Jump to content

Talk:Bitcoin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HowardStrong (talk | contribs) at 06:53, 28 October 2012 (→‎The 100-million dollar line isn't hard to verify.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 14, 2010Articles for deletionDeleted
August 11, 2010Deletion reviewEndorsed
October 3, 2010Deletion reviewEndorsed
December 14, 2010Deletion reviewOverturned

Floating point operations

I edited the bit about FLOPS. Bitcoin does not use floating point operations, and to put a figure in FLOPS is incorrect. Even the cited "reference" (and I use the term loosely) at [1] states "We make exactly 0 petaFLOPS. Ok, we have to work around it but how? You can't convert integer in flops operations...". This person is correct: Bitcoin is zero petaFLOPS, and integer ops can not be converted into flops. To put a FLOPS value in the Wikipedia article, particularly one cited from an anonymous user on a random bitcoin chat forum, is nonsense. Barry McGuiness (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the same work were applied in FLOPS, that would be the measurement. This is only for comparing the amount of work done by Bitcoin to other computing systems which this measurement does well. We are comparing computing power here, not the work generated.--HowardStrong (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"If the same work were applied in FLOPS, that would be the measurement" - No, it wouldn't. You can't convert between IOPS and FLOPS like that. The FLOPS value has no validity at all. The calculation of the "estimate" in the bitcointalk.org forum chat assumes that there is some kind of equivalency between the IOPS and FLOPS performed by a GPU, but there is no such equivalency. The implication of your measurement is that an increase in the FLOPS processed by an average GPU, say by 20%, would mean that the "estimate" would be also increased by 20%, even if the integer ops (and therefore, bitcoin hashes) remained constant. This is clearly invalid. The FLOPS figure is not even wrong; it doesn't make any sense. It's like trying to say that Lance Armstrong is one of the fastest runners alive, because you can measure his average speed on a bike and convert that to an an equivalent running speed. It just doesn't make any sense. If you want to put a performance estimate, then put the number of hashes per second, or integer ops per second, not flops, because the number of flops performed by bitcoin is zero (a point that, again, the cited bitcointalk.org chat actually states). Barry McGuiness (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another reference:
Barry McGuiness (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So-called "most powerful distributed" yadda yadda

This REALLY needs a reliable source before it can be re-inserted. The note that someone added even helpfully explained "hey this is an estimate and the hashing operation doesn't even do floating point operations"! The "citation" that Folding@Home is the "second biggest" did not at all prove that F@H is the 2nd biggest nor that Buttcoin is the biggest. The other citations were to non-WP:RSes.

Get some reliable media coverage to back up this claim or leave it out. Your Lord and Master (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Namcoins

namecoin is based on the bitcoin technology but there is no reference to it. I'm missing the aspect of the bitcoin technolgy to be something new that wasn't there before and therefore enables not just moneytrading but also building new bitcoin-alike technologies.

in this respect, bitcoin can be seen as a distributed tamperproof logic timestamp server that functions as a key-value store. how could that be included in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.131.211.18 (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Namecoins aren't notable. They are not being included.--HowardStrong (talk) 21:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Notability only applies to whether an individual article exists for a given topic, not whether that topic is mentioned in the content of other articles: see WP:NOTABILITY, quote "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list.".
But that doesn't even matter, because in this case, notability is already established by the fact that the Namecoin article exists. If you do not think that Namecoin is notable, then you should work to get that article deleted on that basis. Barry McGuiness (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since Namecoin is based on Bitcoin technology, it is absolutely relevant to this article and should be included as a brief mention, perhaps in a section about such technologies that are based on or inspirired by Bitcoin. - SudoGhost 22:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin is exchanged throughout the Americas, Europe, Asia and Russia.

The categories will stay accordingly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HowardStrong (talk • contribs) 01:04, 26 October 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

The categories only include currencies exchanged within a geographically-defined region, not every medium of exchange excepted by anyone within a specific continent. – Zntrip 01:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bitcoin is a currency that is traded in those areas.--HowardStrong (talk) 02:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bitcoin is not a currency, it is a private scrip. It is not legal tender in any jurisdiction and is not issued by a monetary authority for the purposes of establishing the money supply of an economy. The fact that some individuals accept it for certain transactions is irrelevant. – Zntrip 03:12, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought currency was any medium of exchange.--HowardStrong (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm going to have to agree with Zntrip, if this is the edit in question. Bitcoin is not a "Currency of the Americas" or any other area. I have some won around here somewhere, if someone accepts that as currency it doesn't become a "Currency of the Americas". Beinng able to use unrecognized currency in private transactions doesn't mean it belongs in a given category like that. I also don't think it belongs in any of those categories especially when considering the nature of Bitcoin, which removes the need to tie it to any one geopolitical area. - SudoGhost 04:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Scrip requires a peg, for example a merchant saying that they will sell goods at such and such ratio to the scrip, or a fixed exchange ratio to a pre-existing currency. Bitcoin is not pegged to anything, its price freely floats. Therefore Bitcoin is not scrip. Anonymous, 05:51, 26 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.97.142.76 (talk)
  • Comment - There is no doubt that Bitcoin can be a currency/commodity by de facto. But it is not a token that gets passed around. It is quite literally brought into existence by a ledger entry secured by cryptographic hash which proves original ownership of a number value. Subsequent transactions subtract a number value and assign it to another account, again secured by a digital signature authorizing the transaction. Julian Tosh (talk) 05:53, 26 October 2012 (-8)
Most currencies don't use tokens and just adjust numeric values like you describe. In the case of Bitcoin, however, that is NOT accurate: Bitcoin uses "coins" which can be transferred either as a whole or by combining/dividing. There is no notion of accounts in the low level, that is just a high-level abstraction used by wallets. --Luke-Jr (talk) 21:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how the three latest comments are relevant to the discussion. We are not discussing if Bitcoint is a currency or not; we are instead discussing if this article belongs in these categories. – Zntrip 15:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the word "currency"

I would like to begin a discussion, which has taken place in several other sections, about the use of the world "currency" in this article. As I have previously stated, Bitcoin does not seem to qualify as a "currency". The term is used in economics to denote the medium of exchange that is a jurisdiction's legal tender and part of the money supply of that jurisdiction's economy. I would agree however that the terms "electronic currency" (as well as e-currency, digital currency, etc.) and "alternative currency" could be used on the article, as those terms convey different concepts. – Zntrip 23:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like alternative currency or electronic or virtual currency seems to be what most of the sources seem to use, so it would make sense to use the same terminology. - SudoGhost 23:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was argued very well above that Bitcoin is agreed to be a general currency. Most currency is electronic anyways. 90% of the US dollar is. It's redundant and it implies Bitcoin is somehow lesser because it has no government issuing it. Bitcoin is medium of exchange, period, that is a currency. We are also seeing banknotes going around for Bitcoin, so it's not entirely electronic. --HowardStrong (talk) 23:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any such comment, but saying that currency is defined as a given definition (which varies, btw), and that you believe Bitcoin meets that definition, and therefore it is a currency, is WP:OR. - SudoGhost 23:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the UK's FSA (Financial Services Authority) plainly calls Bitcoin a currency. Gold is a currency in the same sense.--HowardStrong (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for this claim? - SudoGhost 23:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-04-02/europe/31272985_1_currency-traders-forex/2

"Bitcoin poses a puzzle for regulators. It does not fit the UK Financial Services Authority's definition of e-money as it is not issued on the receipt of funds, according to an FSA response to a Bitcoin business that requested to be regulated in the UK.

But the creation of Bitcoin could amount to "issuing payment instruments" as long as Bitcoins in fact count as money, which is "if and when they become widely used", the FSA concluded.

A spokeswoman for the German Bundesbank told Reuters it was not classifying Bitcoins as e-currency."--HowardStrong (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a source, where did you get that from? - SudoGhost 23:41, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not see the link above? Of course it's a source.--HowardStrong (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not going to indent all of your comment, then no, it's hard to find stuff you link. However, that source doesn't support your claim at all. I'll ask again, do you have a source that support the claim that "the UK's FSA (Financial Services Authority) plainly calls Bitcoin a currency"? The only thing that source says is that it "could amount to "issuing payment instruments", not that it does or that this would be considered currency. - SudoGhost 23:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be a pedant. I'll find a primary source of course but my claim was quoted right in the article of a reliable piece of journalism: It's not legally classified as a e-currency by regulators who have bothered to classify it.--HowardStrong (talk) 23:51, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to say something "clearly" calls something a currency, don't provide a source that says nothing of the sort, and then claim someone is being pedantic when they point this out, you cannot have it both ways. It's not legally classified as e-currency by the Deutsche Bundesbank, so this somehow means that it's a currency in the UK? I would love an explanation for how you came to this conclusion. - SudoGhost 23:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it is not being treated as a traditional e-currency but is being traded like traditional money, what else can it be besides currency? Could it be anything like the original tokens of value that were traded without governments? Weren't those currencies? It's not a matter of precision but logic. Z over here has a firm convictions that only government issued reciepts are considered money but history shows otherwise. And Bitcoin is showing not to exclusively be a e-currency. --HowardStrong (talk) 23:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Take the first part of your sentence: "it is not being treated as a traditional e-currency" and stop. Clarify that, "It is not being treated as a traditional e-currency by Deutsche Bundesbank". and that's what the source says. The source does not say "but is being traded like traditional money" and to claim that not being e-currency means that it is a currency is a false dichotomy. "What else could it be?" is not how Wikipedia provides information, you need a reliable source supporting your claim. - SudoGhost 00:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to the coins and Bitcoin dollar bills people are using. I am speaking in general about things that are attributable.--HowardStrong (talk) 00:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the US dollar is an ecurrency just like Bitcoin, which I have stated. 90% of the US dollar and Euro exist electronically. It's an obvious truism for any currency. Should we start calling the US dollar emoney now?--HowardStrong (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...and you need a source to verify those things. Please provide a source for your claim that "UK's FSA (Financial Services Authority) plainly calls Bitcoin a currency", or anything else you just said. - SudoGhost 00:25, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let's assume for a moment you had a source that verified that "the US dollar is an ecurrency just like Bitcoin". So what? Even if that were the case (unlikely), that does not somehow mean that Bitcoin is a currency, nor does that mean that "we start calling the US dollar emoney", because the overwhelming majority of reliable sources used to describe the USD does not use this descriptor, so no, we wouldn't. We might mention in the relevant article that it had been referred to as "ecurrency" by a reliable source if prominent enough and relevant enough to the article, but that's it. - SudoGhost 00:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only source is an email somebody forwarded to me. I am not going to go through the work of verifying that. What's for certain is that the FSA is not treating it like traditional e-money as cited above. Additionally, the fact that these coins and bills exist, is testament enough that Bitcoin is not a strict e-money. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20125470-1/are-physical-bitcoins-legal/ That is the principle here: Bitcoin is not solely an e-money. Electronic money under its definition on Wikipedia is strictly digital. --HowardStrong (talk) 00:35, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That "the FSA is not treating it like traditional e-money as cited above" does not mean anything. A source saying that Bitcoin isn't something does not in any way come close to verifying that it is something else. The fact that coints and bills exist also do not mean that it is currency. You cannot claim that "Electronic money under its definition on Wikipedia is strictly digital." and then also claim that the USD is "ecurrency". Again, you cannot have it both ways. You can argue and speculate and draw whatever conclusions you'd like, but unless you have reliable sources that directly support what you're saying, it doesn't have any bearing on what the article says. - SudoGhost 00:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if a currency is traded physcally, it is generally a currency. I really don't care about winning arguments: The fact is Bitcoin is also a physical currency and that's attritable. To call physical objects digital and electronic is dead wrong. --HowardStrong (talk) 00:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A electronic currency is a currency. A banknote is a form of currency. The general term currency applies here.--HowardStrong (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can find a reliable source that backs up what you're claiming, you can state it all you'd like and draw all the inventive conclusions you'd like, but it doesn't matter, and will not effect how the article is written. - SudoGhost 00:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a inventive conclusion that Bitcoin banknotes and coins are traded and exist. It's already cited in the article. I can provide more citations. If it's attributable, it's encylopedic. Physical Bitcoins are physical currency.--HowardStrong (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How does this mean that Bitcoins are not overwhelmingly referred to as electronic/digital currency? It doesn't. The same way the USD having an electronic aspect does not mean it should be referred to as "ecurrency", the inverse is also true here for the same reason: we use what reliable sources use, not what we want the article to say. The article already details the physical notes, so you're arguing for something that's already there. That however, does not change what the WP:LEDE will say. - SudoGhost 00:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article summary covers the topic as a whole, not just one aspect of it. Many sources may say it is a electronic currency but it doesn't cover its physical and overall use. Sources may shape content but they don't shape organization and categorization of the content.--HowardStrong (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Bitcoin exists physically has no bearing on whether it is a currency. Many alternative currencies exist physically. – Zntrip 01:03, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative currency is a currency. Alternative is just a subjective label.--HowardStrong (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that these coins exist does not mean the lede changes, unless you can provide a single source that says these coins are used with anywhere near the same frequency as the electronic bitcoin, it is grossly WP:UNDUE to give that much weight to the physical notes. Not liking what reliable sources use to describe a subject does not mean you can change the meaning, you say "subjective", but it is a qualifier as required by a concise WP:LEDE. - SudoGhost 01:07, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we all agree that Bitcoin is an alternative currency. If so, why not just use that in the lead? – Zntrip 01:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If the consensus agrees, that can be the title. Alternative is a more useful qualifier than digital which is so plainly obvious.--HowardStrong (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give this proposal an hour. If nobody objects, I'll change it.--HowardStrong (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given that most of the sources in the article use "digital/electronic", and I don't see any that refer to it as an "alternative currency", it doesn't make sense to change the lede sentence in this way. It's fine to expand upon it in the article proper by explaining that it is an "alternative currency" by citing reliable sources, but it's inappropriate to ignore reliable sources and use a descriptor we feel is more appropriate. - SudoGhost 01:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are several sources that refer to Bitcoin as an "alternative currency" (such as Market Watch). We could include them in the article. – Zntrip 01:38, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both terms could be incorporated in the lead. Example: "Bitcoin is an electronic alternative currency". – Zntrip 01:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's very excessive. It does not read well at all. I take back what I said: Both terms are very obvious. They don't even need to be mentioned. It's really all been about writing and the readability to me, not the content.--HowardStrong (talk) 01:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Both terms are used but of the two, "digital/electronic" seems to be much more common (even by the Bitcoin creator), and electronic is a more concise definition, since "alternative currency" means many many things, whereas electronic currency has a more narrow definition while lines up with Bitcoin more appropriately (as seen in the Electronic money article itself). - SudoGhost 01:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 100-million dollar line isn't hard to verify.

All you have to do is take the current exchange rate and multiply it by the currency in circulation to get the current monetary supply value. Let Anonymous have the line. Thse sources are perfectly fine for something basic arithmetic can prove. --HowardStrong (talk) 06:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

$10 USD/BTC times 10 million Bitcoins equals $100 million. If you want to question basic mathematics, feel free.--HowardStrong (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is going back to that sourcing issue. It's all well and fine that you think that the current exchange rate times the currency in circulation equals $100 million, but this does not mean that "the total money supply is valued at over 100 million US dollars." You can't draw connections like that without a reliable source. - SudoGhost 06:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if 1 Bitcoin is valued at 10 dollars then 10 million of them will be valued at that price as of present. That's standard market practice.--HowardStrong (talk) 06:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bitcoin&oldid=520228362"