. It contains references to sources:

   B. There are inline citations of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. There is no original research:

3. Is it neutral?

   A. It is a fair representation without bias:

   B. It is written in a non-promotional manner:

4. It does not contain unverifiable speculation:
5. Pass, Fail or Hold for 7 days:

This is my personal assessment, I probably count as too biased to place a real vote (as an editor and stakeholder in the community). I want to encourage other people to make their own assessment. Ultra two (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue has always been about notability and "reliable sources". The "LinuxWorld News" article, Irish Times, and now a substantial article from PC World seem to be in my opinion sufficient to at least meet the general notability guidelines. Technically only one of these was really necessary, but combined with other references is more than sufficient. The rest of what is being asserted here is mainly article quality, which does need a little bit of help. The grounds for deletion were strictly about the notability of the concept of Bitcoin and the associated software. That the incubator (contrary to statements made by many participants in the incubator discussion threads) is also for more general article development and improvement is true as well.

With these sources, the main issue now is to incorporate the information from the sources into the article itself. You can debate other sources for reliability and in particular argue over the use of blogs and wikis for sources of information, but that is for this discussion page and not something which needs to go into a debate over its "restoration" or in effect undeletion. There is unfortunately some considerable reliance upon discussion threads within the Bitcoin forums. Arguably this is one of the best sources of information as to current status of the software. Weighing the reliability of that information is problematic, however, and approaches original research. --Robert Horning (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The readership of the forum is sufficiently technically knowledgeable that any inaccurate information would be corrected. Relying that we read the full thread when we add information from there, it could arguably count as a peer reviewed journal.

Unless anyone has any particular objections, I'll probably be WP:BOLD and move it back to mainspace. Ultra two (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Since this is essentially an undeletion, do we need to go through Wikipedia:Requested moves as a "controversial" request, or should this be done as a deletion review? Having never done an incubator article before this one, I really don't know the process, if there is any at all. Deletion review seems to be the fastest way to resolve the issue. --19:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Horning (talk • contribs)

I agree, WP:DELREV seems the most appropriate since technically this article is deleted. (PS: use four tildes for signing, not five) -- intgr [talk] 21:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

As the admin who salted it after it was prematurely put back last time, I think it should go through Deletion Review again. Give me till tomorrow to check through it and I have listed it there - see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 December 12. JohnCD (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Missing Criteria for assessment

I noticed that "There are inline citations of reliable sources where necessary" got a neutral vote. Can anyone list what exactly caused that vote so that I can correct the citations where necessary? Thanks. Genjix (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I changed it because there are still several references to unreliable sources left, particularly the forum. -- intgr [talk] 09:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Just swapped the thirteenth reference from the Bitcoin forum to the Bitcoin Wiki. I hope we can agree that this source is more reliable. The fourteenth reference comes from a forum post by Satoshi Nakamoto himself. Not sure how we can improve on reliability there. KLP (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Bitcoin is not electronic cash

Introducting bitcoin as digital cash is misleading. Bitcoin is a currency, before being cash. Saying it is cash could induce the reader to think it's a method of paiement in USD or in any other currency. It is not.

Bitcoin is both a currency and a method of paiement. It should be introduced as such.

--Grondilu (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, a cursory search finds no such thing as electronic cash. Both the Wiktionary and the Wikipedia both indicate that cash must have a physical form. KLP (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Is that the only requirement? Physical Bitcoins have been proposed by the Bitcoin community, including several ways to make a physical coin or a "banknote". If that really is the only criteria, it seems like a rather lame and weak semantic excuse. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I would also point out that the qualifier "electronic" clarifies the issue, although the terms is arguably a neologism. Consider for example virtual world. Also, we are obligated to follow what the sources say, not what we believe to be true. If (and I haven't looked recently, so I am not sure) the reliable sources we have supporting the article use the term "electronic cash", that's what we should say. If the sources say that the bitcoin developers use the term, we can say that. I think what we cannot do without violating WP:OR is to say that bitcoins are not electronic cash (c) even though the sources say it is or that that how bitcoins are described by the developers (b) because we have a definition over here that says cash must have a physical form (a). I would argue that making the connection between a and b to assert c is synthesis. I do see that this article uses digital cash, crypto-cash, and cybercash. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Bitcoin is not money

This talkpage is about the wikipedia article and is Not a forum for general discussion of the subject. What individual users' views are on the subject is not relevant it is what the sources say that is relevant

Bitcoin is a special case. It meets 3 of the 4 criteria to qualify as money but it doesn't meet the Standard of deferred payment criterion. Bitcoin cannot be used to settle debts, because Bitcoin isn't property. Unless control is ceded to a centralized trusted third party, it is impossible "owe" Bitcoins in the conventional sense. It is impossible to prove or disprove a link between an IRL identity and a Bitcoin address. The Bitcoin economy is built entirely on trust and reputation. There are no property rights or binding contracts so there can be no real debt. Bitcoin is closer to a digital commodity, perhaps also a currency, but it isn't "money as debt". I would argue that it's neither of those and should be seen as a Sui generis. In any case we should remove the words "money" from the article. --Cambrasa confab 12:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC) I don't understand. Why can I not possibly own a lender bitcoins? KLP (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC) You can "borrow" Bitcoins, but if you decide not to repay there is little the lender can do about it, except give your alias a bad reputation. De facto, you don't have the obligation to repay. --Cambrasa confab 14:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC) Can the same not be said for cash? Is cash not money? KLP (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC) The "proof" of a link between "real life" identity and a bitcoin is control of the private keys necessarily to "unlock" the public Bitcoin addresses for further transactions. In Bitcoin lingo, that is called a "wallet". Any transactions not authenticated with this private key are invalidated by miners or rejected by other network nodes as an improper transaction. Is that the "3rd party" you are looking for? If you publish that "wallet" on a public forum, that is the Bitcoin equivalent of publishing your bank pin and full identity information for any banking transaction in the public forum too. Any definition of identity is just as provable as a Bitcoin wallet, and any attempt to attack a wallet is just like attacking any sort of identity proof of any kind. It is possible to "owe" Bitcoins on the basis of a contract, as you can indeed "loan" bitcoins to somebody else with agreed upon terms, including interest if that is your pleasure. Enforcement of that contract may be in question, but that is between the two parties and penalties spelled out in the contract and any agreed upon arbitrator to help resolve disputes. The contract can indeed be binding, but the question is more of if a government operated judiciary would legally honor such a contract. That is a political question and not a technical question. There is also no reason to presume that a court would automatically reject the debt either, although they may require repayment in something other than bitcoins if you went that route. Transfer of Bitcoins does not rely upon any sort of trust and reputation at all, at least so far as the accounting of bitcoins in a transaction. What is missing is the ability to create bitcoins in an ex nihilo fashion, which is something also acknowledged too. In other words you don't have a central bank that can push a couple of buttons to create money out of thin air in any arbitrary amount. If that is the only thing keeping this from being called money, I don't want anything to do with it either. For a typical person who thinks of using money as a medium of exchange, the ability to "automagically" create money out of thin air is usually seen as a reason to distrust the medium or even not consider that to be money in a real sense. The fact that some banks loan something as a debt with that "money" never existing before the loan was created does not seem like an essential element of "money", but perhaps I'm mistaken here. It is also a semantic splitting of hairs too. Is that what is being referred to with "money as debt", as the money could only exist if it was derived initially from a debt transaction? Something doesn't make sense there. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to the opinion of User:Polargeo 3, the above is a response to the question of if this should be considered money. I argue that it should be, or at least semantically saying that it isn't money is the wrong question to make. Essentially, removing the wording is improper because it can be demonstrated that it is in fact money. If this is an attempt to silence such discussion, so be it. That also is a POV push by silencing such discussion too. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

+1 We're trying to make a decision regarding the wording of the article. KLP (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

But based entirely on your own views so FORUM. Polargeo (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you play by the wikipedia rules and learn to argue on content based on sources and not your own opinions. If you do this then you may get somewhere. I am much more reasonable than most wikipedians you might encounter elsewhere so I think resolving this issue here is the best thing to do. Polargeo (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone have an article indicating that bitcoins don't qualify as money? KLP (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

This is going nowhere. Please discuss what is in the article and how sources relate to that. Polargeo (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't request sources that may affect the wording of the article? KLP (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not clear which bit of the article says Bitcoins do or don't qualify as money. This still seems to be unrelated to the content and more of an argument amongst forum regulars. Polargeo (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

KLP, I would add that you would do better to bring a source supporting your suggested changes, rather request one, but please do make sure it is a reliable source. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

One of the issues being debated here is in regards to reliable sources, where certainly the sources which can be found are quite weak and written by non-experts as all of the current sources of information which can be said to be from "reliable 3rd parties" are all journalistic pieces merely trying to inform readers of the existence of the software rather than going into the details of how it works.

Notability has been achieved so far as sources saying "this is something to look at" and "Bitcoins is a neat implementation of electronic currency". None of these sources so far go into the technical details of how it works except on a superficial level, and in some cases they get the facts flat out wrong through either an over generalization of other similar concepts or perhaps a flat out misunderstanding of how it works. I say that they may be wrong as an "expert" who has studied this concept in more depth than apparently these authors have... nothing against them either, but it is the nature of the business they are in.

There are sources of information which do exist for some of the technical details, but from the strict terms used by Wikipedia guidelines they are not generally used. That seems to be a major complaint at least by some of the Wikipedia purists that are hovering over this article at the moment.

The white paper by Satoshi Nakamoto is perhaps the toughest one for me as it is an excellent source of information and represents perhaps the best technical overview of the software. For me, I think it ought to be treated more like a press release as it is certifiably written by the original and mostly primary author of the Bitcoin software and does represent a good overview of the internals of the software. I say that too as an "expert" having reviewed the source code of Bitcoins itself. It hasn't been submitted for peer review, even though I think it still could be and in fact may be in the future... depending on what you consider to be peer review for something of this nature.

The reason I say that this should be at the moment considered like a press release is that similar sorts of "white papers" are also quoted in many Wikipedia articles as a valid source for technical information and also similarly not questioned when used. If this was something done by a completely for-profit company with a "closed source" software product and published on their corporate website, I don't think this paper would even be questioned at all at least as a source for fact-checking and being verifiable information. Yes, you should watch for POV bias and not let it dominate the whole of the Wikipedia article, but to ignore that it exists is also simply wrong as well.

The open source nature of this project is also sort of a problem, as the project discussion forums and the wiki are sort of like being able to go inside of a company and being able to read first hand what the engineers thought when they created something. If anything, the issue is more WP:PRIMARY rather than simply the original research issue. I've been involved with Wikipedia long enough to know that there are some scholars who consider the complete rejection of primary sources for the creation of Wikipedia articles to be pure bunk too, as relying strictly on secondary sources is a whole bunch of naval gazing that doesn't do a whole lot of good. For highly technical information such as getting dates and hard factual information correct, I don't see how you can avoid at least referencing primary sources. From the policy:

"Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."

On this I happen to agree too. It shouldn't make up the bulk of the article. I hope that in time more scholarly analysis of the software will happen, and seeing how it is becoming a notable piece of software I think such scholarly analysis will eventually happen. Of course that hasn't happened yet, so the issue is mainly what sources should be used at least for now to get the facts correct on the technical details. If the "solution" to this is to write an article for the ACM Journal and get the information peer-reviewed through an unquestionable "reliable source", that is certainly an option but I think that is going a little over the top here.

Just as several new articles have appeared recently with yet another mention on Slashdot, I think this is something that time will eventually resolve. Let's not get into an edit war and wikilawyering over the fine details at the moment, although demanding citations for factual information certainly is useful to keep doing. I guess the question is if this should be an inaccurate article based on 3rd and 4th hand knowledge of the software or can it use the hand of some "experts" that really know what is going on even if the information may not be currently citeable because the information is only in informal sources at the moment? --Robert Horning (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

A primary source is fine but not to back up debatable technical information. Wikipedia is not a technical manual, it does not need advanced technical details of Bitcoin. The link to the bitcoin website is there so if people wish to get into the technical details then they can follow the link. If the technical details of bitcoin are only on the bitcoin website then we should not slavishly reproduce them here, that is not what wikipedia is for. See WP:NOTMANUAL, this is a pillar of wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The fact that secondary sources aren't writing about these technical details is an indicator that maybe these details shouldn't be covered at all. -- intgr [talk] 02:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The only thing about technical details that ought to go into an article is something which is verifiable and factual. It is not a pillar of Wikipedia to exclude factual details and in fact it is common for both Wikipedia and even "mainstream" encyclopedias to include technical details about how something works. Nearly every article abput physics or advanced mathematical concepts would be useless without at least some level of describing the technical details. If what you are saying is that there are insufficient reliable sources, in your opinion (and that is a political opinion) to describe technical details, that is a defensible argument based upon Wikipedia policies. WP:NOTMANUAL does not apply at all in this situation as it isn't a HOW-TO book in terms of how to use Bitcoins or something which belongs on Wikibooks. A short, concise explanation of the technical operations for a computer algorithm is certainly appropriate, and this software is unique because of some of the specific algorithms it uses, or at least how other commonly used algorithms are applied in a unique manner. That is also why this software is notable as opposed to other digital currency proposals. The fact that secondary sources aren't writing about these things is only something that is a factor of its age, as such in depth secondary sources going into these have yet to be written. --Robert Horning (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all I do agree that there can be some technical details in the article which come from self published information from Bitcoin.

There are clearly issues of reliability of using self published information from bitcoin for information on bitcoin particularly when issues of possible over-inflation of the security of the facility are involved. Also there is very clearly an issue of WP:Weight. Most of all though sourcing such a large proportion of the article from self published sources is clearly contrary to WP:SELFPUB

ie Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities ... so long as: (1) the material is not unduly self-serving ... (5) the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Here there are a few cases of issue 1 but the real problem is issue 5. The article is primarily based around self-published or questionable sources, including entire sections. This content needs to be reduced in length so that it is no longer the case. By the way the bitcoin blogs/forums are completely inadequate sources under pretty much any circumstances because they just present the view of the blog/forum posters and not necessarily bitcoin's creator etc. Polargeo (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk page archive

This talk page is getting quite long, and some of the older threads are irrelevant now that the page is back in the main article space. If there are no objections, I will instruct a bot to automatically archive discussion threads that have been inactive for more than 30 days. — DataWraith (talk) 10:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Genjix (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I would give this a little bit of time before you set a time limit on the archiving of discussions. If you want to manually archive all of the discussion prior to getting put back to the main namespace, go ahead. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

30 days seemed like a good number after examining the times of the last posts in the various older threads, and I thought that a thread that wasn't replied to in a month is probably resolved or abandoned. Anyway, I just archived the older threads manually for now. — DataWraith (talk) 09:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Projected Total BTC Growth Image

This image under "Monetary Differences" was removed because it's claimed to be unsourced. In that paragraph is a sentence saying that the growth of total bitcoins over time follows a geometric series every 4 years. The claim is backed up by a source from LWN which is not a self-citation. The image posted is a graph of such a geometric series. It's like if you had the birth rates for 6 countries and plot a bar chat. It's fair to say this image is not unsourced. I have replaced it. Thanks. Genjix (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, a quick explanation of the graph is that generating nodes mint new blocks. Everytime they compute a new block, they're awarded 50 bitcoins. Once a certain number of blocks has been computed throughout the network, then there's a jump and generating nodes are only issued half what they were before- 25 bitcoins in this case. This continues and so the total number of generated bitcoins approximates 21 million over time. Hope that helps. Genjix (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay so a small point the image is a projection and should be labeled as such along with at least some description of where the projection comes from.

More importantly. The article from LWN is labeled as being contributed by Nathan Willis. Who is Nathan Willis? He could be you for all I know. Has the article had any editorial oversight? This is not clear and is very important for determining if the source is reliable. Also the graph comes from a place where any Bitcoin user can contribute and it is not clear that you have the rights to release it under a free license. Making sure of correct licensing is extremely important on wikipedia. Obviously you could get around that by recreating the graph yourself and stating where you got the information from that it is based on. Polargeo (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Although I would not suggest that LWN is the highest quality source, they do claim to exert editorial oversight, see this page. FWIW, --Nuujinn (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay it probably scrapes past the test for the information it covers. Polargeo (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said. It's a friend on IRC and he gave me permission. Genjix (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

hmmmm, you've convinced me but I bet if I was to tag the image it would get deleted. The image guys are extremely strict on correct copyright. The image creator would need to prove they were the creator of the image and release it under a free license. Polargeo (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, "a friend on IRC" is not good enough, WP:COPYREQ is the correct process. -- intgr [talk] 22:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I will try to get him to respond here. What exactly does he need to do, to verify permission given for that image? Genjix (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I have tagged the image as needing permission. The link given by intgr above gives instructions on what to do. There is an issue that an email from the IRC friend will not be sufficient unless that person can prove they are the guy who created the image on the website you got it from. Polargeo (talk) 09:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

External links

There is disagreement between editors on the inclusion of some of the external links. Polargeo (talk) 06:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Per normal wikipedia practice only the official website (linked once) and completely neutral sites with useful information that are not previously linked in the text/refs should be in the external links section. Please review WP:External links and see if the inclusion of any of the links other than the official website can be justified. Spam links are not acceptable, blog links are not acceptable, forum links are not acceptable. Polargeo (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Because the official website links to most of these I don't think they can be used as their inclusion is a bit spammy

1. Official website - bitcoin.org Fine allowed on this page
2. Introdution to bitcoins - bitcoinme.org looks a bit spammy to me. What is it
3. Bitcoin forum - Forum not allowed
4. #bitcoin-dev on freenode - IRC chat not allowed
5. Bitcoin at SourceForge.net - spammy but also linked directly from the official web link so no extra utility
6. LWN Bitcoin: Virtual money created by CPU cycles - in article already so does not qualify for external link list

Based on my analysis the external links all should be removed except the official website. WP:External links says specifically The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link. They should not have been returned to the article twice by Genjix Undoing retarded delete [1] after two different users had removed them it is up to Genjix to justify their inclusion on the talkpage, not up to the remover to make a case not to include them. However, in the interests of harmony I am happy to give it some time rather than remove them myself immediately. Polargeo (talk) 21:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was considering trimming back the list as you suggest a couple of days ago. Seems like a good idea to me. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hold on.

1. bitcoin.org - OK, no problems there.
2. bitcoinme.org - Information about bitcoins. An external site with a summary covering everything in depth better than the bitcoin.org site. Informative source that can't be worked into the main body article.
3. forum - Considering most of this article references the forums in some way or another, it is prudent to keep the forums listed as a source of external information for the time being. Blender3D, OpenOffice link to their forums.
4. #bitcoin-dev - IRC chat most certainly is allowed. That's why MediaWiki formats the link. MediaWiki, Amarok link their IRC channel.
5. Bitcoin at SourcForge.net - This is linked from the front page, and is probably fine to go.
6. LWN - This is the best external article giving technical information and is useful to have. As per external link policy it can go, but would be better off remaining.

The external links give informative information. Particularly the IRC is the best location for getting info about Bitcoin as that's where everybody congregates. Genjix (talk) 00:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Genjix, have you read WP:External links? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The IRC is the most problematic of all of the links per external link policy so I think Genjix does need to examine the policy further. I have made some more comments below, linking to the specific sections of the policy. Polargeo (talk) 08:46, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The LWN article and bitcoinme.org can be considered 3rd party sources of material and should be worked into the article where appropriate. The bitcoinme.org website ought to be treated as a self-published sources. I happen to think it is a pretty good introduction of Bitcoin for ordinary people, but it shouldn't be used for more than a couple of references at most, and other sources ought to be used instead if possible. See above discussion about self-published sources, which also apply here. The LWN article certainly doesn't belong as an external link but rather as a source and a pretty good one at that.

I kept the IRC channel link, the link to the forum, and the "official site" links as they are all certainly appropriate for an article like this. The forum link may be redundant as it can be found easily from the main website, although the IRC link is a bit harder to find. I can't think of any other links that really are of significance here which can be considered "resources" for Bitcoins that are widely acknowledged by the community, at least that can't be accessed in less than one or two clicks from the main Bitcoin page. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The LWN article is aleady worked into the article and I am uncertain about bitcoinme, I think that needs more discussion about using it as a general reference because it does appear to be a fan site of sorts.

You have left in 3 external links these are to the main official site, a forum on bitcoin (hosted on the main site) and an IRC channel. Under WP:ELNO forums and chat external links are not generally allowed. Exception cannot be made for these two links because they don't meet WP:ELOFFICIAL part 1 ie the content is not controlled by the organisation. I also don't think there are sufficient grounds to include them here anyway because the main official link provides links to both of these venues anyway so to my view the inclusion of them does not seem to be for the benefit of the wikipedia article but rather the bitcoin fan who wants a quick link to their forums/chat in wikipedia mainspace. Polargeo (talk) 08:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Collapse personal attacks WP:PA

Why are you such a bitter asshole? I have no affiliation with the #bitcoin-dev channel or forums beyond finding them very useful. Go delete more articles since that's all it seems you can do on Wikipedia judging by your stats. Genjix (talk) 09:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Comments to come on your talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC) I mean what's with all the snarky snidy remarks when we're trying to make an encyclopedia? Cut it out. Genjix (talk) 09:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC) You've hit the nail on the head there. We are trying to create an encyclopedia. I am here to make sure this article stays focused on that. Polargeo (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Why did you insinuate those websites were affiliated with me then? If you take a look at the history of the page you'll see I spent considerable time and effort to bring this page out of the incubator fit for mainspace Wikipedia inclusion. It is incredibly insulting when you deride me as "some guy spamming his links" when I have no affiliation with them. Only as a user who found them to be the best source of information. Genjix (talk) 09:51, 17 December 2010 (UTC) I am trying to focus on the quality of the article. I have not said you are spamming links. I have said some links were spammy. You would do well to read the policy guidelines that others highlight so that we are all assessing the content based on the same criteria. Polargeo (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC) I just remembered this. Do you have a personal vendetta against the Bitcoin community or something? Maybe it's best if you find another article to edit since it sounds like you're angry & emotional there. Genjix (talk) 10:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC) I am here as an experienced editor who cares about wikipedia nothing more. I don't see my appearance on that thread as anything more than me attempting to engage with bitcoiners about wikipedia rules and failing. However, this is wikipedia not a forum now so please be aware where you are and stop trying to attack me or my motives WP:PA. Polargeo (talk) 10:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC) I should note here that I was trying to work a compromise rather than simply trying to slavishly follow Wikipedia policies. There is WP:DBAD that certainly applies. If you claim that is a meta policy, think again. It is about as old as Wikipedia itself in terms of principles. Another similar policy is WP:IAR, which I must admit is something more friendly than the other concept but sometimes you have to bash some editors on the head. I realize you care about Wikipedia, but try not to own the article either. We can work together here, and wikilawyering isn't getting this article written any better. This is not an irreversible change and the additional links certainly can be removed at a future date. Let's try to work together and note here that some relative newcomers to Wikipedia are involved in the development of this article. See also User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles, particularly principle #2 which is something I see often neglected by long-time contributors to Wikipedia. These are not real vandal you are fighting here, but earnest contributors who need guidance and a whole heap of patience. The problems you are complaining about can be fixed in time, which is where a huge call for patience is all that more necessary here. Words like "some of these links you added are spammy links" is to me code word for "we don't need your help, go away!" I haven't seen any links added which are genuine spam, such as a link to a pharmacology website or some porn. Please, let's assume some good faith here. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC) So you are saying that I am being a dick and wikilawyering and trying to own the article and that I am slavishly following wikipedia policies that have been around for a very long time and instead of enforcing these tired old policies I should ignore all of the rules. Please cease this sort of personal attack on me it will not achieve anything. Polargeo (talk) 08:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC) For the record, you do come across as being a dick and seem to be wikilawyering and maybe even trying to own the article. The others have repeatedly explained the reasoning behind their changes and signaled that they are willing to assume good faith and work with you. The obverse does not seem to hold true: you stubbornly insist on your own views without considering that you might be wrong, hiding comments you don't like behind collapsible templates and editing the article before consensus has been reached. Yes, you might be technically right on the fine points of the law, but being right does not mean you're not a dick (to quote WP:DBAD). — DataWraith (talk) 11:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC) First I have included these further comments in the collapse box because they are about me not the article. Wikilawyering is usually about using the rules badly or against the spirit of wikipedia. As you say I am not using them badly and the spirit of wikipedia is that the information comes from verifiable, reliable sources and is not original research. Forums, chatrooms, vast tracts of text added by fans of Bitcoin with no sources is not the spirit of wikipedia. We are not talking about quibbling over minor technicalities here at all. Therefore I am not wikilawyering. As for hiding comments I am trying to focus people away from personal attacks, three editors have personally attacked me here and that is not acceptable, even if they do care passionately about Bitcoin. Saying I am being a dick is not acceptable. Polargeo (talk) 12:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag

This article reads far too much from the perspective of a Bitcoin guru and seems to totally fail to take into account the kind of outside observer that comprises over 99.9% of Wikipedia's user base, that is, the lay person. Most people reading it to learn about Bitcoin for the first time are going to say "wtf" not "wow". This article would look great on the intro page of a Bitcoin wiki as a reference for Bitcoin experts, and have always wondered why Bitcoin's article had been deleted for so long, but now that I have seen it, I am no longer surprised why. The claim that Bitcoin is "currency" of any kind is controversial in and of itself, the vast majority of the world doesn't recognize it as such, it would be far more correct and neutral at this point to call it scrip. Compare to an article about a religion that introduces itself as "the one true religion" when that is an opinion shared only by its adherents. This article also presently fails to assert notability, which is a recognized criterion for deletion. Casascius♠ (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

What is the assertion of notability? This article passes WP:GNG as far as I can tell. Is there another notability criteria documented elsewhere? -- intgr [talk] 21:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Notability (software). The article needs to convey why the software or the concept is important. The present introduction suggests the software's claim to notability is its association with Satoshi Nakamoto and Wei Dai, neither of whom have articles about them, nor likely satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (people). In many cases, even when the subject of the article is notable, failure to assert notability (i.e. to say why they're notable) is grounds for automatic speedy deletion (see WP:CSD A7 and A9). Fortunately, speedy deletion does not apply here because it's a software article (which A7 excludes), but the article still needs to make clear why Bitcoin is important, particularly if it were to see another AfD.

An example of an assertion of notability for Bitcoin would merely to indicate that it is the (most prominent example of | fastest growing | most popular | etc.) decentralized peer-to-peer cryptocurrency on the Internet today, with a reference to a reliable third party source that vouches for that. Simply saying it's digital currency by Satoshi Nakamoto (where Satoshi Nakamoto isn't a blue link) doesn't cut it, and automatically raises people's spam radar. Casascius♠ (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, notability has been coved extensively by the previous AfD discussion and the most recent deletion review. If you want to start another AfD about the notability here, be my guest. Seriously. Bring in additional outside review on this topic and get more editors involved. I hope they come too. It meets basic notability standards in terms of the topic itself and this article is not about the notability of the developers, at least by having more than two independent 3rd party "reliable sources" which cover the topic in detail. I'd like to know why that fails notability in your view? --Robert Horning (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Bitcoin does not fail my understanding of Wikipedia's notability guidelines per se, based on my personal understanding of it acquired elsewhere other than Wikipedia. But I am saying that the article fails to assert notability (e.g. to say why Bitcoin is important), a different problem than being non-notable. Casascius♠ (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (software) is not even a policy or a guideline. Nor does it explain what "assertion of notability" means. In any case, adhering to WP:GNG is sufficient for demonstrating notability. -- intgr [talk] 23:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

"Assertion of notability" is a common phrase used on Wikipedia (Google it). It isn't explicitly defined because it is used in its normal dictionary sense. See wiktionary:assert. Assertion means something like claim. Asserting notability means conveying why something important. Bitcoin is important because people see its peer-to-peer nature as being revolutionary and say so in reliable third-party sources, not because it was created by Satoshi or thought of by Wei Dai and mentioned on a mailing list. Casascius♠ (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

That's just hearsay. If something is not defined in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines then it probably isn't a "recognized criterion for deletion". I kindly request that you read and understand policies before making baseless claims of deletion.

The phrase "Assertion of notability" was once used in the criteria for speedy deletion. Now it's called "indication of importance", which "applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their [...] software, or other creative works".

Also, Speedy deletion only applies to articles that are obviously insubstantial: "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. [...] If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations"

This article is substantial, has a long history with many editors, has had a deletion discussion and has been restored in deletion review. There's no way it qualifies for speedy deletion, making your argument moot.

On the other hand, if you have suggestions on how to improve the lead section then please do it without claiming it to be a criterion for deletion. Better yet, make the changes yourself. :) -- intgr [talk] 15:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It's no good, I think you are arguing at cross purposes intgr, as I don't think Casascius was actually trying to get the article deleted, he just hasn't got the policy language yet. On a more general note one of the main reasons for our notability policy is so that when an article is created it can be properly sourced with an NPOV. When an article scrapes through notability based on a couple of news articles such as this one has done it should not result in a "free-for-all" of unsourced information or stuff which comes from the primary source of bitcoin. Polargeo (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Boldly change the article myself...you mean like I already did, half a day before your recommendation? :) Casascius♠ (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

What specifically is not being neutral in tone? Claims of original research may be somewhat appropriate, but that has been discussed above in detail. Wikipedia articles do not need to be "dumbed down for the layman" but can go into some detail. Yes, a simple explanation can be used to introduce the idea, but articles like Taylor series show how complex concepts can be explained in some significant detail that perhaps is a bit beyond what a casual reader with a high school education may be able to comprehend. That is hardly the only example of a complex topic which goes into technical details in depth.

I know that you are trying to be critical of Bitcoin as a concept, and that I can understand, Cassascius. Original research applies equally to criticism, however, and unless you can find articles which go into this criticism by independent 3rd party sources which go into this criticism you can't really add that either.

In terms reading the article and saying "wft?", I got the same impression when I first read about Bitcoin. Still, that is only a gut reaction and something which requires further reading and study if you want to understand it. There is certainly no way to gauge or measure what "the vast majority of the world" thinks about something like this unless you can demonstrate some sort of survey or some other valid metric. All that implies you need to find sources for this criticism too, if you want to mention the criticism.

Regarding if this is currency, money, or whatever it might be, I would argue that the word hasn't been invented yet and that whole argument is mainly semantics. Satoshi Nakomoto coined the term "cryptocurrency", where all of the articles using that term currently on Wikipedia refer directly to Bitcoin. As to the appropriateness of using that term in this article, all I can say is that the term seems to caught hold in terms of 3rd party sources about Bitcoin. Read the sources, and if there is a better word which can be documented from the sources, please bring it up. I don't mind a discussion of this nature, but keep it here on the talk page unless you can back it up with a source. I'd be curious about what you would call it other than perhaps a "ponzi scheme" or something equally charged and certainly putting in a point of view bias by using that term. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I actually think Bitcoin is effing sweet, and that the idea as a whole has lots of merit. To the extent I'm critical, the intent is constructive. I hope Bitcoin, or whatever comes of it, gets taken seriously by the world, the same as BitTorrent (an indirect result of of Napster, Gnutella, and the likes) is a powerful force today. I do not see Bitcoin as a ponzi scheme in the least.

I have not inserted anything in the article critical of Bitcoin, so I am not sure the basis for your complaint that I have done so without proper sources. What I have inserted, is Bitcoin for dummies, or probably better yet, Bitcoin for most Wikipedia readers, to whom the word "cryptocurrency" is as meaningful as "oxidase".

To the world, "currency" means money, like USD, EUR. Bitcoin is not that. Bitcoin is properly called scrip. Even Canadian Tire money, which is probably a good example of something close to something currency-like as you can get, yet it is still called scrip. For this article to not be considered astroturfing by the rest of the Wikipedia community, it needs to use language that properly conveys Bitcoin's importance to the world without looking like it's trying to overdo it. Casascius♠ (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of describing bitcoin as a scrip. I didn't know this word but it seems to be more accurate a description of bitcoin, since the word currency obviously raises understandable issues. However, I regret that the mention of the date of creation and the name of the designer have been put at the end of the intro. IMO, these historic precision are important enough to be brought at the beginning, and even in the first sentence. It would make more sense than bringing technical details (such that the mention of the wallet file or the BTC acronym).--Grondilu (talk) 09:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

If and when Satoshi Nakamoto has an article and becomes a recognized name with significant independent notability outside of Bitcoin, then without a doubt it should be moved up. If Bitcoin were made by Bill Gates, you can bet his name would appear in the first sentence. Casascius♠ (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia guideline or even something in the Style Manual which suggests that you must not include the name of the lead developer and that the only reason for mentioning that is if the person is notable in their own right. Mentioning him in the lead paragraph is certainly appropriate too, especially as he is mentioned in independent 3rd party sources on top of being listed prominently on the main website and even the about box on the main reference implementation of the software (sometimes referred to as the "official" client, although I hate that term). We don't need to red-link Satoshi Nakamoto, as I don't think that he is notable enough to warrant his own article, but that isn't the standard for mentioning him within an article where the topic itself has notability. All that matters is that the information is factual and verifiable, preferably from 3rd party sources (which it is). Are you disputing these factual details and can you provide a competing source of information that would indicate somebody else wrote the bulk of this software and that it was released on a different date? --Robert Horning (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with RH. However, where his name actually appears in the lead section matters very little. Polargeo (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've just created a nice new redirect for Satoshi Nakamoto pointing to the Bitcoin article. Polargeo (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Valid Bitcoin address inappropriate for article

I see that 1rYK1YzEGa59eN9Aa7w7KUF2Za4jAYYTd is listed as an example of a Bitcoin address. I suggest that if that address doesn't belong to the person who put it there, it's inclusion is inappropriate on privacy grounds. On the other hand, if the editor who put it there does own it, it's inappropriate on solicitation grounds. The address could be replaced by a similarly-formed valid Base58 string which isn't a valid address, or simply described as being a Base58 representation of a 160-bit integer with certain properties. — Mike Gogulski ^{↗C•@•T↗} 09:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the problems which occurs when the article is not sourced properly. If we had a source for the address we could check. It may be an example taken straight from bitcoin.org, we just do not know. A plea to all contributors, please source the article properly with inline citations or else a lot of material should just be removed so that the article can be done properly from scratch without original research. Polargeo (talk) 10:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I have just removed the address, there are no google hits on it so it is almost certainly original research. Much of the other text added along with this is likely to be original research as well. Soon I will start removing text that is not sourced or cannot be quickly and easily sourced unless it is very basic obvious stuff. Polargeo (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

The address is one I generated for the purpose. Even if it wasn't, who cares? It is a random number which almost certainly exists nowhere in the block chain, so its privacy implications are nonexistent. If someone is seriously worried someone might randomly send me a jackpot of Bitcoins as a result, then change a digit or two. If I put a random number in an article about random numbers, is someone going to freak out because it might happen to be their SSN or phone number? Or that it isn't sourced to some reliable third party that confirms that yes, this, indeed, is a random number (an ironic requirement given the definition of randomness). A random number is meaningless if not coupled with some information that makes it notable. It is very paradoxical that this article is deemed to have sufficient notability to exist but then this discussion rampant complaints about a lack of third party sources. Either nominate the thing for deletion on the grounds of insufficient coverage in third party WP:RS, or please accept that the few that exist are going to have to be enough to support the article. Casascius♠ (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Polargeo, don't make such bold statements that proclaim your article ownership without at least trying to get some sort of consensus on that act. Seriously, "Soon I will start removing text that is not sourced or cannot be quickly and easily sourced unless it is very basic obvious stuff"? You are setting yourself up for an edit war at the very least and certainly your actions in this regard are abusive and contrary to the basic principles of Wikipedia.... the very pillars that build this project. DO NOT TAKE ABUSIVE MEASURES WITHOUT CONSENSUS. Your opinion on these things is not the final word, and your actions in this regard are causing more harm than good. It certainly is going to drive editors out of Wikipedia if you continue at the least, and you are certainly not assuming good faith here.

I realize that you are doing what you think is for the good of Wikipedia, but it can go too far and you don't seem to show any self-restraint with your attacks in this regard. Please work with others who are trying to write this article rather than trying to treat them and myself as enemies.

In term of an action which can be done here in terms of trying to demonstrate what a Bitcoin address might look like, I'd suggest perhaps some sort of donation address to a well known and notable group, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Better yet have an address to the Wikimedia Foundation, but at the moment that doesn't exist. This can be sourced, verified, and used as a legitimate example of a Bitcoin address. Make sure that the text of the example makes clear that the address is just an example. To cite a comparable article that uses something of this nature, see IP address where some real addresses are being used to explain the concept. I certainly think it is useful to include such an address, but I also agree with the issues of "original research" in terms of simply generating a random address. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it really a virtual currency or digital scrip?

I'm not sure why these are the very first things used to describe Bitcoin. The wiki page on Virtual Currency says that they're only used for purchasing goods or services in games or virtual worlds. Bitcoin isn't limited to virtual goods or services. Digital scrip seems to imply that Bitcoin is based on debt or something. I don't think this is true, either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.89.127 (talk) 11:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Again a problem of not sticking to sources. I haven't found a source that describes Bitcoin as a scrip therefore this should not necessarily appear in the article. However it may be good to have it in the see also section. Some sources describe bitcoin as a digital currency, a virtual currency or a crypto-currency and therefore these terms should be used in the article and weighted acording to useage in the sources. How the virtual currency article describes a virtual currency is largely irrelevent because wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source and that article probably needs updating anyway. If the virtual currency article is poor just don't link to it or go there and fix it are the two options. Polargeo (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)