Talk:Bitcoin

Merged articles

Merchants accepting bitcoin

Right now we say that there are "more than a thousand" brick and mortar merchants (based on this article) and "more than twenty thousand online merchants" based on the fact that the US-based bitcoin payment processors BitPay and CoinBase (neither of which, shamefully, do we mention by name in the article) claim 10k+ merchants each. We should find a better number and reference for the worldwide number of online merchants.Chris Arnesen 03:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The infobox

User:KyleLandas and I differ on the "Inflation rate" item in the infobox and I'd like to discuss it here. I wrote:

Bitcoin creation rate will drop to 12.5BTC in 2017.

That's a concise statement that tells the user precisely how the creation rate will behave over the next 7+ years.

Kyle said in his edit summary, "This is not comprehensive. It is a micro-view of the inflation-rate. I am restoring it to the original statement." which is:

The rate of new Bitcoin creation will be halved every four years until there are 21 million BTC.

This statement has a couple shortcomings.

• It's imprecise. It doesn't actually tell the reader how the rate will behave over the next few years. The rate could be getting a little lower every day, like R = 100BTC * 2^((Time since 2009 in years)/4). In fact the rate is a "step function", which is in no way clear from the phrase "will be halved every four years". Even if the user knows that it's a step function, the statement gives no indication of when the next step will occur. I.e. the rate could drop from 50 to 25 tomorrow, then again in four years from tomorrow.
• The 21 million bitcoin ceiling won't be hit until 2140!!! Everyone reading the article will be long dead when that day arrives. That number is correct, it's just not interesting enough to feature so prominently.

Chris Arnesen 18:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but there is a good middle ground - the infobox statement is correct, but should be appended with the current level of inflation VinceSamios (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

the box already had the current rate. I made a tweak, we'll see if it sticks.Chris Arnesen 16:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Intrinsic value

The following sentence links to the article on "intrinsic value", that article does not refer to any currency or commodity, but rather to the equity of a corporation. "In finance, intrinsic value refers to the actual value of a company or stock determined through fundamental analysis without reference to its market value."

Bitcoins have been described as lacking intrinsic value as an investment because their value depends only on the willingness of users to accept them.[43]

Bitcoin is neither a company nor a stock, therefore this article does not in any way relate to the topic at hand.

Secondly, every single thing in the world is only valuable if someone is willing to accept it. Regardless of what a person who is on TV or writes something on paper says, if they are inaccurate, I do not think that we should faithfully reproduce their errors, unless it is to point out that it was specifically their point of view. As an example, if no one accepted dollars, dollars would not be valuable. If no one wanted to buy gold, gold would not have a market price. There are many examples of currencies and assets that have fallen out of use, and therefore no longer have value. If those items had "intrinsic value" (which remember, according to wikipedia is related to a company or stock but as a definition means "necessary" or "belonging naturally") then they could not exist without the necessary attributes of having that value. As a last example, every single stock on both the NYSE and NASDAQ also only has value because someone is willing to pay the requested price, someone is willing to accept them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.141.141.22 (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

No, it's correct to say that Bitcoin has no intrinsic value in the financial sense described in that article. The article specifically mentions companies and stocks, but the same concept can be applied to any asset. A certificate of stock has intrinsic value because it entitles you to a portion of the company's future earnings and implies a partial ownership of their current assets. A TV has intrinsic value because I can watch TV on it. Gold can be thought of as having intrinsic value because it's been used as a currency for as long as currencies have existed and also has some industrial applications. A bitcoin, on the other hand, is really truly only worth as much as I can find someone to pay for it.Chris Arnesen 23:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with the definition of intrinsic value as it pertains to Bitcoin since one bitcoin (unit) is attributed a portion of value provided to it by the protocol, network and data of Bitcoin. Although we used to think intrinsic value was something physical, this was before the advent of non-physical "data", and it is now commonly accepted that Data has value. However.... Intrinsic Value solves problems Bitcoin doesn't have. VinceSamios (talk) 22:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by VinceSamios (talk • contribs) 22:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm a btc fanboy and I want them to have intrinsic value because it sounds disparaging to say they don't. But I really don't think they do. Possession of bitcoins does not imply any ownership of the protocol, network, or data. Furthermore, even if that we're the case, the data and protocol are public info, free to everyone. As for the network, if I have 1000 bitcoins and the market price crashes to zero, it's not like my bitcoins entitle me to an ASIC mining rig or something like that.Chris Arnesen 17:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

It does have some intrinsic value, because the blockchain can be used to record something else than Bitcoin transactions (fiat transactions for instance, as with coloured coins, or general facts as with http://virtual-notary.org/) while transaction costs have to be paid in BTC. There already exist firms that provide this service outside the blockchain, so it does have some non-zero value. Note that it is the Bitcoin protocol itself that supports those applications, not just some website that happens to accept BTC payments. The protocol and the network cannot refuse such transactions, they do have value and the only way to access them is to pay for them with BTC. Right now, this gives BTC only a tiny intrinsic value, but if it were to be used on a large scale with coloured coins, then this intrinsic value could increase dramatically. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The technology and the network are immensely valuable, of course. The key point is that possession of bitcoins ( the unit of currency ) in no way implies ownership of that technology or network. Whether I have one bitcoin or one thousand, I'm still free to use the network to send payments, record stuff in the block chain, whatever. Compare that to ownership of stock in Google. The possessor of those shares is partial owner of the company including its physical assets and intellectual property. More shares possessed implies more ownership. No such thing can said about bitcoins.Chris Arnesen 18:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Data has value only to the extent you can do something useful with the data. The data of a bitcoin is completely useless except as a bitcoin. If the bitcoin network suddenly went away, everyone would,be left holding meaningless strings of numbers and letters. Therefore, just as a dollar bill would become worthless if the U.S. government went away, bitcoins have no intrinsic value. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:54, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope, read what I said and check out the site I linked to. You could use it to prove you were in possession of some piece of knowledge / intellectual property at a given date. This is useful evidence, and people already pay companies like globalsign.com for this service. It need not have anything to do with Bitcoin. The only requirement is that the blockchain won't accept such entries without transaction costs paid in BTC. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, flatly, I disagree. More to the point, unless we have reliable sources describing bitcoin as having intrinsic value, we can't say that it does. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

You can't disagree with facts, but we do need reliable sources. It should be possible to find them. The link I gave above should be a start. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The Defining aspect of a CURRENCY is that it has no value of it's own. Since you can't eat of drink bitcoins they are a currency. Weather it is proper for anyone to create a new system of money is a concern for state sovereignty and commerce. The value of a bit coin may be established by market price. But that market price represents a ponsi style willingness to get in or the valueless frenzy which is 'perceived' to rise in value with other participants. If everyone were to admit that the coins have no actual value then the price would fall. However illusion based value is only that. Minting coins dilutes the currency base because it is used as currency and people can see how many of them they have and inflate price. Limiting the size of the operation creates a disguise because it is still deriving value by dilution of currency sovereignty. Currency is art and is derives value from both market demand and being useable as currency.

Currency is a government monopoly for the purpose of maintaining a hedge against inflation and devaluation. What next? Bot-coin, beep-coin?, Boop-coin, Burp-coin? "Hey it's cool cause were only counterfeiting a little." Why not give all state sovereignty to corporations? Then we can buy stock and get further ahead of the depleted monetary system cause anything goes. While bucket funds were oked in 1999 the bucket principle holds because there is a limited perceived value (from dilution) in the bucket which is driven up by demand based on arbitrary perception. (a one sided Ponzi style counterfeiting scheme in which the currency dilution is the end goal and creates the ending value from --nothing). Transaction systems are useful. But it makes me want to buy a color-copier. "It's Like paper bit-coins." The whole thing is like saying counterfeiting is ok. So don't arrest us because it's limited. The SEC doesn't seem interested because the security doesn't represent anything. (see also seinorage, ponsi scheme, counterfeiting Private_currency — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.241.80 (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Transaction fees

Would somebod(ies) please increase the amount of page content devoted to cheap transaction fees? This appears to be the only benefit to Bitcoin, and it's woefully absent from the page. Fleetham (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I've added a few mentions of the low fees (along with examples). Cliff12345 (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

"The only benefit" other than, you know, lack of a central authority, impossibility of debt (because value is being transferred instead of debt) and other use cases of the network such as proof of existence, digital signatures, distributed exchanges, etc. Mrcatzilla (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

"The competitive advantage lower fees confer to Bitcoin may lessen or vanish in the future, however." Can we find a reference on that that's not a Wired article from 2012? The way I see it is that the transaction cost will be adjusted over time so that it's marginally profitable for some guy or gal to run a mining server in his/her basement. That's inherently way more efficient than the way that the credit card companies / big banks run things. Therefore Bitcoin will have lower transaction costs overall. Chris Arnesen 05:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisarnesen (talk • contribs)

I agree this needs better sourcing that speculation from a Wired editor. --Laser brain (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

"Fees are generally independent of the amount being sent, making Bitcoin attractive for those seeking to transfer larger amounts of money. In one instance, Bitcoins worth millions of US dollars were transferred for only a few pennies. "

• "Fees are generally independent of the amount being sent". That's not a false statement, but in fact most transactions require no fee at all. So why not say simply, "Most Bitcoin transactions don't require a fee to be processed by the network." ?
• "making Bitcoin attractive for those seeking to transfer larger amounts of money." I might pay 30 dollars to transfer a million dollars by wire transfer, or zero to make that same transfer through Bitcoin. If I'm transferring a million dollars, $30 is pickles, a 0.003% fee, effectively $0. For large transactions, the low fees don't enter the calculus in any meaningful way; no rational businessperson would transfer a large amount of money by a method that charged a fee proportional to the amount transferred, Bitcoin or otherwise. Small transactions is where Bitcoin provides an advantage. When I buy a $2 cup of coffee on my credit card, the coffee shop pays something like $0.50 in transaction fees (source : the owner of my local coffee shop). That's a 25% transaction fee! So a better statement would be, "Most transactions don't require a fee to be processed by the network, making Bitcoin attractive for those seeking to transfer small amounts of money."
• However you feel about the points made above, the reference for the statement, "Fees are generally independent of the amount being sent, making Bitcoin attractive for those seeking to transfer larger amounts of money." is simply https://blockchain.info/. Just click on the link and you'll see why that's not a suitable reference. Can you suggest a better one?
• "In one instance, Bitcoins worth millions of US dollars were transferred for only a few pennies." It's hard for me to know what the original author of that sentence was thinking because the reference link is BROKEN. From what I understand about Bitcoin, the statement is almost certainly FALSE. The "reference implementation" of Bitcoin only requests transaction fees for transfer amounts less than 0.01BTC. Even now, when bitcoin prices are at an all-time high, that means that any transaction of any amount over $10 shouldn't require a fee. (Another case where a transaction fee might be necessary is if there are many inputs and/or outputs to the transaction, but "normal" transactions should have at most a few of each.) In summary, I propose this sentence be removed entirely.

Please support these proposed changes, or object with explanation. Thank you for your consideration. Chris Arnesen 01:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

There's currently much discussion in the Bitcoin world over the fee problem and the backlog of delayed confirmations. Block chain space for transactions is a scarce resource, and sometimes it runs out. Transactions with a higher fee get priority, so fees are going up. No-fee transactions may never be confirmed, because the major mining pools ignore them. See [1] (bitcointalk.org is currently down, but hopefully it will come back up.) John Nagle (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, John. Here Gavin Andresen does a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the marginal cost to the miner for including more transactions in a block. There's discussion about it here. Chris Arnesen 20:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I removed some cited material mentioning that you could send millions of dollars with bitcoins very cheaply. The European Banking Authority recently put out a warning that virtual currencies like bitcoin lack consumer protections. So, I'm not sure the best thing to publish is something that suggests a course of action that could very well result in the loss of large sums of money for those who act on it. Fleetham (talk) 17:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

As discussed above, the citation for that "millions of dollars" statement was garbage anyway, so it wasn't really "cited material". The uncited new text isn't correct though : "But this reward is halved every few years, meaning a sustained increase in the value of bitcoins relative to other currencies is necessary to keep fees low." I don't see how that conclusion follows. @Fleetham: can you help us connect the dots on the chain of logic by which you arrive at that conclusion? "In addition, once the Bitcoin ceiling, a hard limit on the number of bitcoins in existence, is reached, payment processing will no longer be incentivized." That's not true. The protocol was designed to have transaction fees replace newly minted bitcoins as the miner's incentive. Right now the fee structure is "hard coded" into the "reference client" that most people use (bitcoin-qt). The new version of the client (0.9) due out next spring will set fees dynamically https://github.com/gavinandresen/bitcoin-git/commit/656f8a7f2cf0c83ed9ac172f4d5ec555f90fed73. Chris Arnesen 17:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think everyone can agree that if you decrease an incentive attached to an activity, incidence decreases. As the nominal bitcoin incentive for mining does decrease over time, a concomitant rise in its value relative to other currencies is necessary for the the incentive for mining to remain static. You could make the argument that if fewer people mine, those that do will get rewarded more often. True, but that doesn't mean they'll do any more payment processing work, which is the whole point. I believe fees can be necessary to ensure your bitcoin transactions are done quickly, and this fee will rise over time unless the other incentive for doing the work of payment processing doesn't decrease in real terms--something that can only happen if there is a sustained increase in the value of bitcoin in terms of other currencies. Fleetham (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

The long-term economics of Bitcoin are too uncertain for us to speculate about, especially without citations. The experiment has never been attempted, and it's also possible that the core protocol will change too. Bitcoin is just beta right now after all. "meaning a sustained increase in the value of bitcoins relative to other currencies is necessary to keep fees low". If a suitable reference can't be found for that statement we should remove it.Chris Arnesen 16:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Baidu and the People's Bank of China

This sentence should be revised since the Chinese central bank has barred financial institutions from handling transactions in bitcoins; see http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1375623/baidu-stops-accepting-bitcoin-payment-after-government-ban Autodidact1 (talk) 23:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It might be best to give that a few days to settle out. People are still struggling to figure out what the rather ambiguous guidance from the People's Bank of China[2] means. More detailed rules are supposed to follow. However, that South China Morning Post article is a good source. They're used to interpreting vague pronouncements from Bejing.--John Nagle (talk) 05:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I've been reading some analysis that what the Chinese central bank didn't say is more important than what they did say. Waiting for reliable sources to cover it in better detail. --Laser brain (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The Baidu content has now been updated by Laser Brain and others.Chris Arnesen 06:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This needs further revision and a few sets of eyes - the "news" is evolving and a lot of incorrect information being shared, much of which is shared in the media. I've made a few changes but this will need to be watched.VinceSamios (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Anarchism

Why does the portal bar include "Anarchism"? Can I remove that? We also have a link to the Crypto-anarchism page in the Bitcoin#See_also section. I've heard people say things like, "Bitcoin has it's roots in crypto-anarchism". It would be nice to include a reference and a few sentences on the subject, if appropriate. Chris Arnesen 20:53, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's an article that might be a good reference on this subject http://www.cybersalon.org/cypherpunk/ Chris Arnesen 05:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

What's a "bitcoin" anyway?

This post is similar to one in the talk page of a bitcoin article of another wiki I often hang out at (here's a link to the heading in their talk page), as responses there might help the editors here come up with good responses (true there are far fewer editors there than here, and the posts will likely be less, but still the possibility of a decent insight or more makes the link, in my view, warranted).

Of the editors here who have done as many edits on WP as I have, or more (which I suppose could easily exceed 10 000 users), I wouldn't be surprised if I was among the 10% of the dumbest when it comes to computers and the internet. This article was of little help to me (as was the article of the same name in the other smaller wiki). This is not to demean those who made it: I'm sure that the article works for many, but I can't figure it out; and if I can't, chances are many others can't.

Maybe if I check all the internal links and those in the footnotes I might figure it out, but the text in the article is largely unhelpful.

So here's my understanding. Take barter. A hunter exchanges a deer carcass for some flint arrows, or in a more modern times, a laptop. That's understandable. Aztecs used cacao beans in trade. Cacao beans had/have value, are compact, and inflation can be dealt with. Ditto gold. I'm not sure what money is, but if you send some to the government, in what they call "taxes" they tend to leave you alone. I read that some money inflates more than others, so if you're going to keep some for a while, it should be in "hard" currencies—US/Cdn/Aus/NZ dollars, £UK, euros, yen, or Swiss francs. Banks keep money for you, as do the credit card companies, or they lend it at interest. When you spend some of it, perhaps some clerk gets a pen and marks off your balance and writes in a new balance, balance minus spent, and the does the same with a vendor's balance: scratches out balance and writes in a new number representing balance plus what was gained. These days a computer does it electronically.

So when they say "electronic" or "digital" currency, they likely mean that some place is holding varying amounts in varying accounts and shifting things back and forth. Those who do it honestly tend stay in business. The (thoroughly at least) dishonest ones tend to go out of business, and maybe get arrested. Oh yeah, and these transactions tend to be monitored lest the guv'mint doesn't get its cut and people trade in illegal things like contraband cigarettes or marihuana reefers, or engage in things like the hiring of prostitutes.

Now the way I figure it, if you're going to cheat on your taxes or engage in illegal trade, your best bet is probably to use cash, i.e. pieces of paper that can be easily used in trade in goods and services without the guv'mint knowing about where the money went to. You want a colour TV, you could, say, sell a few "lids" of marihuana for money, or perform sexual favours for money, and you can use the money to buy that colour TV. Indeed, one might even use barter if the colour TV vendor would accept marihuana and/or sexual favours in lieu of money. I suppose more creative types can use electronic currency and tell the gov'mint that the marihuana was some special rare herbal mix and/or the sex favours were something else.

I suppose other items can be used for money: bills from other countries, gold, cigarettes, marihuana itself, chocolate, silk stockings, blue jeans, beaver pelts, whatever.

Now where does this bitcoin fit in? Is it (a) valuable, (b) portable, (c) hard to inflate, and (d) difficult for the guv'mint to trace? Okay, assuming it's just electrons or something-digital, I can accept it fulfills the portability requirement. As for value, I suppose that one can make people believe it's valuable—as some say such is the case with money-as-we-know it; but the important thing is, that issuers of our bills will take it back as payment. If giving the guv'mint a few 1000 or 10 000 dollars, pounds, euros, whatever will keep you out of court or jail, then it has value. The guv'mint has a vast array of means of propaganda so they can also hype up the value of money. Also, the money we know today was based on bills that could be used to do things like get the gold or silver they once represented. What does this bitcoin have? Maybe if someone redeemed it for "real" money while slowly inflating the currency—maybe. Maybe if someone printed the currency of some micronation and it looked like US money, except that instead of some US president, it had a picture of some celebrity, maybe it could be hawked. I wouldn't be (too) surprised if one could, say, sell a $100 bill in Confederate money for over half its face value—maybe—even though the Confederate States of America stopped existing about 150 years ago; but even here, the CSA once existed. Where does bitcoin get its value? I don't know.

But the thing that gets me is how can it be spent, not replicated, and done so digitally in a de-centralized manner? WDF?!? How is this done? What do they mean by "mining" and the use of supercomputers? Do they get a bunch of super-large prime numbers and multiply them and then have others figure out the original prime numbers—would these be the bitcoins? How would such be spent and not multiplied? Duplicated? And how is it soooooo superior to the aforementioned ways of cheating on taxes or illegal trade? Also, how does it go unmonitored now that we have the National Security Agency, Five Eyes, and whatever else monitoring (presumably), what do you call them, "entry" and "exit" "nodes." If someone is going to convert "real" money into bitcoins, doesn't the guv'mint know that money was made? If you work for your money, does it matter if you spent it on bitcoins if your salary was taxed? Ditto if you paid employees? Ditto if you bought supplies? Wouldn't places that deal not in money but in bitcoins arouse interest by guv'mint agencies? If someone is going to buy a carton of contraband smokes, a lid of weed, and hire a prostitute, doesn't that involve addresses? And if one can fool the gov'mint with some trickery using bitcoins, couldn't that trickery also be used when using real money?

Again, without clicking, the intro pretty much says nothing to me. Sorry.     :-/
Civic Cat (talk) 22:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You may have a valid point about the lede being difficult to understand without prior knowledge of the linked topics. It does appear to be a soup of inter-wiki links. I removed "open source" because I'm not quite sure it's true, and it's less relevant than the other linked concepts. However, I imagine that most who read the article are fully aware of what "peer-to-peer" and "decentralized" mean. I think you're shortchanging yourself if you imagine you cannot grasp the meaning of the lede as written. Fleetham (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin is absolutely open source and that's an absolutely crucial fact about it.Chris Arnesen 17:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

+1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.22.20.203 (talk) 09:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This user's comment came in right around the same time that I rewrote the lede. I'd be curious to hear if he / she thinks it's any clearer now. Chris Arnesen 17:46, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Exchange failure rate

Under "Exchanges", we have "A published research study showed that of 40 Bitcoin exchanges studied, 18 ended up closing over a period of 3 years.[27]" That's correct, but dated. The paper came out in January 2013. At least three more of the exchanges listed in that paper have tanked since then. The article probably should mention the cutoff date for their stats. --John Nagle (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure it necessarily matters when the cutoff date is, the quote clearly states that they closed over that period of 3 years and makes no claims to them still being around now. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

"Increasing" use of bitcoins in lede

I'm sorry, but I do feel that mentioning an "increasing" use of bitcoins in the lede is speculation and in addition is not supported by content in the body of the article. It may be true that such use has increased (and since this increase is from a very low base, it may have recently increased by many thousands of percentage points), but that does not mean it will continue to do so. WP:SPECULATION states, "predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included," but it specifically forbids simple speculation. If some editor would like to add a well-sourced section to the body of the article detailing past increases in usage, there's no reason for me to stand in the way of a lede inclusion summarizing such material. But I find it difficult to imagine how simple speculation on the future popularity of bitcoins for actual purchases merits any mention. Fleetham (talk) 03:52, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Please note that I will soon remove the lede mention of an increasing use of bitcoins for actual purchases unless other editors disagree. Fleetham (talk) 05:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's the sentence in question, "Increasingly, however, Bitcoin is also used to pay for products and services." To me there's no implication there about future use. It doesn't say "will increasingly be used". Clearly use of Bitcoin *is* increasing. I can find a dozen references to support that statement. Here's one: http://www.datacenterjournal.com/press-release/bitpay-exceeds-100000000-bitcoin-transactions-processed/

BitPay Inc, the world leader in business solutions for virtual currencies, announces it has processed over $100 million in transactions this year, and has increased its merchant base to over 15,500 approved merchants in 200 countries. Since the announcement of the new All Inclusive Pricing Plan in October, along with the integration with Shopify in November, the number of new merchants has increased over 50% and the transaction volume has tripled.

Would adding that or something similar as a citation satisfy your concerns?Chris Arnesen 06:44, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that there's any dispute that the number of bitcoin-accepting merchants has increased.

If, however, you believe that the statement "there is an increasing use of bitcoins" is closer in meaning to "bitcoin use has increased" than "bitcoin use increased in the past and will continue to do so," I think you should reevaluate your position. Fleetham (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I hope you don't find it patronizing for me to quote the following from a definition of Present Progressive Tense: "Because the present progressive [i.e. ~ing] can suggest either the present or the future, it is usually modified by adverbs of time." Fleetham (talk) 07:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I love grammar. I'm not attached to "increasingly" per se. I'll try to come up with some language that we can agree on. Chris Arnesen 19:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Somebody wrote : "Bitcoin is a burgeoning form of payment for products and services". I'm happy with that. @Fleetham: Does that sit okay with you? Chris Arnesen 19:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

No, because it uses present progressive tense, which is forward looking. Even if this is cited with a reliable source, I believe that WP:SPECULATION outlines a higher burden of proof for forward-looking statements. Not only does the source need to be reliable, it must be from an expert. I don't understand why something along the lines of "Bitcoin acceptance among merchants of all stripes has burgeoned" is unacceptable. Obviously, that would need to be re-worded, but there's no need for a forward-looking statement. Fleetham (talk) 03:56, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

You're right, "has burgeoned" or similar would be fine by me. Apologies for already forgetting my grammar lesson :) Chris Arnesen 16:41, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I hope I wasn't being patronizing. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Fleetham (talk) 17:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Symbol BTC, XBT,[5] BitcoinSign.svg, ฿[6][note 1], Ƀ[7]

In the Infobox, before reference [7] I see a square: Ƀ using Google Chrome.
Checkingfax (talk) 03:54, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I removed the XBT and Ƀ from the infobox anyway since they're not actually commonly used as symbols for bitcoin.Chris Arnesen 06:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Removal was undone. @Rezonansowy: could you please elaborate on why you think XBT and Ƀ should be included as symbols for bitcoin? Nobody uses those as symbols. It's always the Bitcoin sign (B with two lines) or BTC. Chris Arnesen

Hello, just look at the citation, they're used. As reader I would to see this uses, they're notable. And theirs sources are strong - xe.com, Forbes, etc. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 21:59, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

XBT : xe.com isn't a valid reference because they're the ones that came up with and started using XBT as the symbol in the first place. I replaced that with a better reference am now happy to leave in XBT as a bitcoin symbol. http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-gaining-market-based-legitimacy-xbt/.

Ƀ : The reference for that symbol is http://www.ecogex.com/bitcoin/. Please click on the link and explain to me how that can be construed as a valid reference. Chris Arnesen 22:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've added cite from BTC wiki - [3]. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 18:03, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

For one thing, en.bitcoin.it is not a reliable source. It's just a Wiki and has a far lower bar than we do here. Please see Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source. Secondly, if we pretend that it *is* a reliable source, there's like two dozen suggested symbols on that page. Why would we stop at Ƀ ? Why not include ᗸ and Ⓑ and ᴃ ... Chris Arnesen 18:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

All I see is a box for both I.E. and Chrome. Checkingfax (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

See WP:UTF-8 or go to WP:HELPDESK, may this will help with this issue. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 20:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I re-removed the symbol Ƀ, will see if the edit sticks .... Chris Arnesen 06:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

@Chrisarnesen: we don't have consensus, rather idea to adding more symbols in use there. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 11:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

@Rezonansowy: Perhaps I should have been more clear. By listing all those other symbols, I meant for you to see the arbitrariness of including Ƀ when there are also so many other symbols that nobody uses for Bitcoin, not that we should actually include all those other symbols. Please find a reliable non-en.bitcoin.it reference that states that Ƀ is a common symbol for Bitcoin. Heck, I'd be impressed if you found *any* article that even simply uses that as the symbol.Chris Arnesen 14:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Here you are: [4], [5]. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 14:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Those are websites. I was hoping for something of the lines of the Forbes article. In any case, I've exhausted my will to fight for this one-character change. I restored Ƀ to the list without citation since we can't find an acceptable one.Chris Arnesen 15:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This is silly. Rezonansowy, you don't have a leg to stand on regarding the inclusion of this symbol. It's been challenged, and you do not re-add it unless you have reliable sources indicating the symbol is in common use. No fly-by-night web pages. --Laser brain (talk) 15:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Why is this page protected?

The concept of Bitcoin is, above all other things, a cryptocurrency, a fact which needs to be expressed much more clearly.

Also Why in hell is this page protected ?... history logs show very little vandalism, of which non was deeply malicious; 'Contention' is certainly not a valid reason to disable work on a page.

Lets get this page sorted; its only going to see MORE attention in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.228.97 (talk) 07:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's what the protection log says :

22:55, 18 December 2012 Andonic (talk | contribs) changed protection level of Bitcoin‎ ‎[edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) ‎[move=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) (Addition of unsourced or poorly sourced content: Tentatively removing protection) (hist)

06:45, 28 October 2012 Andonic (talk | contribs) changed protection level of Bitcoin‎ ‎[edit=sysop] (indefinite) ‎[move=sysop] (indefinite) (Edit warring / Content dispute: Protecting indefinitely given that there seems to be long-standing contention on this page) (hist)

I'm not an experienced enough Wikipedian to know whether it's a good or bad idea at this point to lift the semi-protection. I hope that some of the more seasoned editors will weigh in here.Chris Arnesen 17:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure it could be lifted now. I think the problem last year is that there were very few reliable sources about Bitcoin and people were adding their unsourced opinions into the article (at which time someone else would take it out and edit war would ensue). I think we've all been editing civilly and discussing conflicts, and there are enough of us watching the article now to revert anon vandalism if it occurs. --Laser brain (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Laser Brain has removed protection. Chris Arnesen 17:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I suggest pending changes instead of this. IMO that's best solution for Bitcoin article, it has been successfully introduced on WikiLeaks and has very good argument - it allows edit IP users and review them before making them visible. Please comment! --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 21:15, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Best to see how it goes without pending changes before adding it. Samwalton9 (talk) 21:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: As always. Some IP vandalize there and million readers will watch it, reviewing IP users edits before showing them everyone is more prudent option in article with even 120000 visits per day. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 11:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I see that with pending changes, only users in the "Reviewer" group can act on the IP edits. I'm not in that group. Are enough of you all in that group that we won't get a backlog? Chris Arnesen 15:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

As a side note, I can grant anyone Reviewer permission assuming they have read and understood Wikipedia:Reviewing and met the other requirements. Just drop me a note on my talk page. --Laser brain (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm a reviewer but don't worry about a backlog, there's rarely more than 5 edits needing review at any one time across the entirety of the wiki. They get seen to pretty fast :) Samwalton9 (talk) 19:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Chrisarnesen, Samwalton9 ,Laser brain So, what now? Can we enable this?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rezonansowy (talk • contribs)

Please remember to sign your posts. Some of the IP edits have beneficial, others not. The net effect has been approximately neutral IMO. I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other.Chris Arnesen 17:21, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Samwalton9 ,Laser brain, anyone? --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 16:14, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't really see the value in applying pending changes at this point. There are enough active editors on this page currently to quickly revert any vandalism or unhelpful changes. However, you can ask at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if you want to make a case for it. --Laser brain (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, there's simply nothing to warrant this. Samwalton9 (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

infobox item "value"

A new item "value" was added to the infobox with the approximate current value of one bitcoin in US dollars. In my opinion, the current value of one bitcoin isn't a particularly interesting fact and shouldn't be included in the infobox. Furthermore, the volatility in bitcoin price means that whatever number we put there will almost immediately become inaccurate. Most importantly, the current price of one bitcoin isn't really even discussed in the article. Please read Help:Infobox. I feel strongly that we should try to keep the infobox as concise as possible. @TakuyaMurata: could you please try to address these concerns?

Certainly. 1) we can discuss the price of bitcoin in the article; in particular, it would be nice to have a sort of chart plotting prices. 2) some informations change quickly; say, the death toll in a disaster. In such cases, we simply keep updating the data. The volatility itself is not a good argument for the exclusion. -- Taku (talk) 22:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, one problem is that the value of bitcoin in terms of other currencies is fragmented; the price on one exchange can vary widely from that on the next. As for the idea that constant updates aren't a hindrance, I'm not sure where that comes from. Adding a fact that will likely become out of date tomorrow if not two hours from posting seems a bit silly. Why not simply include a link in the external links section? Fleetham (talk) 23:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Far too much fluctuation and varying prices for any one value to be quoted in the infobox. Samwalton9 (talk) 15:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Wallet addresses

It is inappropriate to insert any actual wallet address into the encyclopedia. It is possible, even likely, that the intent is to hope readers of the article submit money to the address - and to that end, there has already been edit warring over which address is used, as different people vie to have their Bitcoin wallet address be "the" address which is seen. Any such insertion should be removed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts to keep that pesky spammer at bay. That sequence of edits is perhaps evidence in favor of applying the "pending changes" status to the article as per Talk:Bitcoin#Why_is_this_page_protected.3F. As for an example address to use in the article where appropriate, I bet we can agree on one. When the Wikimedia Foundation starts to take bitcoin donations, I'd say we should use theirs. Until then how about a particularly notable one such as 1FfmbHfnpaZjKFvyi1okTjJJusN455paPH ? That's where the FBI transferred all of the Dread Pirate Roberts' bitcoins and is currently the single most valuable address. History_of_Bitcoin#List_of_biggest_wallet_balancesChris Arnesen 06:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

We've got a reliable source noting that wallet, so I think that would be fine. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Lede changes for accessibility

A recent editor made changes to the lede because he or she felt that it was inaccessible for the average reader. I tend to agree that the first paragraph does seem to use inter-wiki links to the point where a reader might feel obliged to read all manner of other articles just to understand a few simple sentences.

Do you think there's any way to increase the accessibility of the lede while maintaining its brevity? Fleetham (talk) 17:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

May I ask what you didn't like about that editor's changes? I'm not necessarily in favor of what they wrote, but you basically reverted it wholesale without specifying why. --Laser brain (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Which seems to be Fleetham's usual way of doing things. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Comments like that only serve to ratchet up the heat of the discussion. Please try to be constructive.

Here's the edit in question https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitcoin&oldid=586626409. I tend to agree with the editor User:Silbtsc that the article is difficult for the casual reader to understand. I agree with Fleetham though that dramatically expanding the lede section like that is not the right way forward. Check out Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section. We were already kind of on the border of the brevity limit in my opinion. Instead I think we need to put in some serious work in on the transactions section right after the lede to better walk the reader through both the technical and practical aspects of using Bitcoin, along with perhaps some surgical enhancements to the lede itself. Chris Arnesen 22:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Fleetham and others: Thanks for recognizing the complex lead. Apart from being complex to understand, here's my thinking why the lead needs to change:

1. The current lead section is factually incorrect.

(a) "Bitcoin" itself is not open source. It is an open protocol in the sense, anyone can propose new changes and if the network agrees, it gets taken in (although its not as fast.. but idea protocol is not off limits to well thought out proposals). The software that implemented the Bitcoin protocol was made open source.

(b) My sentences come from the main Bitcoin and b-money papers. Bitcoin is p2p network protocol (like a financial system) and "a Bitcoin" is representation akin to "a Dollar" is a representation of a unit of legal payment in the US financial system.

2. 3rd sentence onward to the end of the para, "Users send payments..." which is true, but is really difficult to understand to someone without some background in cryptography.

3. While the Manual of style calls to include controversies, its unclear if the current lead has done that in a neutral way. I'm still fact checking if the reference cited actually verifies the statement.

4. I agree, that it needs to be made more accessible according to the Lead manual of style. I'll give it another shot later. Silbtsc (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Talk:Bitcoin! The Bitcoin page gets viewed tens of thousands of times a day and there are a lot of opinions out there about it. So we come here to iron things out. I can already tell you'll be a welcome addition to the team. As you can tell, we need all the help we can get. So tell your friends!

1.a ) Bitcoin *is* open source because the majority of the network runs on open source software, and on the network the majority is what counts.

2. ) I just threw this up there, we'll see if it sticks:

Users send payments by broadcasting digitally signed messages that transfer ownership of bitcoins, the unit of currency.

Users send payments using client software on a personal computer, mobile device, or web service. Transactions transfer ownership of bitcoins, the unit of currency.

Cheers, Chris Arnesen 03:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Chris Arnesen: Thanks. As long as I get good analytical view points. I'm happy to contribute.

Here's the reason why I think its actually confusing in the long run to classify Bitcoin as 'open source'. Its because there is 'open source software' that goes along with it. Ignore the practicality but technically, I'm free to write my own software that follows Bitcoin protocol and sell it without the need to open source it. As long as my software prepares the data packets in the Bitcoin protocol, the transactions submitted by my software will be accepted by the Bitcoin network. Majority counts only when I want to change the protocol or erase a previously confirmed transaction.

Wikipedia has many students and award winning journalists that absorb the concepts its good to expose them to the fundamentals.

Put it another way, I'm proposing the following breakdown of Bitcoin: Bitcoin is a unit in a "open access p2p network" + "Transaction rules (Bitcoin Protocol)"

The reasons are as:

1. Open access because no one required to "login" to Bitcoin network (This is different from password for your wallet). They simply connect and discover peers like a regular peer to peer network. Compare this to closed networks such as Visa or Mastercard computer networks.

2. Transaction Rules aka Bitcoin protocol define what is the format of the data packets and how to broadcast transactions over the network. Silbtsc (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposed Lead

-Please go ahead and edit as per your thoughts-

- Begin -

Bitcoin is a digital unit of payment in an open access network and pre-defined system of rules that allows one to make payments across the internet without the need to trust any single central authority to validate the transaction [ref][ref]. To put in context, Bitcoin is the money in the open Bitcoin payment network.

The system of rules are called the Bitcoin protocol that are applied on a peer-to-peer network. When a trusted intermediary is removed and direct person to person transactions are allowed, it introduces a problem of double spend, wherein a malicious person can claim to have more money than they really have. Bitcoin protocol solves the double spend problem by using an open ledger of all Bitcoin transactions ever since it inception and a method to prevent anyone from changing old entries in the ledger [ref].

The openness of the Bitcoin network allows anyone to transact in Bitcoin without registering with any central entity [ref paper]. This open access attracts individuals wanting to conduct illicit activities using Bitcoin [ref-FinCEN][ref-secret service]. On the other side, demand for buying Bitcoin using legal tender such as USD has increased Bitcoin's value in that tender. Given the take down of several illicit operations such as Silkroad that used Bitcoin and several high value Bitcoin thefts, the system of virtual currencies has been brought under the scrutiny of government regulators [ref fincen, EBA, China] and media worldwide [ref]. This attention has led some to believe Bitcoin is potentially a disruptive payment technology [ref- US Senate hearing, ref media].

Commercial use of Bitcoin for legitimate goods and services is currently small compared to its use by speculators, which has fueled price volatility.[20]. Merchants have an incentive to accept the currency because transactions are irreversible and lower transaction fees compared to the 2 to 3% typically imposed by credit card processors.[21] Notable vendors include OkCupid, Reddit, WordPress, and Virgin Galactic.[22]

- End - Silbtsc (talk) 05:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

IMO, lead is OK as it is now. There's no non-important info to remove. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 12:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

We are trying to make it easy to understand. As it is today, its difficult for regular readers to understand as we are discussing in section above. Silbtsc (talk) 16:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, but your lede seems too heavily focused on bitcoin's decentralized nature and seems to be pushing a point of view. The lack of a central authority is integral to Bitcoin, but I'm not sure it deserves such heavy focus in the lede. The blockchain is also integral to Bitcoin, but that doesn't mean it deserves more than a sentence, and I would say the same for the decentrality of Bitcoin, The current lede appears far more impartial. And, I believe double spending is a problem of digital currencies not those without a trusted intermediary. Fleetham (talk) 17:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

When trying to understand Bitcoin, its not really necessary to introduce a reader to a "blockchain" -- instead I used "ledger". Can you call out at what point/para the focus on decentralized nature gets too heavy or neutral point gets violated? I'll correct that. " The current lede appears far more impartial." --> Note that the current lede has factual inaccuracies as being discussed above. The fact of Bitcoin is, it is a way to transact payments in a decentralized way (here, I don't think I indicated if that was a good or bad thing). When you remove central authority, first question is how does Bitcoin even work in a way I can trust a transaction? I feel that point is where lot of people don't understand the irreversible nature of the ledger. Silbtsc (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

In recent edits to the lead, I see "master list of all transactions shows who owns what bitcoins" --> This is confusing. "who" refers to a person or identity. In the ledger there is only wallet addresses, it gives undue weight to identity. Silbtsc (talk) 04:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it is inaccurate. I suggest "This master list of all transactions shows which addresses contain which spendable bitcoins", and somehow defining addresses. Even defining addresses as wallets is not fully correct, or can lead to further confusion. -84user (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on 'Open Source' ness of the Bitcoin Protocol

Fleetham, please don't remove the open source statement from lead without discussion. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 16:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Rezonansowy, Please contribute your thoughts on why "open source" should be included. Support for removing open source is given in the above section. Please oppose with reason, if not I'll support Fleetham's change as your change remains unsubstantiated Silbtsc (talk) 16:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

If some project is developed in open source model, it makes this an important thing for the article. I just don't understand why removing something important like this. See the official website which mentions the open source with even with bolding.

Besides Fleetham, please fill the Edit summary to inform what you're doing with the article and provide a talk page entry when appropriate, for example : Removing open source statement per talk page. Thank you.--Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 16:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

About the mention of "open source," it's more than okay to delete; there's nothing in the body of the article that mentions Bitcoin being open source. I would also like to add a quote from a frequent editor of this page, who stated that Bitcoin is open source "because the majority of the network runs on open source software." That's like saying, "Steam is open source because the majority of people who use it run Linux." Steam is clearly not open source, and I think that the open source claim for Bitcoin needs more evidence. And apologies for not doing edit summaries. Fleetham (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin is VERY open source. The cryptographic core code, the most popular and actively developed wallet applications for both desktop and mobile are opensource (see Bitcoin-Qt, bitcoinj projects), also the most popular mining software (cgminer), to which hardware developers adhere as the standard is open source. it's clearly VERY open source.

I'm that frequent editor. I've been meaning to amend my previous opinion. It doesn't make sense to say that bitcoin is open source. It's just a network and people run all sorts of software on it, some open, some not. Heck my own participation is through Coinbase and they haven't posted their source code online as far as I know. The open source connection is important though. I like "open source protocol" like the article has been changed to now. The protocol is specified by the open source "reference client" which also still the most significant piece of software that runs on the network. I'd guess in fact that Coinbase uses it (perhaps modified in some non-open way) behind the scenes. The open source connection should certainly be fleshed out in the body of the article.Chris Arnesen 18:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin the protocol is open source, the reference isn't about clients some of which are open source and others which aren't, but the key aspect is that the protocol is open source. VinceSamios (talk) 10:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

@Fleetham:, see Bitcoin official website, there's a statement about open source, even in HTML title, Bitcoin code was reeeased on GitHub on the MIT license. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 18:27, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I appreciate the fact that someone cited github. Sorry to be skeptical, but I am under the impression that some editors push POV too strongly here. I remember an admin recently removing all mention of Bitcoins being banned in China, and the first time I edited this page shortly after the Silk Road crackdown, it seemed to anger some people from Reddit who then tried to remove or mitigate anything that could be construed as less than full praise of the currency. So please forgive me if I tend to think most any pro-Bitcoin statement is a possible half-truth. Fleetham (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Good discussion. Its important to separate bitcoin, the money and network from Bitcoin-client, the reference open source software maintained by the small set of engineers on Github.

An open source software is not the only way to transact, but a way. The software has nothing to do with understanding what bitcoin is to being with because they don't need to download any software to transact in bitcoin (See Chris' coinbase.com reference). Mention of Bitcoin as "open source" protocol is very lightly supported in the lead. There are many sources that are able to define Bitcoin without the use of or relying on "open source". Here are some sources that don't use "open source" to make their point:

1. http://www.weusecoins.com/en/ ---> "Bitcoin software (or client) is open source"

2. http://bitcoin.org/en/faq#what-is-bitcoin

3. https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/core-finance/money-and-banking/bitcoin/v/bitcoin-what-is-it (within the first 2 mins)

4. http://money.cnn.com/infographic/technology/what-is-bitcoin/

I'm not proposing we reference these, but these are the clearer definitions out there.

Another way to look at this separation of Bitcoin and its open source software is to compare it with HTTP:

	HTTP	Bitcoin
Official Protocol Definition	RFC 2616 text	Bitcoin client source code in Github
Where implemented?	Any software that can follow protocol - Ex. web server or browser	Any software that can follow protocol - Today only known one is open sourced Bitcoin-client on Github
Protocol maintainers	IETF	Developers on Github
How to change protocol	Propose changes to IETF	Propose changes to developers

My view is we need to clarify 'where implemented' because, I can write (maybe Coinbase.com has written) a non open source version but I can still transact in bitcoin.

If I erase all my understanding of bitcoin, based on what I hear from friends and news, I think I usually to understand the bitcoin currency used in the Bitcoin protocol. Then understand the Protocol and software aspects next.

So ask again, why should we leave "open source" in the lead? Does it add or remove confusion for a regular someone trying to understand bitcoin? Silbtsc (talk) 04:45, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The protocol is Open Source, the Bitcoin-QT Client is Open Source - It's absolutely key to the understanding of bitcoin in my opinion, as without knowing it is open source the assumption that it must contain backdoors etc jumps up. At worst we need better sourcing.VinceSamios (talk) 10:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Think about it: What does it mean by "protocol is Open Source?". Generally people know what Open Source is. Its synonymous with downloading a software or architecture to modify the source code for your specific use and freely redistribute it. By that same logic, "open source protocol" should be modifiable to your specific needs and freely redistribute it. As soon as you modify and use the core protocol on the Bitcoin network, without network consensus, its no more Bitcoin because majority of the network won't understand the modified protocol.

From your backdoor example, my understanding is you seem to convey Bitcoin Protocol is open for full inspection by public.

A quick search on Wikipedia and Google showed, Bitcoin article is the main one that is introducing the phrase "open source protocol". So this should have a significant precedence before we can do that. I'm proposing to delete that phrase based on above discussion. Silbtsc (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

ya "open source protocol" isn't right. A protocol doesn't even have "source code" per se. A more precise statement would be that the Bitcoin protocol was / is specified by the open source "reference client" bitcoin-qt/bitcoind. Chris Arnesen 17:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

What? Bitcoin protocol is developed in an open source model (see github repo). --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 17:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Rezonansowy, please see table above. Its does not mean anything to say a protocol "is developed in an open source model" (see above for why). The best that can be said is Bitcoin reference client software is open source. Doesn't mean anything open source about the bitcoin protocol itself (simple test is try changing the protocol to be something different on your own). Silbtsc (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin Foundation uses the terminology "open source protocol". See e.g. http://bitcoinmagazine.com/8922/bitcoin-foundations-international-affiliate-program-ramps-up-for-2014 .Chris Arnesen 03:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)s

Again, it makes no sense to call something an "open source protocol". First, you are quoting Bitcoin Foundation's press release, which is hardly a reliable source. Second, if you do accept Bitcoin Foundation as a reliable source, then see http://bitcoin.org/en/faq#what-is-bitcoin -- this is a more truer definition. My view in this case still stands that "open source protocol" is not even a thing. We need to provide a multiple reliable sources that were created before this Wiki article started using "open source protocol". Silbtsc (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not difficult to find sources that mention Bitcoin being open source, but we need to be precise with the language. I randomly looked at two Wired articles about Bitcoin and they use this language: "Bitcoin is controlled by open source software that operates according to the laws of mathematics" and "Bitcoin, an open source system controlled by no one that lets you store and transmit money without the big banks and credit card companies." Neither of those states it's an "open source protocol", but I'm not technical enough to really know the difference. --Laser brain (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I only mentioned that Bitcoin Foundation press release to play devil's advocate and show that somebody else besides us was using the term "open source protocol". Silbtsc has a good point that they might have got that term from us. A protocol has rules, not source code, so the term "open source" doesn't apply. Instead I think it's both accurate and descriptive to say that Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer payment network and digital currency based on an open standard communications protocol. (Perhaps that's too jargony.)Chris Arnesen 20:25, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Reverted with comment "I don't see policy violation, besides bitcoin is not open standard". @Rezonansowy: could you please explain what you're talking about by mentioning "policy violation". (I haven't even a clue what you might be hinting at). Also why would you say that the bitcoin protocol is not an open standard? The protocol is specified by the behavior of an open source software. As discussed above, the collection of words "open source protocol" is non-standard and somewhat nonsensical.Chris Arnesen 16:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin protocol is not applied as a Technical standard. Please explain me first what you mean by Removed github link as per Wikipedia:External_links Besides please provide a link to talk page when edit towards consensus on it. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 16:29, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

As for "technical standard", please see Open_standard#Protocols. The standard for the Bitcoin protocol is the bitcoin-qt/bitcoind "reference client" released by the core developers. If you're looking for a set of documents that describe the protocol, it's here https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_specification . Literally that's the document that gets edited by the core developers and read and updated by developers writing new software implementations of the protocol.

As for "Removed github link", did you even read Wikipedia:External_links? First sentence is "Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be used in the body of an article." I'd really appreciate if you could connect some of the dots on your own instead of making me work so hard here on the talk page. If you think the external link to the bitcoin-qt source code on github is an exception to the rule, please explain why.

As for providing a link to the talk page when editing towards consensus, will do. Thanks for the reminder.Chris Arnesen 17:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Towards the protocol, it a protocol for bitcoin but it is not approved as a standard itself (feel the difference), there's no RFC for it. Towards the WP:EL, maybe I don't understand, but you've deleted refs not anything in external links, so this guideline isn't appropriate to it. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 17:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

@Rezonansowy: -- Regarding your reference to Open_standard#Protocols, I feel you are alluding to a requirement that a standard be approved by a government supported organization like IETF. Note that there are various definitions of 'open standard' - Open_standard#Specific definitions of an open standard. Many definitions agree that if the protocol is managed by an non-profit organization, is free for anyone to use without royalties and also has a process to allow anyone to propose changes, its enough to call that a standard (ITU-T definition, IETF refers to ITU-T, EU definition). The Bitcoin protocol has these properties - see https://github.com/bitcoin/bips. So, my understanding is it is a standard. Silbtsc (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with what Silbtsc said about standards. @Rezonansowy: as for WP:EL, it seems that you were considering the Github link as a reference for the assertion that Bitcoin is open source, more so than an external link. If a reference is what you seek, please see Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." A link to the bitcoin-qt source code falls into the latter category.Chris Arnesen 19:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I would leave it at open standard as most references don't talk about the communication protocol Silbtsc (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

We could say simply "open standard" but what we'd really mean is "open standard (communications) protocol". So why not be precise and call it what it is? Chris Arnesen 19:10, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Where do I get bitcoins?

After the lede the first thing should be how average Jane and Joes obtain and use bitcoin? (Talk section raised from several reader comments on the article.) Chris Arnesen 04:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. Silbtsc (talk) 05:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

See Bitcoin#Wallets: - The four main ways to get Bitcoins and {{Bitcoin}} navbox - Markets section. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 00:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Pseud- vs An- onymous

This morning I was driving to work and a report on National Public Radio stated in no uncertain words that Bitcoin is "anonymous". I cringed thinking that maybe the reporter reached that conclusion from reading this article. You see, I've finally understood why people (including Wikipedia editors whose edits I've undone :() keep saying that Bitcoin is pseudonymous, not anonymous.

A Bitcoin transaction has inputs (funds being sent) and outputs (addresses where funds are being received). The network confirms that every input is the output of a previous transaction and that the new payment message has been digitally signed by the owner of the address(es) from which funds are being sent. Among other things, that means that the sender(s) of the funds would have a hard time repudiating the fact that it was she (they) that sent the funds. So it's possible, nay easy, to track funds through the blockchain, even with "mixers". Imagine that every time you completed a cash transaction, you and the counterparty wrote down the serial numbers of all the bills that you were exchanging, and submitted them to a public ledger. This is Bitcoin! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisarnesen (talk • contribs) 05:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Anytime things are centralized, like mixers, its relatively easy for law enforcement to take them down. Publications stating mixers are anonymous is just an assumption. Silbtsc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe,

Bitcoin is [...] introduced in 2009 by developer under the pseudonym "Satoshi Nakamoto". --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 12:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The creator is pseudonymous but what we're talking about here is the technology itself. When people say "Bitcoin is pseudonymous" they mean that your bitcoins have a unique identity that can be traced backward and forward through the blockchain. Your bitcoin addresses *are* your pseudonym. If you bought them from an exchange or Coinbase or anywhere else except on the street with cash (or mined them yourself), somebody out there also knows how to translate that pseudonym into your real name. Chris Arnesen 15:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I feel using words like "pseudonym" in the very first sentence/para slightly changes the NPOV. Bitcoin has been kicked around in the mainstrem media for the illegal stuff its used for without giving due weight to its actual usefulness. And I also don't believe "Satoshi Nakamoto"'s reference is important to help some one understand Bitcoin in the very first sentence. Maybe in 2nd or 3rd para is fine (for an example article see WWW). Silbtsc (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

IMO that's important info, WWW is not oracle for writing leads. Let's keep it as is now. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 17:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you support your opinion of why that is important to someone trying to understand Bitcoin? Secondly, why is it even more important to mention the creator in the very first sentence? The creators name can be brought up in 2nd or 3rd para. Silbtsc (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

This thread has been derailed. I wasn't talking about Satoshi. What I mean is that right now we have a section called "Lack of anonymity". I agree that Bitcoin is not anonymous. Question : But if it's not anonymous, then what is it? Answer : it's pseudonymous. That term is used all over the place in articles that discuss the anonymity of Bitcoin (or lack thereof), and I think we should adopt it here too. Chris Arnesen 18:27, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

What is a good guide to selecting reliable sources?

The nature of the business of Bitcoin is that it goes directly against and circumvents the banking and payment industry. This has invoked various articles in mainstream web media such as Forbes, Business Insider, The Street, CNBC, The New York Times, LA Times, The New Yorker and many more cherry pick and magnify the negatives on Bitcoin or are just plain confused about the topic. On the other hand, pro-Bitcoin websites like Coindesk, overly show the positives and failings of main stream media.

So, in my opinion neither side are are currently showing a neutral point of view. However, I've found the following good sources:

1. Print Editions of The New York Times, The New Yorker and few others seem very well researched and present a fairly netural point of view.

2. Informational Reports by Central Banks such as one of Fed Reserves, EBA, Bank of China, Bank of America have a much better balance (some leaned negative or positive)

3. Sworn statements by officials from FinCEN and DoJ in the US Senate.

So at this point, main stream web media from big names (that are commonly reliable) are not so reliable for Bitcoin. So I'd be very careful in citing from mainstream web media for the core sections of the Bitcoin article.

I'm looking to hear thoughts on what else should be considered for a reliable source for Bitcoin. Silbtsc (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Normal rules for reliable sources apply here as well. See WP:RS. Please don't discourage others from following these guidelines. Thanks. Fleetham (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Here's the general guide on the subject Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources. Secondary and tertiary sources are preferred over primary ones. So if I've understood it correctly (I may not have as I'm also a relative noob Wikipedian), instead of your 2 or 3, we'd prefer an reference to an article that discusses any statements made by officials and puts them in context. Our sources themselves don't necessarily need to have a neutral point of view, but we should always try to maintain a neutral voice here. If there's ever a particular source that you feel is unreliable, please bring it up here like Laser Brain did Talk:Bitcoin#Coindesk_as_a_source Chris Arnesen 17:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

While we're on the subject of sources, I think http://letstalkpayments.com/ provides a good object lesson. An article from this source was cited numerous times in the article for mundane things such as what the Prime Minister of Iceland said about Bitcoins. Such things are probably better cited with a mainstream source. However, it also mentioned that the UK Government was keen on the nation becoming a center for international bitcoin transactions or something. While this may be complete rubbish, it's not the kind of thing the mainstream media may report. If it's true, and can be verified with primary sources such as the UK government itself, I don't see any reason not to cite letstalkpayments.com as a source. Fleetham (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I want to bring this here because people have been carried away in the past by what main stream media says as a fact vs an opinion. Since Bitcoin has no single authority, some media outlets have tried to spread opinions as fact. Rather than discourage them from following the Wikipedia's guidelines, I want editors to reiterate their instinct to take a BOLD and NEUTRAL stance and evaluate reliability of each source regardless of how large the news organization is, and be careful on what source can to be used to describe factual aspects of Bitcoin vs. opinions on Bitcoin. WP:NEWSORG, WP:RSOPINION, WP:BIASED for fact, and WP:NEWSBLOG references need the caution.

I reviewed the sources now -- they are much better than about 30 days back. Silbtsc (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit-warring

I see a bit of an edit war coming so I would like to remind everyone about the rules regarding edit-warring, especially the three-revert rule, which says that (with very few exceptions)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation.

And note what it says about any edit or series of consecutive edits that undoes another editor's actions, whether in whole or in part counting as a revert.

There's quite a few editors and admins who keep an eye on this page, and at least one of you is already very close to the edge, so stay safe... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up - I think we should all spend a few days in talk:bitcoin VinceSamios (talk) 22:32, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference to SilkRoad seizure value.

The article states that the FBI "seized US$28.5 million worth of bitcoin" however I propose this is better listed in the bitcoin quantity as the value of those bitcoins changes constantly.

The article goes on to say the FBI seized "144,000 bitcoins" which is a much better value to publish in this regard.

Thoughts?

VinceSamios (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It was $29.5 at the time it was seized. Problem w quoting amount in bit coins is the average reader wouldn't under the scale of what the number means.Chris Arnesen 18:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Definitely worth addressing to improve the article. How 'bout something like "seized 144,000 bitcoins from _______, which were worth approximately US$28.5 million at the time of the seizure." N2e (talk) 19:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems the optimal solution to give both the number of bitcoins and their estimated value in USD at the time of seizure. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I guess I still don't see what the bitcoin count adds to the article. Do you want to include it because those coins are now worth way more than 29.5 m$? Would you feel the same if the price had tanked or held steady? Fwiw I don't feel too strongly about this.Chris Arnesen 15:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Sheep Marketplace Heist

The article currently contains no reference to the 100,000 bitcoin sheep marketplace heist. This is a noteworthy event in bitcoins history especially consider much of that history is an involvement in illegal drug marketplaces. Although I'm concerned about providing a balanced view of bitcoin and not pandering to the "bad boy" image, this was a significant event.

Thoughts?

VinceSamios (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

If you have a source that covers the event then by all means go ahead and add it. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Decent sources here - I don't have time to edit the article at the moment and I think I'm on the naughty step for the next 24 hours (ref Thomas.W's comment above) -

VinceSamios (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's cover it! Important not only for the scale of the theft but also that the coins were tracked in real time by some of the victims, even through mixers. For me that was certainly the first time I understood what was meant when people say that bitcoin is pseudonymous. Chris Arnesen 18:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Mining

The first thing everyone wants to know about Bitcoin is about Bitcoin mining. The article is massively lacking in this respect. I will start drafting something here so we can roll-out a significant subsection on the topic. Below is a very early draft, please help elaborate, correct, improve, etc. --Vince Samios

Start:

Bitcoin Mining

Bitcoin Mining is the process of processing Bitcoin transactions and performs three vital roles. The first is to verify Bitcoin transactions are authorised, correct, and exclusive (to avoid double spending of coins), the second is to remove the need for trust in the bitcoin network, and the third is to fairly distribute new bitcoins in a fair fashion and as a reward for contribution to the Bitcoin network.

Proof of work

Within Bitcoin Mining, proof-of-work ensures that the ability to create new blocks is equally shared amongst all contributors, proportional to their contributions.

Mining Difficulty

Bitcoin Mining Difficulty is a way for the bitcoin protocol to regulate block creation speed to a target of one block every 10 minutes. As the computing power behind Bitcoin increases or decreases, the mining difficulty needs to adjust to maintain that 10 minute target.

Processing Transactions

A miner who achieves the proof-of-work target is given the right to create a new block which will contain verified transactions. Once the block is created by the bitcoin miner it is distributed throughout the Bitcoin network and the transactions it contains become part of the blockchain.

Fair New-Coin Distribution

In centralised currencies, new units created through inflation are owned by the central bank or central authority who created those new units. In a distributed currency such as Bitcoin, a different solution was needed to distribute new currency units. Proof-of-work provides a way for all within the Bitcoin network to distribute new bitcoins to miners based on how much processing power they've provided to the Bitcoin network.

Mining Hardware

Proposed addition As the popularity of Bitcoin increased, miners abandoned run-of-the-mill consumer computers for specially tailored machines that could do the work of payment processing more efficiently. First GPUs were pressed into service, and today several companies market products made solely to mine Bitcoin. Fleetham (talk) 04:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

CPU - Central Processing Unit

A CPU is a common type of computing chip which is contains a few processing cores that are optimized for sequential serial processing. CPU's are not very efficient at processing SHA256 hashes.

GPU - Graphics Processing Unit

Similar to a CPU chip, however a GPU consists of thousands of smaller and more efficient cores designed to handle multiple tasks simultaneously. GPUs are able to process SHA256 hashes more efficiently than CPU's.

FPGA - Field Programmable Gateway Array

FPGA's are complex computing chips designed perform one specific purpose, but which are re-programmable and can thus perform more than one task however only one task at a time. When configured to process SHA256 hashes, an FPGA is many times more efficient than a GPU.

ASIC - Application Specific Integrated Circuit

ASIC's are Chips specifically designed to perform only one task, with their circuity physically locked to performing only one function over and over. Because they are not reprogrammable, ASIC chips are many times more efficient at processing SHA256 hashes than FPGA's.

Quantum Computing

Theoretically quantum computing could provide bitcoin mining hardware which could process hashes at an order of magnitude greater than all other mining hardware options, however if quantum computing were to eventuate bitcoin's encryption algorithm would need to be updated as theoretically SHA256 may be vulnerable.

Vince Samios 21 December 2013 (UTC)

This is all probably undue detail. Can you condense this into a paragraph of 5–6 sentences? --Laser brain (talk) 01:11, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this warrants an entirely separate page. It's a very high interest subject. This is a work in progress regardless, but there should be a way to describe mining concisely. Stick with me on this one. VinceSamios (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, probably. See Wikipedia:Summary style. We could write a paragraph in this article, and link to a separate article called Bitcoin mining or similar. The question is whether there are enough reliable sources that meet to write an entire article. --Laser brain (talk) 03:02, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I hope no one minds that I added a short intro to the hardware section. I think that if this isn't going on it's own page the bit about quantum computing should be removed, however. Fleetham (talk) 04:34, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Less than minding, this is exactly the kind of contribution I was hoping for. thankyou. VinceSamios (talk) 09:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The section needs sources, and the section "Fair New-Coin Distribution" is POV. Who says Bitcoin is more "fair" than central banks? Wikipedia can't make that claim in its own voice. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, all of it needs good citations from reliable sources. Moreover, some of the paragraphs talk about a technology (e.g., ASIC) and even ASICs do better hashes, but don't say much about bitcoin. Are ASICs being used in bitcoin? To what extent? When did that start? Any idea of how much BC is "mined" on ASICs in Dec 2013 vs. GPUs, or spare-time PC/CPU mining? N2e (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

This has a more useable (for WP purposes) summary in the 2nd half of the article. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Missing country

Denmark [6]. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

- See Denmark in Legal Status. Silbtsc (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

India http://www.coindesk.com/indian-bitcoin-exchanges-suspend-operations-following-rbi-warning/ Chris Arnesen 02:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

http://www.coindesk.com/indian-authorities-swoop-buysellbitco/ Chris Arnesen 15:16, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Resolved

- See India in Legal Status Chris Arnesen 20:04, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Recentism

The following is posted, inside the usual pretty little box, by some Wikipedia editor:

Recentism.svg This article or section may be slanted towards recent events. Please try to keep recent events in historical perspective. (December 2013)

Since the whole Wikipedia phenomenon is, uh, recent, and speculation about its, get this, "historical perspective" somewhat premature, this is unusually dense, even for a Wikipedia editor.

Further, the invention of the ugly "recentism" should perhaps qualify somebody for exclusion from that exalted calling.

David Lloyd-Jones (talk) 04:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

please be nice and constructive with your comments.Chris Arnesen 06:43, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Baidu subsidiary

Could someone please find reliable sources for the claim that "a subsidiary" of Baidu stopped accepting the currency. I'm a bit suspicious that this is just POV, plain and simple. I would venture to guess that you could say the same thing about any operation run by an large company, and I don't think it's commonplace to make such a distinction. (When you ask a person what type of robot dog they have, a common answer is "mine's made by a Sony subsidiary?" I think not.) It would be helpful if there was a way to determine what type of services Baidu had on offer for bitcoins, but I strongly object to saying "a subsidiary." Fleetham (talk) 19:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

It's not a subsidiary, it was one of their services (Jaisule). If I was the one who inserted that wording, I was wrong to do so. --Laser brain (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Was it a music service? The Bloomberg article that's the current citation says that their "web acceleration platform" stopped accepting BTC, whatever that means. Fleetham (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

No, it's a firewall and DDoS protection service (see [7]). They would sell this service to businesses running their own web sites, and they were, at the time, accepting Bitcoin for that service. --Laser brain (talk) 21:11, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

"Legal issues" vs. "legal status"

These sections need to be merged. The too generic "history" section also duplicates some of that. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Careful editing

Fleetham, that wasn't a small copy edit, you've removed these pictures. Please be careful when edit. Thank you. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 14:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I should have put that in the edit summary. But they had to go because the section on wallets isn't large enough to support three pictures and is the only relevant place for the graph. It's important to place the graph next to a relevant section because I don't believe that people who don't already have a basic grasp of public-key cryptography have much of a chance of understanding it otherwise.

As your edit replaced the two removed pictures but also re-positioned the graph far from a relevant paragraph, I removed one of the two pictures to a different section and deleted the other. I think it's more important to have the graph near a relevant paragraph than retain all of the pics.

I suppose that the best solution might be to write some text relevant to the graph in a section other than "wallets." Then the the pics that were there originally can go back. I don't know why that info is under the header "wallets" anyway. Fleetham (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

This diagram is not about wallets itself, but about transactions generally. Wallets images are important as well. Please restore it to previous state. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 10:02, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Done. But I removed the diagram to the "reception" section. I believe it was originally illustrating the blockchain? It's not an illustration of the blockchain or how it operates but shows public-key cryptography applied to Bitcoin, instead. Fleetham (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Well OK, but public-key cryptography has nothing to do with reception, it is an element of transaction process, please restore it. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 16:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Legal status section

In my opinion this section is far too long, unwieldy, and list-like. I suggest it may be better to provide a brief summary of how Bitcoin is legislated differently across the world and split all this information off into a list article like Legal status of Bitcoin by country. Thoughts? --Laser brain (talk) 14:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I imagine most people aren't going to this page to learn exactly what the legal status of BTC is in, say, Romania is. So why not write a few paragraphs that generalize the differences in regulations into two or three tiers and then mention each and every country that falls into these classes? Like, taxed as income, slight regulation, and near ban? IDK how easily all the countries listed would fit into three categories, but I think you get the rough outline of my proposal. Fleetham (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Agree Good and simple idea, same like here. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 16:19, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Carbon footprint

A couple sentences were recently added without citations about the carbon footprint of Bitcoin. Those statements need references. I don't know if this is reliable, but it's something http://pando.com/2013/12/16/bitcoin-has-a-dark-side-its-carbon-footprint/ . Chris Arnesen 05:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Sentences were removed. I'll consider this as resolved until it comes up again. Chris Arnesen 15:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

No it's not resolved, we have source for it. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 16:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard of pando.com and can't vouch for its reliability. I'd tend to question the veracity of that particular article because I came across the link in this blog post http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/12/why-i-want-bitcoin-to-die-in-a.html, where the author says, "This essay has some questionable numbers, but the underlying principle is sound." Chris Arnesen 18:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

A better Bitcoin image

Current Bitcoin "logo"

File:A Bitcoin wallpaper by PerfectHue.jpg

Suggested replacement "logo"

Simple Bitcoin logo, no text

@Rezonansowy: could you please elaborate on why you think that suggested replacement image is "not good idea"? I find the existing image to be rather bland in comparison. Other opinions are welcome too, of course. Chris Arnesen 16:36, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the original is better too. The second doesn't convey any extra information and is just more distracting. Samwalton9 (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a common bitcoin logo, this wallpaper isn't even appropriate as a logo. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 17:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

To me the suggested image conveys that Bitcoin is a network. Perhaps a slightly smaller version would be less distracting, something that looks more like the infobox in www. I don't feel too strongly about this one, but I do like that networky image better. By the way, I dispute the assertion that the existing logo is "common". It's just something some dude put up on a Bitcoin forum, just like the "wallpaper" image. Chris Arnesen 17:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion the best compromise would be to have an image that is just the logo as it is commonly used, and remove the text which isn't commonly seen (as far as I know). Samwalton9 (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I added to this section the proposed compromise image (simple, no-text Bitcoin logo). Chris Arnesen 17:54, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason to not include a wordmark, see [8] for original. On most articles on Wikipedia we use logo and wordmark if available (example: Microsoft. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 18:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that that is Microsoft's font which is licensed as part of the logo. Bitcoin has no such thing and so any font/text choice is arbitrary. To some extent so is the logo choice, though the one on the right is the commonly used one. Samwalton9 (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I mean that the wordmark is an official element of logo. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 18:05, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Logo says "Logos are either purely graphic (symbols/icons) or are composed of the name of the organization (a logotype or wordmark)." So I don't know what you mean by "wordmark is an official element of logo". I did a Google image search for the current "logo" (with text) and got 338,000 results. The simple text-free logo came up with a whopping 43,600,000 results. So the simple logo without text is two orders of magnitude more common by that metric. I'd say that's pretty definitive. Chris Arnesen 18:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Have you seen the provide url to forum, removing wordmark really doesn;t make image better. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 18:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes I've visited the forum thread, but I didn't really need to because the proposed compromise image has already been uploaded to the Wikipedia Commons and included as a thumbnail in this talk page discussion. Personally I prefer the text-less image, and the Google image search results quoted above show that internet agrees with me overwhelmingly.Chris Arnesen 19:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Block chain is two words

As it stands, the article uses "blockchain", all one word, whereas "block chain", two words, is more standard. See, e.g. http://bitcoin.org/en/vocabulary and https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_chain and http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Brito_BitcoinPrimer.pdf . Nor does "blockchain" appear in Satoshi's seminal paper. "blockchain" gets more hits on Google, but many of those are talking about the company blockchain.info. I'd like to consistently use "block chain", two words. Unless I hear objections, I'll make it so. Chris Arnesen 20:21, 31 December 2013 (UTC)