Talk:Bitcoin: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:04, 18 December 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bitcoin article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40

This article was nominated for deletion on 14 July 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was delete.

A deletion review for Bitcoin was concluded on 14 December 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was restore incubated article to mainspace.

Nomenclature convention

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

List of sources

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Limbo assessments

Article incubation assessment

Does the article establish notability of the subject ?
A. It meets the general notability guideline:

B. It meets any relevant subject specific guideline:
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:
Is it neutral?
A. It is a fair representation without bias:

B. It is written in a non-promotional manner:
It does not contain unverifiable speculation:
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I don't understand. Why can I not possibly own a lender bitcoins? KLP (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Can the same not be said for cash? Is cash not money? KLP (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

External links

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)[reply]

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

Official website - bitcoin.org Fine allowed on this page
Introdution to bitcoins - bitcoinme.org looks a bit spammy to me. What is it
Bitcoin forum - Forum not allowed
#bitcoin-dev on freenode - IRC chat not allowed
Bitcoin at SourceForge.net - spammy but also linked directly from the official web link so no extra utility
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hold on.

bitcoin.org - OK, no problems there.
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.
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.
#bitcoin-dev - IRC chat most certainly is allowed. That's why MediaWiki formats the link. MediaWiki, Amarok link their IRC channel.
Bitcoin at SourcForge.net - This is linked from the front page, and is probably fine to go.
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Comments to come on your talkpage. Polargeo (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 223: / Line 223: @@
 :::::::::::::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]]. [[User:Polargeo 3|Polargeo]] ([[User talk:Polargeo 3|talk]]) 10:15, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 {{Collapse bottom}}
+:::::: I should note here that I was trying to work a compromise rather than simply trying to slavishly follow Wikipedia policies.  There is [[meta:Don't be a dick|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 [[WP:OWN|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 [[WP:AGF|assume some good faith]] here.  --[[User:Robert Horning|Robert Horning]] ([[User talk:Robert Horning|talk]]) 01:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)