Talk:Bitcoin

Merged articles

Ponzi scheme dispute

Edit #635867692 uses the following justification: Restoring original version per WP:BRD. It makes no sense to include these names per WP:NPOV, especially given the sources themselves.

These are the reasons why the edit is not negotiable and must be reverted:

• The edit does not "restore original version". There never was an "original version" looking like that. This makes the justification invalid.
• The section name is "Ponzi scheme dispute" to indicate that the statements contained in the section are opinions. Per WP:NPOV, opinions "should be attributed in the text to particular sources". The version proposed by Aoidh tries to attribute, e.g., Jim Gibson's opinion or Jeremy Kirk's opinion to bitcoin supporters. However, neither Jim Gibson nor Jeremy Kirk are identified as "bitcoin supporters". Consequently, the edit misattributes the opinions, and must be reverted per WP:NPOV. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

That wording has been in the article for somewhere around six months, and was determined after a discussion that you took part in. Hardly invalid. Further, you cannot change the name of the section to try to selectively choose what can go in the section. The original sources uses did support the content, but this was changed. To include Jim Gibson or Jeremy Kirk without qualifying who they are presents undue weight; they have no Wikipedia article or have been shown by independent sources to carry any particular weight in such matters, so why, other than cherry-picking them out because they support a particular viewpoint, should they be included, by name? They shouldn't. That is why the edit was reverted. - Aoidh (talk) 07:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The original sources uses did support the content, but this was changed. - OK, why then do you want to use different sources when they do not support the content and unconvincingly pretend you are reverting to WP:STATUSQUO? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not accept the wording you are pushing for as WP:STATUSQUO, since it is not WP:STATUSQUO. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't have to "pretend". The sentence, worded exactly as it is now, has been in the article for about nine months now (since April), and was added as part of the preceding sentence in February. It has been a stable part of the article for almost a year now; it is the status quo. - Aoidh (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If that's the case, sounds like its a good time to challenge that almost a year old mistake. I support naming individual sources instead of generalizing and assigning that opinion to all "bitcoin supporters". Either we're going to name individuals for the sake of neutrality or remove the reference altogether. "They have no Wikipedia article or have been shown by independent sources to carry any particular weight in such matters", you said. Perhaps their opinion is not notable enough to appear in this article, either. Mrcatzilla (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Aoidh, I have to agree with Mrcatzilla agreeing with Ladislav Mecir it's time to correct the problems of the section.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

To resolve the things in a clean way, I summarize the issues violating WP:NPOV in the section:

• The first sentence in the section starts with Various journalists and it is verified by this article. The WP:NPOV states: ...opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources. While the opinion is attributed to Various journalists, The Slate identifies the author as Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. Therefore, the attribution to Various journalists is a misattribution. The opinion professor Pozner presents in his article is: A real Ponzi scheme takes fraud; bitcoin, by contrast, seems more like a collective delusion.. In contrast to Pozner's opinion, the text in the section states voiced concerns that bitcoin may be a Ponzi scheme, which is a misrepresentation of Pozner's opinion.
• The sentence continues with U.S. Economist Nouriel Roubini, this time verified by two different articles. The Business Insider article states in Roubini's voice: Bitcoin Is A Ponzi Game And A Conduit For Criminal Activities, while the CNBC states that Roubini declared bitcoin a Ponzi scheme and a lousy store of value. This time, the attribution is proper, but neither of the sources does state that Roubini voiced concerns that bitcoin may be a Ponzi scheme. To not attribute conflicting opinions to Roubini, we should pick the most accurate citation. Since the primary source for the claims is available, citing the Business Insider looks the most accurate.
• The sentence ends with head of the Estonian central bank, Mihkel Nommela, cited by Bloomberg L.P. The attribution is proper this time. The citation in the source is: All in all, virtual currency schemes are an innovation that deserves some caution, given the lack of any guarantees and responsible parties to back them in the longer term or evidence that this isn’t just a Ponzi scheme Since other banks are cited in the subsequent text, it makes sense to also cite the Estonian central bank to make sure no misrepresentation occurs.
• The subsequent sentence states: Bitcoin supporters disagree. This is yet another misattribution, since there is no citation identifying the authors of the respective articles as bitcoin supporters. Moreover, the opinions of the respective authors are not represented by stating that they disagreee while not giving a hint with what they actually disagree. This si a nonneutral treatment of both opinions.
• There was another opinion in the wording from April 2014, which Aoidh deleted. This opinion, for some reason, does not suit him well, even though the replacement sources don't fit the wording at all, adding to the nonneutrality of the wording he is trying to enforce now. For some sentimental reasons (mainly the fact that the source has been accepted for that long, but became suddenly unacceptable for Aoidh now), I prefer to keep the opinion. The fact is that the source is a primary source, but that does not matter at all, since it is used only to verify that there is a specific opinion contained in it, which is exactly the purpose for which primary sources are acceptable. If there is a perception that it could violate any balance, it is still possible to add a source presenting an opinion of a journalist or two that bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme. While such a formulation has been present in the article, there is currently no source verifying that. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the notability of the article written by John Mather and published by the economist Jeffrey Tucker. Since they both have articles in Wikipedia, they actually are notable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC) As for the notability of the Huffington Post article or the PC World article. I do not know whether the authors are notable or not. In case the authors aren't notable we should write an attribution like: The Huffington Post stated:... , or The PC World stated:..., since both The Huffington Post and the PC World are notable. It surely is more neutral than misattributing the opinion to bitcoin supporters. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There is one thing we should make sure of: can any of the statements be considered a fact instead of being an opinion? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

To take care of the above listed WP:NPOV issues and handle the matters in a neutral way, I propose the following wording of the section (the "verification" notes are in place of citations verifying the opinions):

The New York Post called bitcoin a Ponzi scheme stating: "Welcome to 21st-century Ponzi scheme: Bitcoin".(verified by [1]) Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School stated: "A real Ponzi scheme takes fraud; bitcoin, by contrast, seems more like a collective delusion."(verification already present in the article) U.S. economist Nouriel Roubini stated: "Bitcoin Is A Ponzi Game And A Conduit For Criminal Activities."(verification by Business Insider already present in the article) The head of the Estonian central bank, Mihkel Nommela stated: "All in all, virtual currency schemes are an innovation that deserves some caution, given the lack of any guarantees and responsible parties to back them in the longer term or evidence that this isn’t just a Ponzi scheme."(verification already present in the article) The Huffington Post questioned: "Is Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme, yes or no?", answering the question: "No!" The PC World stated: "While bitcoin is clearly not a Ponzi scheme, the frenzied get-in-now enthusiasm of late belies the fact that it is a very new and immature software experiment." Economist Jeffrey Tucker published the opinion: "There are several key differences between a Ponzi scheme and bitcoin." A 2012 report by the European Central Bank states, "it [is not] easy to assess whether or not the bitcoin system actually works like a pyramid or Ponzi scheme."(verification already present in the article) A 2014 report by the World Bank states: "Contrary to a widely-held opinion, bitcoin is not a deliberate Ponzi.(verification already present in the article) A 2014 report by Federal Council (Switzerland) states: "the question is repeatedly raised whether bitcoin can be deemed an impermissible pyramid scheme... Since in the case of bitcoin the typical promises of profits are lacking, it cannot be assumed that bitcoin is a pyramid scheme."(verification already present in the article)

Since nobody criticized the proposed wording, let me pick the glove and find a problem in it: the first part of the citation from the Federal Council report is actually not an opinion, but it is a fact, confirmed also by, e.g., the report by the European Central Bank. By WP:NPOV it should be stated as a fact, in Wikipedia's own voice. My proposal is to state it in Wikipedia's own voice as follows: "The question whether bitcoin can be deemed a pyramid or a Ponzi scheme is recurrent." Is there an agreement on this wording of the introducing sentence of the section? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav, Thanks for your diligence dissecting and prepping this section and patience with your fellow editors. I admit that the topic isnt dear to my heart and b) I've seen too many Ponzi scheme disputes between you and Aoidh over the past 10 months that I just didnt want to deal with it. That said, I think your points are well taken. The Ponzi scheme opinions by the press and the analyses by governmental and supranational bodies needed to be phrased without editorializing and creation of two camps.

In answer to your question can one use the term fact? I would leave the term fact out of here, because all of these are opinions; in the case of the ECB, the World Bank, and Federal Council they are layers and layers of opinion, called expert opinion in analogy to the levels of evidence, as used in the classification ofmedical world- individuals esp with COI are similar to 'anecdotal evidence' and analysis by a group or gremium is higher level evidence. But fact? No.

I found 2 more references mentioning Ponzi scheme, but am not sure if we want to include them: Russian Central Bank opinion, Febr 2014 and a July 2014 Bitcoin paper prepared for the US Congressional Research Service, a good, non-partisan WP:RS-we have an older one in our references already. The authors describe the 2 instances of ponzi scheme trials, basta. There's no discussion is it or is it not, which is the most matter-of-factual treatment of the topic I have seen to date.

I agree with Ladislav's wording, particularly since it addresses Aoidh's concerns. Have the following small changes: order opinions chronologically, also because there may be an opinion shift over time, add detail re the "voice" of the NY Post (not a journalist, but managing member at Pendulum Capital Management)-its always betterto specify than call it the newspapers opinion-, and Roubini (formerIMF etc), and otherwise small copy edits/wikilinks.

A 2012 report by the European Central Bank had stated, "it [is not] easy to assess whether or not the bitcoin system actually works like a pyramid or Ponzi scheme."(verification already present in the article) A 2014 report by the World Bank states: "Contrary to a widely-held opinion, bitcoin is not a deliberate Ponzi".(verification already present in the article) In the opinion of Eric Posner, a law professor at the University of Chicago "A real Ponzi scheme takes fraud; bitcoin, by contrast, seems more like a collective delusion."(verification already present in the article) U.S. economist Nouriel Roubini, former senior adviser to the U.S. Treasury and the International Monetary Fund, has stated: "Bitcoin Is A Ponzi Game And A Conduit For Criminal Activities."(verification by Business Insider already present in the article). In February 2014 an asset-manager and columnist for The New York Post called bitcoin a Ponzi scheme opining: "Welcome to 21st-century Ponzi scheme: Bitcoin".(verified by [2]) The head of the Estonian central bank, Mihkel Nommela stated: "All in all, virtual currency schemes are an innovation that deserves some caution, given the lack of any guarantees and responsible parties to back them in the longer term or evidence that this isn’t just a Ponzi scheme."(verification already present in the article) The Huffington Post questioned: "Is Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme, yes or no?", and answered the question "No!". The PC World stated: "While bitcoin is clearly not a Ponzi scheme, the frenzied get-in-now enthusiasm of late belies the fact that it is a very new and immature software experiment." Economist Jeffrey Tucker published the opinion: "There are several key differences between a Ponzi scheme and bitcoin." A 2014 report by Federal Council (Switzerland) states: "the question is repeatedly raised whether bitcoin can be deemed an impermissible pyramid scheme... Since in the case of bitcoin the typical promises of profits are lacking, it cannot be assumed that bitcoin is a pyramid scheme."(verification already present in the article, add page 21)

AoidhThe ball is and has been in your field since Dec 2. I see you've been editing other pages since, so I d like to draw your attention to this section, have you participate in the discussion and help in getting this worked out. If you do not, I think it's fair for us to interpret your silence as agreement with the compromise above.--Wuerzele (talk) 09:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: Thank you for the improvements. I agree to treat all statements as opinions, and find your proposed wording of the section acceptable. Also the chronological order is fine. Questions (I do not mean them as disagreement with the proposed wording, take them as brainstorming ideas):

• professor Pozner expressed he is uncertain about the "delusion", so I wonder whether it would not be better to replace his citation by: "Eric Posner, a law professor at the University of Chicago saw the contrast between Ponzi scheme and bitcoin in the fact that Ponzi scheme is fraudulent."
• leaving out Ponzi scheme unrelated part, we can shorten the citation of PC World article to: "bitcoin is clearly not a Ponzi scheme".
• leaving out Ponzi scheme unrelated part, we can shorten the citation of Nouriel Roubini to: "Bitcoin is a Ponzi game"
• leaving out Ponzi scheme unrelated part, we can shorten the citation of Mihkel Nummela to: "All in all, virtual currency schemes are an innovation that deserves some caution, given the lack of ... evidence that this isn’t just a Ponzi scheme." Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav, agree with your proposals to shorten quotes to the core, except for the first one. I see no sensible way to shorten this statement and would stick with what is.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

To make the things clear for newcomers to the dispute without requiring them to reread the above, this is the last wording after the quotes are shortened to the core:

A 2012 report by the European Central Bank had stated, "it [is not] easy to assess whether or not the bitcoin system actually works like a pyramid or Ponzi scheme."(verification already present in the article) A 2014 report by the World Bank states: "Contrary to a widely-held opinion, bitcoin is not a deliberate Ponzi".(verification already present in the article) In the opinion of Eric Posner, a law professor at the University of Chicago "A real Ponzi scheme takes fraud; bitcoin, by contrast, seems more like a collective delusion."(verification already present in the article) U.S. economist Nouriel Roubini, former senior adviser to the U.S. Treasury and the International Monetary Fund, has stated: "Bitcoin Is A Ponzi Game"(verification by Business Insider already present in the article). In February 2014 an asset-manager and columnist for The New York Post called bitcoin a Ponzi scheme opining: "Welcome to 21st-century Ponzi scheme: Bitcoin".(verified by [3]) The head of the Estonian central bank, Mihkel Nommela stated: "virtual currency schemes are an innovation that deserves some caution, given the lack of ... evidence that this isn’t just a Ponzi scheme."(verification already present in the article) The Huffington Post questioned: "Is Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme, yes or no?", and answered the question "No!". The PC World stated: "bitcoin is clearly not a Ponzi scheme". Economist Jeffrey Tucker published the opinion: "There are several key differences between a Ponzi scheme and bitcoin." A 2014 report by Federal Council (Switzerland) states: "the question is repeatedly raised whether bitcoin can be deemed an impermissible pyramid scheme... Since in the case of bitcoin the typical promises of profits are lacking, it cannot be assumed that bitcoin is a pyramid scheme."(verification already present in the article, add page 21)

Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I see that the current wording achieved the necessary consensus. (Aoidh was alerted by Wuerzele and from his edits it can be detected that he does not intend to add another contribution to this dispute.) Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the wording that was not discussed, as the change removed context from the section and defended bitcoin before even explaining why it would need to be defended...hardly NPOV. The excessive overuse of quotes needs to be trimmed down significantly as this much reliance on copyrighted wording is far from ideal. - Aoidh (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Your changes are not [[WP:NPOV], that is why I reverted them. You had plenty of time to engage in the dispute, and have been asked to do so repeatedly. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

And per WP:STATUSQUO and lack of any discussion on the text in question, I've restored the original wording. The change I reverted was not mentioned in any dispute, so being "asked to do so repeatedly" is irrelevant (ignoring the fact that even that's not accurate). Your edit removes context and establishes a firm POV, being overly defensive without so much as first explaining why it needs to be. Just because there's a discussion about a wording in a particular a section does not give license to make sweeping changes to the entire section, removing text arrived at by consensus without any discussion or justification. - Aoidh (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Am I missing the NPOVN part ? I'm seeing this on the NPOVN and just not seeing any statement of an NPOV question for input. Discussion of wording in TALK seems good notion. But seems nothing formed or suitable subject for NPOVN. The bulleted list by Ladislav Mecir seems more about what wording to convey and whether to categorize the views or to use individual names, decent TALK material. I'm not seeing bias or distortion by going either way and not seeing stated in the form of a NPOV puzzle for NPOVN input. Is there a NPOV principle that wants input ??? Markbassett (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

surge in Bitcoin page views on 23 Nov 2014- your opinion?

I am curious to hear what people think about the dramatic surge of Bitcoin page views from regularly 5,000 to 8,000 at the moment to >62,000 on November 23 see page view statistics here. I have a possible explanation but do not want others to be biased by it.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is a bug that occasionally results in an unnaturally high page view count. Not sure if it's fixed yet. A recent relevant discussion is here. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 09:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Does this system have protection against someone just writing a bit of code to view the page ~50,000 times? If investors thought they could manipulate the value of bitcoins by increasing the number of views of a webpage they would. 87.102.44.18 (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

That is impractical to guarantee protection against and any investors speculating based on a Wikipedia pages viewcount which can be manipulated isn't making a very safe investment.

RfC: Summarizing the "Criminal activities" section in the lede

Should the lead include information related to bitcoin's use in online black markets? Fleetham (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Since the Bitcoin lede contains information related to bitcoin's use in online black markets the question is How should it be included ?--Wuerzele (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a wording mentioning criminal activities that has achieved some consensus with its inclusion to the lead secton of the article:

U.S. law enforcement officials and financial regulators, who had emphasized the role of bitcoin in criminal activities prior, recognized at a November 2013 U.S. Senate hearing on virtual currencies that cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin can provide legitimate financial services to customers.

Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The RfC proposes no specific text, and accordingly cannot be cited as evidence for support for any specific text. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. This has been widely discussed and documented in WP:RS sources which detail, among other things, why cryptocurrency is prone to such uses and whether that is a fundamental flaw in the concept which underlies Bitcoin. SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• No. Yes. The lead section of the Bitcoin article did summarize the fears of illicit activities in the past, and it is planned to also mention them in the future. See the #Neutrality dispute on the contents of the lead section where it is discussed how it shall be done in a neutral way. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC) I express my agreement with the above wording mentioning fears of criminal activities in the article lead section. Changed my mind after reading the opinion of Markbassett. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Yes. It is self-evident that use of Bitcoin in illicit transactions is frequently discussed in reliable sources. Accordingly, it should both be covered in depth in the body of the article, and referred to in the lede. As to appropriate wording, since this RfC offers no specific proposal, I can neither approve nor disapprove here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• No. I feel like the entire section contributes to the unbalancing of this article. Melody Concerto^talk 05:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• No Cut the lead to a short summary of the article item, leave more detail for the article. The lead does not include other topics that are more common in the article and stopping before this last para seems appropriate. The lower article is where to cover "Bitcoin has been a subject of scrutiny amid concerns ..." Markbassett (talk) 13:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Yes WP:NPOV calls for us to include all significant viewpoints in reliable sources in proportion to their coverage in those sources . This is a core policy of WP. It should be mentioned in the article. It appears to be more than a minor viewpoint and should receive as much coverage as reliable sources give. The lede should present all major controversies, this appears to be one and has sizeable coverage in the article. WP:LEAD AlbinoFerret 01:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
• Yes. The bot sent me. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section clearly states that article introductions should "summarize ... any prominent controversies." Given the extent to which Bitcoin has been documented for use in money laundering, tax evasion, contraband, and even assassination services, I recommend that a full paragraph of the introduction be devoted to the controversies. EllenCT (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• Yes. The guideline at WP:LEAD tells us to summarize in the lead section all significant themes presented in the article body. Since illicit usage of Bitcoin is a significant theme, it must be summarized in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Yes: I agree with Binksternet above. Based on the portion of content devoted to the subject, the summary should have at least one or two neutral sentences summarizing the alleged criminal activity. Praemonitus (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
• Split: If this is really a significant subject in reliable sources perhaps this would be better suited in another article of its own that can go into detail. There can be a link and a brief summary here. Chillum 00:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, absolutely Don't forget that Wikipedia attempts to be encyclopedic, more information is better than less, and the history of Bitcoin should undeniably be accurately and fully described, including how it is being used. Damotclese (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes. summoned by bot. I have nothing to add to the arguments given above: lead should summarize the article, so i'm in favor of a full paragraph of the lead dedicated to it. And it's a relevant topic in relation to bitcoin, much more so than the relative notability in relation to money in general. PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - Sources clearly establish these factors as significant to the developing uses and technical mechanics of the currency. Let's be careful not to let these matters overwhelm the lead, but mention there most certainly seems appropriate. Snow talk 02:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Qualified NO. I agree with the trend of the remark by Markbassett, though the detail I am hardly interested in. The topic certainly should be included in the text body, though less specifically. A general problem with bitcoins is not so much that they can be used for black-marketeering or racketeering, but that they can be used under conditions not under legal control or scrutiny of any fiscal authority, permitting activities such as money laundering, illegal currency exchange, and indeed black-marketeering as well. This automatically makes them attractive to criminal elements, of which B-M activities are just one example; as a result special mention of B-M rather than the general theme of criminal use unbalances the lede right away. Anyway as it stands the lede is cumbersome, incoherent and not very helpful to the reader. Retain just the essential parts, properly structured, and put everything else into the main body. Some of current lede material could go into an introductory section if desired. However, if suitably articulate and relevant mention of the topic were to appear in a suitably (re)structured lede, I wouldn't complain. JonRichfield (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes Bitcoin has far-reaching potential as a digital currency, but it's primary usage so far has been in criminal activities over the internet. Agree with AndytheGrump and others. Dmrwikiprof (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - Sent by a bot although I'm sure no one cares - Anyway since it's been used in a dodgy way we should add a few sentences in the article. –Davey2010^Talk 03:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Honestly I feel like the entire section tends to lend to the unbalancing of the article as a whole, I'd like to see it completely removed, but I understand that may not quite be in the interest of being encyclopedic. If not removal outright, we should be requiring stricter neutrality from our sources and in the writing of this section so it's not a slam on the cryptocurrency. No one can dispute criminals do criminal things, so that's not an irrelevant fact, but I don't believe it's really useful in an article about this currency, except where it has significantly affected the history of bitcoin, like Mt. Gox did. Melody Concerto^talk 05:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The question by Fleetham looks simple, but it actually isn't. The corresponding neutrality dispute is not yet closed and it is above in #Neutrality dispute on the contents of the lead section. All interested Wikipedians are welcome to take part in the dispute. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Does the article on the United States dollar discuss its use on the black market for the purchase of drugs and other illegal products? Does the lead mention such use in that article? bd2412 T 17:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

One would assume not. That is however irrelevant. What matters is to what extent published reliable sources discuss the use of Bitcoin for such purposes - and the evidence is clear enough that they very frequently do. Wikipedia bases article content on published sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@BD2412: @AndyTheGrump: what is much more relevant is the fact that Fleetham is trying to disrupt the ongoing neutrality dispute at #Neutrality dispute on the contents of the lead section by creating other parallel disputes dealing with the same subject but representing a significantly one-sided version of it. This is an invitation to take part in the dispute and see complete arguments not just the one-sided and significantly inaccurate oversimplification by Fleetham. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No. What is relevant in a discussion regarding the lede of an article is whether it accurately represents the balance of opinion in reliable sources. My response to the question "Should the lead include information related to bitcoin's use in online black markets?" is that yes, it should - because that reflects the way that Bitcoin is discussed in such sources. I am not interested in squabbles about who said what, or whether one person considers another's viewpoint 'one-sided'. That isn't the question this RfC addresses. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Then you simply ignore the fact that:

• the lead section always did summarize fears of bitcoin-related illicit activities
• the only thing disputed is not whether it should summarize, but how to do it in a neutral way

If you do not take part in the dispute, you are missing all this. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Given this view, please register your "yes" in the survey section above. SPECIFICO talk 18:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir, I would appreciate it if you refrained from accusing me of 'ignoring' things. This RfC asked a specific question, and I gave a specific answer. That is the purpose of RfCs. If you wish to create a RfC on specific text, do so, and I will respond. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

To notify the editors taking part in this dispute: Fleetham also filed a NPOVN issue related to this. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@EllenCT: "Given the extent to which Bitcoin has been documented for use in money laundering, tax evasion, contraband, and even assassination services, I recommend that a full paragraph of the introduction be devoted to the controversies." - my notes:

• Bitcoin has been used for criminal activities. That is not a "controversy".
• The documented criminal activities are theft and black market cases.
• The "assassination services" are mentioned in the media only as allegations in only one case.
• The "money laundering" is discussed in the media as "unlikely", "low reliability", etc., due to the public character of the block chain ledger. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

And tax evasion? [4] EllenCT (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there are opinions that consider tax evasion a theoretical possibility and opinions that don't. However, it looks as minor theoretizing, and not as an actual criminal activity, taking into account that no actual cases are known or publicly described. Compared to the total amount of bitcoin-related sources, this is not very significant. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The lede also is to describe why bitcoin is notable. Notability is based on the coverage of the topic in reliable sources like news sites. There is significant coverage of bitcoin on those things you point out. They should be in the lede, it isnt just about describing it. AlbinoFerret 12:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Sankin, Aaron (October 10, 2013). "Bitcoin is the offshore tax haven of the future". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 28 December 2014. is a reliable source with an excellent overview of the controversy involved with using bitcoin for tax evasion. Pagliery, Jose (March 31, 2014). "New IRS rules make using Bitcoins a fiasco". CNN Money. Retrieved 28 December 2014. is another, along with its primary source "Application of FinCEN's Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual Currencies". fincen.gov. US Treasury Department Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. March 18, 2013. Retrieved 28 December 2014. EllenCT (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi EllenCT, fyi IRS rule is covered and contained in the article(ref 210). The 2013 'offshore tax haven of the future article' is speculative, would need an actual article about it to report it as an actual criminal activity. Thanks for reminding everyone of the FinCen rule, which was there -It had ALWAYS been there- I wrote the regulation section. It looks like it may have disappeared in the perpetual unreasonable cutting by you know who- you can see today, as of this hour. --Wuerzele (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Wuerzele This might be of interest. This one might be better link. I love looking for sources. AlbinoFerret 17:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Albino Ferret, thanks. Both sources confirm concern for, but unproven tax evasion. --Wuerzele (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Wuerzele Concerns can be used in WP articles as concerns, it doesnt have to have been found to have happened, something I have learned in my time on Electronic cigarette. I have a feeling it will be found to have happened at some point in the future. AlbinoFerret 04:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead section issues

My goodness. What nonsense is this article conveying ! ? 'Bc is a software-based online payment system...': can anything online exist that is NOT "software-based" ? ?
'...described by S Nakamoto...': why do we want to know that it is "described" by someone ? I'd rather have a Wikipedia editor describing it HERE, in the lead of this article !
The second full (main) sentence ('A peer.....also called bitcoin') is even ungrammatical: that (main) sentence has no finite verb ! Can anyone who has successfully finished his schooling convert this lead section into proper (and meaningful) English ! ?
I read in news papers frequently about "bitcoin", have honestly no idea what it might be, so I thought I'd look it up in Wiki. But Wiki doesn't simply tell me what it is (neither does my Dutch Wikipedia tell me that)... --Corriebertus (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the: 'A peer-to-peer client...' is not just ungrammatical, it is also self-contradicting.

The 'online' term in 'Bc is a software-based online payment system...' is also superfluous (pleonasm), since payment system is defined as an 'operational network'.

:The problem is that there is a dispute which is slowing things down for everyone except unscrupulous editors.

I hope you do not mind me using a more politically correct section title. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

The edit changing the text to "Because it lacks a central repository..." made during the neutrality dispute is departing from the informations verified by the cited source. It looks similarly meaningful as a statement that a cordless phone lacks a cord.

The formulation "Bitcoin's status as an actual currency is disputed as it does not have all the attributes of money." is self-contradicting.

The formulation "others such as Litecoin and Dogecoin also exist" is not summarizing the contents of the article body.

The formulation "Bitcoin is not the first virtual currency, however." is not summarizing the contents of the article body. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 02:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The formulation "shared ledger" is not using the proper terminology, which would be "distributed ledger". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The line ""Bitcoin is not the first virtual currency, however." looks to call for something to follow after however because of the comma. But thats missing. This sentence looks like broken english grammar. AlbinoFerret 13:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I see that you corrected the sentence and added a citation to it. There are significant problems that your edit did not cure, though: sentence still looks vague, and it does not "briefly summarize the most important points covered in the article" (the information is not covered in the article at all, and it does not look important). Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea to have some background on bitcoins place in history. That it isnt in the article is a shame, Ill look to see where it would be best to place it. As for the lede, its supposed to be the easiest section to read, and can contain a little background. WP:LEAD is a guideline and we should use some common sense in applying it, as it says in the box at the top of the page. Just controversies would be a dry read. But its best not it make it overly complicated. One line that shows bitcoin wasnt the first isnt going to hurt. Some people only read the lede so we need to make it readable, but give some basic information along with the controversies. AlbinoFerret 21:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I placed a few of your concerns in the body of the article. How about when you find a sourced claim thats in the lede but not the article, just putting it in the appropriate place in the body? Sourced claims should not be removed. AlbinoFerret 16:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The neutrality issues are listed in the ongoing neutrality dispute. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, for all the changes in the lead section, since 25 December. All of the (parts of) sentences I denounced then, have since then been removed.

I’m sorry to interfere once again, but the first sentence of the present lead section is incorrect, to my opinion.
‘Payment system’ is a system for monetary exchange, I read in Wikipedia—and that sounds good to me. ‘Money’ is to be “generally accepted as payment… in a country or socio-economic context”, I read in Wikipedia.
What system ‘bitcoin’ is exchanging—things called also ‘bitcoin(s)’—is however not ‘money’ to the Wikipedia definition: bitcoin is not generally accepted as payment in any country and I wouldn’t know in which “socio-economic context” it would be generally accepted as payment. So: if system ‘bitcoin’ is exchanging virtual things called (also) ‘bitcoin(s)’ which are not money (to the normal and to the Wikipedia definition), it is not a payment system (to the Wikipedia definition). --Corriebertus (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Your comments are useful, they help to understand what readers want. The second sentence has long been too complicated to be understandable, and I wanted to simplify it, but since there are other editors, it almost ended up more complicated than it was when I started to simplify. The progress is that it was split to two less complicated sentences. Regarding the peer-to-peer character: unfortunately, this one is not possible to omit, it is a substantial property. (you may see a comment here protesting against its removal) Agreed, the "nodes" term looks too technical for the uninitiated. I wanted to replace it by a more explanatory formulation, but my change was reverted. "isn't it possible to write a begin of the lead section that is easier to understand for non-experts?" - the obstacles aren't just the inability to write simple descriptions of complicated things (which is also the case here), it is also hard to get a formulation that would be neutral. You do not need to edit the article to help. If you stop by and add some comments from time to time, even that may help.

Regarding your issue with the "payment system" notion. Your note is logical, however, people are not always strictly logical, and while the moneyness of bitcoin is disputed, the claim that bitcoin is a payment system is not. The article has to reflect this. Let me add one more note to your "‘bitcoin(s)’ which are not money (to the normal and to the Wikipedia definition)" comment. It turns out that there are differences in specifications what money is. Economists use several distinct definitions, financial regulators use legal definitions from respective law, courts may use yet another definition, and then there are common people, who may see it differently, since money existed long before anybody claimed to be an economist, lawyer, or financial expert. That is one of the reasons why the moneyness of bitcoin is disputed, the other being the fact that bitcoin is new and evolving. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

My central argument yesterday was: if I look at the Wiki-definition of ‘money’, this ‘bitcoin’ is not money. Now, you start about economists having also different ideas of what money is—but that’s not a fair argument in this discussion: if ‘money’ can have also such differing meanings, that should be clearly indicated in the first sentence of article ‘money’.
While article ‘money’ is not changed, we must all reason from that definition. Otherwise, we’re not really an encyclopedia.
If bitcoin is “generally accepted as payment… in a socio-economic context”—what I doubt, but what it needs to be if it wants to be 'money' in a 'payment system' (called also bitcoin)—I’d like to read in the article which “socio-economic context” that might be. But in fact, I can’t even find the first example or proof in the article that anyone accepts bitcoin as payment for anything! I mean: let's get serious, if you don't mind. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

"if I look at the Wiki-definition of ‘money’, this ‘bitcoin’ is not money" - regarding the moneyness of bitcoin, your opinion is not restricted. However, there are rules how Wikipedia articles must be written. Perhaps surprisingly for you, your opinion should not be taken into account. Instead, the proper procedure how to write an article is to examine independent reliable sources to find out how they resolve this.

"if ‘money’ can have also such differing meanings, that should be clearly indicated in the first sentence of article ‘money’" Perhaps it should. But that is unrelated to this specific article.

"While article ‘money’ is not changed, we must all reason from that definition." - this is where you are mistaken. We must base the text on WP:IRS regardless of what other Wikipedia articles say.

"I can’t even find the first example or proof in the article that anyone accepts bitcoin as payment for anything! I mean: let's get serious, if you don't mind." - I must refer you to the Wikipedia policies and rules, this is the way how to find out how Wikipedia articles are written. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, the payment system article's lead specifies it as '[..] established to effect the transfer of monetary value' and bitcoin certainly has monetary value, so your dispute seems based on nothing - bitcoin is consistent with the payment system article's meaning. Even if it differs, as per WP:CONLIMITED consensus is local, and like what Ladislav mentions WP:IRS trumps consensus every single time.

If you'd like to dispute the claim that bitcoin is a payment system, you will need to find reliable sources claiming that.. and after a quick search I can only find reliable sources claiming bitcoin as a payment system [5]. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Etymology

There is something that doesnt read right about this section:

The word bitcoin is a compound of the words bit (being itself a compound of the words binary and digit) and coin (originally meaning wedge, stamp, corner).[89] The white paper referring to bitcoin frequently uses just the short coin.[11][not in citation given]

Is the line "The white paper referring to bitcoin frequently uses just the short coin." being used to describe how the source [11] describes bitcoin? From my reading of the source it appears so. Should not [11] be moved to a claim and the line explaining the source be added to a footnote if anyplace? AlbinoFerret 13:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Test edits or vandalism by Fleetham

The last set of edits by Fleetham [6] is either a test edit or a vandalism, taking into account the problems caused:

• The edits change the format of the article previously adhering to WP:WORDSASWORDS
• the edits contradict the cited sources stating that "each network node stores its own copy of [the block chain]", while the text in accordance with the cited sources stated that only full-featured software stored the copy of it
• the edits replace the term satoshi by incorrect satoishi
• the edits use incorrect grammar "Names in homage to bitcoin's creator, a satoshi is..."
• the edits use unsourced claims such as "Theft occurs when knowledge of a private key is revealed to a second party." This text disregards the possibility that a user can reveal the private key to a second party voluntarily and on purpose, in which case no theft is involved, making the claim false. There is a dedicated section describing theft, and there is no need to put an incorrect version of it to other sections.Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Made changes per input. If you have further issues, it's better not to revert--just post on talk.

Each network node --> Network nodes

Satoishi --> Satoshi

Grammar fixed

"Theft occurs when knowledge of a private key is revealed to a second party" --> "Theft can occur when knowledge of a private key is revealed to a second party"

As for WP:WORDSASWORDS, I can understand adding italics to the first usage of a technical term such as "block chain." However, the article uses italics throughout even after a term is introduced. If you'd like to go back and add italics where appropriate, I encourage you to do so.

Fleetham (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Significant and persistent problems the "copy edits" introduced, protected by edit-warring:

• The above mentioned WP:WORDSASWORDS issue
• Incorrect grammar: "network nodes store its own copy"
• In the "Units" section bitcoin is presented as the main unit of the system, correctly and logically using singular. The edits introduced an incorrect and stylistically mismatching plural to the subsequent sentence.
• Unsourced, incorrect, WP:OR and unneeded "Theft can occur when knowledge of a private key is revealed to a second party." - there is a whole section devoted to theft, where sourced informations are available
• Unsourced and WP:OR "In the bitcoin system, privacy can be defined as not identifying owners of bitcoin addresses." - can be defined by whom?
• Unsourced and WP:OR "users are identified by bitcoin addresses" Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

edit summaries in recent sweeping edits allover the page

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but recent sweeping edits( 12-28 until today) have edit summaries that are inaccurate, and thus inappropriate. Edit summaries should accurately tell other editors what was done, otherwise the sandbox should be used for any tests. edit summaries that understate the extent of changes are grossly misleading. Per Help:Edit summary: "Proper use of edit summaries is critical to resolving content disputes. Edit summaries should accurately and succinctly summarize the nature of the edit, especially if controversial. If the edit involves reverting previous changes, it should be marked as a revert ("rv") in the edit summary. Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors!" .--Wuerzele (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I returned to the page today after missing only 1 day,December 31, and today, 1 January 2015 find the user, that has been making sweeping edits using improper edit summaries embroiled in an edit war over the Wallets section without discussing his reasons for the substantial deletions of sourced material on this, the talk page.

1. copy edit= history section deleted
2. please don't revert
3. I'm not sure what your concern is. What do you mean by"the edit is not a copy edit?" As I did not add new content, this is a copy edit
4. discuss on talk--don't revert please!

As the "bold editor" to ask for discussion but not starting it yourself is a double standard. Deleting sourced content( Wallet history etc) is no copy edit. --Wuerzele (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC) I am restoring the prior version.--Wuerzele (talk) 09:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Looooong standing consensus not to use P2P in the first sentence?

@Wuerzele: I would like to find out where this was discussed. Thanks in advance. Also, I dislike the misuse of "two consecutive wikilinks" to justify the replacement of accurate "peer-to-peer payment system" by pleonastic "online payment system" complicating the subsequent sentence so that nobody will be able to understand it. Besides, if two consecutive wikilinks do not look acceptable, it is possible to leave one of the links for the "See also" section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC) No need to respond to the above. To simplify the second sentence I propose:

Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer, distributed payment system invented by Satoshi Nakamoto[note 5] in 2008[12] and introduced as open-source software in 2009.[13] The system uses its own unit of account also called bitcoin,[17][note 6] recording payments in a distributed public ledger called the block chain.

Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

An opinion is presented as a fact

In the lead section, there is a sentence: "Bitcoin's status as a currency is disputed as it does not have all the attributes of money." The sentence is presented as a fact, but if the second part "it does not have all the attributes of money" was a fact, then there would be no dispute, which contradicts the first part of the sentence. This demonstrates that the sentence is not a fact, but an opinion, and must, per WP:NPOV be written as such. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC) Also, the source used is behind a wall, can somebody please quote the part of the text confirming this? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The claim is referenced, with a quote in the reference. Its in a news article, not an opinion piece, but Ill look into it. AlbinoFerret 16:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I added who said it, Tennessee Financial Institutions Commissioner Greg Gonzales, moved it , and placed it in the body in the appropriate section. AlbinoFerret 17:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring over the second sentence and first paragraph

There have been numerous reverts and edit warring over the second sentence. Even after placing citations in the sentence. There ar e now unexplained tags all over the first paragraph with no corresponding section on why they were placed on the talk page. The tag used requires a link to the talk page because it has a "discuss" link. AlbinoFerret 18:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir Please explain this edit, and why you didnt ask for verification on the talk page after placing this tag and comment. diff. The source (The New Yorker) clearly sets for the claim

"The network’s “nodes”—users running the Bitcoin software on their computers—collectively check the integrity of other nodes to ensure that no one spends the same coins twice. All transactions are published on a shared public ledger, called the “block chain,”

AlbinoFerret 18:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret:

• the second sentence of the first paragraph has been already discussed above in the #Looooong standing consensus not to useP2P it in the first sentence? mentioning that it is complicated "so that nobody will be able to understand it". I have a proof for that, at least three edits by confused readers in the past. Also, there was a tag mentioning that the sentence was unreadable, which is what you changed by adding text to the sentence, text that is incorrect, and contradicting the cited source, and removing the tag.
• the problem is that the text of the sentence states: "The system is peer-to-peer, all nodes recording transactions", while the cited source states: "All transactions are published on a shared public ledger, called the “block chain,” and verified by “miners,” users whose powerful computers solve difficult math problems in exchange for freshly minted bitcoins.", which directly contradicts the "all nodes" text. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The purportedly missing section discussing the other problems is this one: #Lead section issues, where all the marked issues are listed and discussed. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it doesnt. It confirms it. The system is a peer to peer system, its made up of nodes. Thats the design of peer to peer systems. They have a distributed ledger called the block chain. Thats how they check for errors. The errors would be differences in the ledger from the local copy. Secondly, we are not allowed as editors to disect sources and point out errors. AlbinoFerret 00:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

This is not an error in the source. The citation clearly mentions that "transactions are published on a shared public ledger, called the “block chain,” and verified by “miners,”", i.e. not by all nodes. What all nodes do is something else, as the quote you picked demonstrates. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC) The additional quote mentions that all nodes verify. It does not verify the "all nodes recording" text. Moreover, the purported "sentence" is grammatically incorrect, which is another reason making it unreadable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. Nodes verify all transactions. Miners decide which transactions to include in a block, however a node will reject a block if it contains a transaction that it cannot verify. See "Nodes Types and Roles", chapter 6 of "Mastering Bitcoin" by Andreas M. Antonopoulos. I'll add that citation to the sentence. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 13:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I did change write to verify because the sources said all nodes verify. AlbinoFerret 14:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Mention of alternate cryptocurrencies in the lead section

I don't think the lead section should mention alternate cryptocurrencies. Those cryptocurrencies are used by far fewer users, and the market cap of these cryptocurrencies are minuscule. They should be mentioned in the article, but not in the lead paragraph. See WP:UNDUE. Thoughts? ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• Perhaps, as long as the the information is in the article. For this specific line, I will agree with you on its removal from the lede. Just shorting the line after the citation would be good. AlbinoFerret 15:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support removal. The existence of Litecoin or Dogecoin is not a property of bitcoin. A fortiori this does not leave space for a claim that their existence is an important property of bitcoin. As for specifically mentioning the existence of other currencies in the article, that is also not reasonable taking into account how many currencies there are. The other currencies are already referred to through links to articles like "digital currency", "virtual currency", "cryptocurrency", etc. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support removal - It does not belong. These are not subsets or properties of bitcoins, they are derivatives. If anything there should be a common category to link them. Chillum 00:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support removal from lede, for reasons mentioned above and below. Pus, this has been the status quo over the last 10 months or more only the recent "NPOV-fest" chaos allowed this to slip in again.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I think other cryptocurrencies deserve a mention to provide context. WP:LEAD says something along the lines of "the lead should explain why the thing is notable and establish context." In this way, mentioning other cryptocurrencies helps establish the fact that bitcoin's approach is not singular--it's the first and most popular of its type but not one of a kind. Fleetham (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact that bitcoin's approach is not singular is already established by the prior sentences. "It is the first" versus "It is the only"; "It is the largest of its kind" versus not mentioning that. MOS:BEGIN states the opening paragraph should provide context but not be overly specific - context has already been established, and naming specific cryptocurrencies is being specific. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Note that there is an ongoing neutrality dispute, and this issue has been already mentioned in there. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir Then why did you remove the other currencies from the History section when there was not clear consensus to remove them?diff The above discussion was only about the lede and that the others be mentioned in the article. AlbinoFerret 01:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Re the edit: he never justified it as per consensus -- WP:BRD. Re the edit itself: He removed specific mentions of cryptocurrencies, but wikilinked cryptocurrency. Specific altcoins are generally irrelevant to bitcoin's history. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This was sourced information that was removed. If it was not appropriate to History then it could have been moved to another section. The specific wording of the claim, that other currencies came about because of bitcoin, makes the names usable. It is removing information leaving the reader to guess at best, and wonder what they may be in any event. AlbinoFerret 17:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I did not remove information. I put the information to the historical context - year 2011. If you protest against the replacement of specific two cryptocurrencies by general "cryptocurrencies", then this is not a removal of information, it is actually giving more information than before, knowing that there are more than two cryptocurrencies. Knowing that there are many more cryptocurrencies than just two, a specific mention of just two puts undue weight on the cryptocurrencies picked. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Bitcoin as the first cryptocurrency is a dubious claim

According to [7] "Bitcoin is not the first attempt at an all-digital, cryptographically based currency. Others have existed in one form or another for nearly fifty years, but have either failed to take off or dramatically crashed and burned. Bitcoin is the first cryptocurrency with the deep structure, wide adoption, and trading momentum to achieve escape velocity." This citation makes the claim that bitcoin is the first cryptocurrency dubious. The claim would need significat reformulation as suggested in the citation to be correct. Wikipedia is not meant to publish dubious claims. Instead of adjusting the claim to a true but complicated version, I propose to delete it, since we already have got a more reliable and simpler alternative. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, the article doesn't mention what these other "all-digital, cryptographically based currenc[ies]" are... And I'm a little dubious about an all-digital currency existing in 1965... Fleetham (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that claim is incorrect. Bitcoin is not the first cryptocurrency. For example, Opencoin[8] preceded bitcoin. However, [9] claims that Bitcoin is the first decentralized cryptocurrency. I've edited it and cited that, but it can probably be better reformulated. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I just saw your addition. Regarding deletion, I think 'first decentralized cryptocurrency' is correct. After re-reading my edit, "it is the first decentralized digital currency and cryptocurrency" is very ambiguous. Maybe "it is the first decentralized cryptocurrency" which matches the whitepaper wording? ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

"First decentralized cryptocurrency" looks correct, but "first decentralized digital currency" is more general, and we should not need a lot of similar claims. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

How about something like "first generally used cryptocurrency", and leave it to that. I always hate it when factually incorrect (but "correct" according to WP policies) sources are used to satisfy WP:V. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 16:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal

To resolve this I propose: "While bitcoin is not the first virtual currency,[19] it is the first decentralized digital currency and the first cryptocurrency with wide adoption. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Fleetman edited the claim to "While bitcoin is not the first virtual currency, it is often called the first cryptocurrency. This is technically untrue, and while bitcoin is a cryptocurrency, it's not the first. Instead it's more correctly known as the first decentralized virtual currency." which has tone issues and I feel is too in-depth for the lead. I rewrote it to be more succinct: "Bitcoin is often called the first cryptocurrency although prior proposals existed. Bitcoin is more correctly described as the first decentralized virtual currency." ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I like your rewrite of the section. It is on point and concise. AlbinoFerret 01:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hallelujah ! in 40+ days we have basically come full circle. Before November's massive edits triggering NPOV dispute (this is no WP:PA, so dont delete this post) this is sort of what we had : "Media reports often refer to bitcoin as a cryptocurrency or digital currency. Bitcoin is first decentralized cryptocurrency and the largest in terms of total market value."

Ladislav- no offense: I too prefer 2 sentences for clarity - just too much stuff packed into one sentence, agree with unicodesnow--Wuerzele (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

No offense taken, you are right. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the text except for one detail: the cited sources call bitcoin the "first decentralized digital currency", and it is nonneutral to change the meaning of their wording. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't read the sources and presumed that the previous wording matched the source. Updated. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Detailed discussion of sources for this claim

Here are a few more sources that have the first cryptocurrency claim. source 1 source 2source 3source 4 AlbinoFerret 01:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not doubt that you are able to find several sources stating the same, but that does not make it non-dubious, since there are sources stating the opposite that are proving their statements by mentioning the predecessors. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

How many sources say it isnt the first? AlbinoFerret 03:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I question the reliability of the sources claiming bicoin to be the first cryptocurrency: elonpendulum.com is non reliable, itnewsafrica.com is commercial,and [10] --Wuerzele (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Please elaborate why you think a student newspaper from a Elon University which has a accredited journalism program is not reliable and why you think the website for Entrepreneur magazine and itnewsafrica.com are commercial and not news sites. AlbinoFerret 14:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret, Re itnewsafrica.com: check out the author of the article: Frederick Charles Fripp. He wrote his own WP:BLP article (!), in which he details, that he has no degree or formal training in the matter, and works for a salary. check how much he has reported on bitcoin. check the quality of "news" on itnewsafrica.com: It stinks. And lastly look at the site's bitcoin reporting (doesnt exist).

Re elonpendulum.com: by its very nature, as a student newspaper (=learners, lacking academic credentials and professional experience) it has one off. again, look at what you are trying to do with the source: refute or confirm the statement of first cryptocurrency- what does the author bring to that discussion: nil. An unsourced claim, taken from who-knows-where. (like the National Geographic by the way) what's his expertise in the topic? not evident to me, looking at his posts on this site, or at his current place of news internship- INDY Raleigh News: nada.

I recommend the WP:Reliable sources checklist to evaluate sources.

BTW: I strictly argued about the reliability of the sources, nil else. I have no opinion on the matter, because I am not deeply versed in cryptocurrencies (ie their definition), as opposed to virtual currency, which I wrote from scratch.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Let me also add source 6source 7source 8source 9source 10source 11. This is not a few sources saying this. And National Geographic, while a good source seems to be the lone source that says it isnt. AlbinoFerret 15:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not amount the volume of sources you find. This depends on the definition of cryptocurrency. If you define cryptocurrency more broadly, bitcoin is not the first. Here is bitcoin's announcement and someone working on another cryptocurrency (that predated bitcoin) discussing the differences in approach: [11]. Now, if you define cryptocurrency as requiring decentralization, then bitcoin is the first (see cited source in article). Does a system have to be decentralized to be called a cryptocurrency? That may be a contentious matter, so I think qualifying it with decentralized is good. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it also is a question of "exists" can something truly be said to exist if its only described on paper without an implementation? AlbinoFerret 18:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

How about something like, "Often identified as the first crypotocurrency, bitcoin may instead be more correctly categorized as the first functioning decentralized crypotocurrency?" or perhaps "Often identified as the first crypotocurrency, bitcoin may instead be more correctly categorized as the first functioning implementation of the idea?" As I understand it, B-money and Bit Gold were proposed protocols for a decentralized system similar to Bitcoin but never actually saw use... Fleetham (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding B-money and BitGold, they were never implemented and only vaguely suggested (without any protocol details). I have been unable to find any sources that claim b-money or bitgold is/was a cryptocurrency. OpenCoin had code written prior to Nov 2008 [12] but it is not decentralized. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

It does look like B-money and Bit Gold would have used the same proof-of-work system as bitcoin does, i.e. they would have used cryptography to control the creation of coins. Both are mentioned in the "history" section of Cryptocurrency. I think it's pretty clear that b-money and Bit Gold would have been cryptocurrencies, as both would have used a proof-of-work system for coin creation. Both appear to have been decentralized as well. I'm having trouble coming up with hard sources here, but unless everything available online is incorrect or it's likely that any given proof-of-work system will not use cryptography, these two appear to be unimplemented predecessors to bitcoin.

Also, about Ripple or, as it was once known, opencoin, it does look like that's a cryptocurrency that isn't decentralized. I still like my proposed wording, "Often identified as the first crypotocurrency, bitcoin may instead be more correctly categorized as the first functioning decentralized crypotocurrency" although removing "functioning" may make it a bit less of a hassle to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleetham (talk • contribs) 03:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The current edit sources David Chaum, “Achieving Electronic Privacy,”Scientific American, August 1992. That can be found here. It does not describe a cryptocurrency, but a cryptographically signed transaction, the currency is analogue.

The First Digital Bank would offer electronic bank notes: messages signed using a particular private key. All messages bearing one key might be worth a dollar, all those bearing a different key five dollars, and so on for whatever denominations were needed.

Its more like a check. The edit is referenced to a footnote that only mentions another source, that source doesnt describe what the claim says. AlbinoFerret 14:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Summarizing is not synthesis

@Ladislav Mecir: Just to explain why I removed a WP:SYNTH tag you added... I want to point out that SYNTH occurs when you take info from disparate sources and combine that information to reach a new conclusion. When I use multiple sources to cite the idea that bitcoins are seized by authorities multiple times, this is not "reaching a new conclusion." This is summery of sourced material not synthesis of sourced material. Can you please look over Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not#SYNTH is not summary? Fleetham (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Also note that I'm the second editor to remove your tag. Fleetham (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The synthesis is in the fact that the individual sources used specific cases that happened in the past, while the "summary" is intendedly shifting the focus to the future, which is not confirmed by any of the sources. As for "I'm the second editor to remove your tag", the previous person made a change (insufficient) to the claim, you are the first one to remove the tag for this wording. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@Fleetham, Yes I removed the tag after fixing the problem, but you reverted it back to the problem. The tag on the original wording is valid. The reason is it tries to come to a future conclusion based on past events. Unless you have a source that says the events are ongoing you cant do that. The sources you used are talking about sites that have been shut down, the activities on them have to be in the past, and the shutting down has already happened, so its in the past also. AlbinoFerret 15:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Failed Verification

On the same line I have placed a failed verification tag. I had fixed the problem before, but Fleetham reverted fund back to purchase. AlbinoFerret 12:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Fixed and fixed. Apparently child porn sites have "buy with bitcoin" buttons, and @Ladislav Mecir: just FYI it's also not SYTH to use present tense... that would be WP:SPECULATION. Wikipedia actually says, don't say something violates SYNTH just because you don't like it; just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's SYNTH. Fleetham (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The synthesis case is not fixed. It is not even readable, having absolutely unacceptable grammar, tense is inconsistent. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I just rewrote it with a consistent past tense, and broke up the run on sentence for readability. I believe there is also a MOS guideline against having one sentence paragraphs. I removed the tag because the problem described should be fixed. Now lets see if the rewrite stays. AlbinoFerret 14:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a heads up, but I switched out one of your "have beens" for an "are"... just for better style. Fleetham (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Fleetham CAUTION: have been and are are not interchangeable. present perfect indicates a beginning in the past and lasting until today, so an interval. present tense is imprecise as to the beginning. So it's not a question of AlbinoFerret's style. He is also right that one sentence cannot be a paragraph, something you refused to accept in I believe March 2014.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

A warning for @Fleetham: you are edit warring, and have reverted other editors more than 3 times in the last 24 hours again. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Fleetham I agree with Wuerzele are and have been are not interchangable, and your sources do not show continuing action into the future as the perfect tense suggests. Perfect tense means it happened in the past, its happening now, and will happen in the future. I have placed a failed verification tag on this, fix it, as you keep reverting it when I fix it. Dont wait to long, someone might just remove the failed claim. AlbinoFerret 14:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Can we figure out some reliable sources for some of our many mistakes that we have with this article? I mean, I nominated it for WP:FAC and they said that there were problems with reliable sources. Can we fix some of theose please? Yoshi24517^Chat _Absent 00:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Tagging: @Ladislav Mecir:

"Can we figure out some reliable sources for some of our many mistakes that we have with this article?" - can you be at least slightly more specific? Being at it, please note that blockchain.info is a private company. If you want to be helpful, please try to help with the resolution of the listed neutrality issues instead of deleting the related tags in the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I've gone ahead and removed + tagged as sub-par some of the less-than-reliable cited sources. Some of the information seems like it's worth looking for a WP:RS to substitute but it looks like some cited sentences should be just removed. Why is it notable that there in 2013 someone spotted 213 strains of bitcoin-stealing malware, for instance? Fleetham (talk) 10:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking for sources is something I love to do, most of them have been replaced. AlbinoFerret 20:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! And I went ahead and removed some that cited less than important claims. Below is the cited text I removed from the page:

• "Microbitcoin is sometimes referred to as simply a bit."
• "However, BitPay was ultimately unable to convince the venue's retail stores and concession stands to take payments in bitcoin."

Fleetham (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that one of them isnt really important and was hard to source, but *"Microbitcoin is sometimes referred to as simply a bit." is just common sense and should not even need a source. AlbinoFerret 22:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

"Why is it notable that there in 2013 someone spotted 213 strains of bitcoin-stealing malware, for instance?" - theft is mentioned many times as notable, and this explains a way how it happens. It serves as a warning against stealing malware. The fact that there are hundreds of malware programs gives it greater weight than a statement mentioning just the existence of malware could have.

I noticed that in his recent sweeping edits Fleetham marked CoinDesk as "sub-par source". The facts are:

• CoinDesk has a reliable publishing process.
• CoinDesk has been cited by other reliable sources like The Economist, The New York Times, and CNN.

In relation to this I noticed that the edit [13] replaced reliable source by a reference to a wiki with unreliable publishing practices. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality issues persisting in the lead section

Issues

• claim: "Bitcoins are sometimes used to purchase illicit items—including child pornography, credit card details, and drugs—at deep web black markets" The list of services and items that can be purchased with bitcoin in the lead section is unbalanced; no legal item or service that can be purchased with bitcoin is listed.

• claim: "Additionally, bitcoins can be stolen,[27] and chargebacks are impossible.[21]" - this claim is repeating the information contained in the previously mentioned warning of the European Banking Authority. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• claim: "The United States is considered more bitcoin-friendly than some other governments." shows American focus. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

The first claim that only illegal items are mentioned is because a large segment of the sources focus in on the illegal things. This isnt a neutrality problem in the WP sense. WP:NPOV does not require that the information be balanced, but that we as editors are neutral and reflect what the sources say. AlbinoFerret 19:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a neutrality problem, since the WP:NPOV requires editors to "strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject". To put this into context, the information that bitcoin can be used to buy Xbox games and Windows apps has been covered by overwhelmingly greater body of reliable sources than the information that child porn can be bought using bitcoin. Yet, the former information is not listed in the lead section, while the latter is. That makes the lead section blatantly unbalanced. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

That some other area of the topic isnt covered in the lede is not a problem, but a lack of effort by editors to include it. AlbinoFerret 15:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not see any "lack of effort". There is no reason to list items that can be bought with bitcoin in the lead section. That applies also to the child porn, to the stolen credit card details and drugs. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I made the edits I perceived necessary to address the remaining issues. Now I consider the remaining issues resolved. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

12 1/2 bitcoins.

Next year, 2016, a miner's reward will half to 12 1/2 bitcoins. Already, after the cost of electricity, there is little profit in mining. Half of all bitcoin miners would have to give up mining to allow the remaining miners to make a profit. What do the WP:RS say? 87.102.44.18 (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:RS say that halving already happened. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

A block halving occurs every 4 years. So far, there's been one halving (50 BTC to 25 BTC), and the next one will occur sometime in 2016. Re the original comment: your prediction isn't inaccurate as the amount of miners shutting down depends on hardware efficiency, cost of electricity, and the bitcoin exchange rate. I don't think any WP:RS has written about the future halving as it it's utterly speculative. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sourced Information

In two edits by Fleetham he has removed sourced information. AlbinoFerret 20:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make sense of the following, be my guest:

In December 2013, finance professor Mark T. Williams forecast a bitcoin would be worth less than ten U.S. dollars by July 2014.[149] In the indicated period bitcoin has exchanged as low as $344 (April 2014) and during July 2014 the bitcoin low has been $609.[note 9][150] In December 2014 professor Williams said: "The probability of success is low, but if it does hit, the reward will be very large."[151]

The sourced info I removed is in bold. It's clearly a non sequitur. Another edit did remove sourced info from unknown site "redherring.com" but I think you were correct to replace it and the content it cited, as that site turned out to "look totally legitimate upon cursory inspection." Fleetham (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, I went ahead and again removed mention of Tom Draper from the VC section. Is it very important to you for nearly one quarter of the section to be devoted to background story on how the father of someone who heads a bitcoin-focused VC thing also is really keen on bitcoins? Fleetham (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

"It's clearly a non sequitur" - let's discuss this one, since it is not clear to me. According to the corresponding article, non sequitur is a logical fallacy "where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise". So, what exactly you find to be the premise, and what is the conclusion? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

As long as it makes sense it should stay because it appears to be well cited. But I don't know what that sentence means in context. Can you rephrase it so the meaning is clearer? Fleetham (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, I do not understand your answer. Can you reformulate it to explain what is the premise and what is the conclusion in your stated "clearly non sequitur"? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Well I can only apologize if you don't understand English. Literally meaning, "it does not follow" a non-sequitur would be something like the last sentence in the following paragraph:

"Bees are only seen during the Summer months, as they hibernate in Winter. They sleep in burrows except in taiga regions, where they are more commonly found in fallen trees. It's really grand to see the colors of Fall!"

See, the last sentence has no relation to the topic of the paragraph, bee behavior during Wintertime. Fleetham (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Fleetham, How is a sarcastic attack like "Well I can only apologize if you don't understand English." related to improving Bitcoin? You cry foul, WP:PA, when there are none, and then this. A double standard.- and btw : you wrote non sequitar.No good English for sure. --Wuerzele (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not Bitcoin according to Fleetham. This is a wikipedia article with multiple editors. You dont get to call the shots on every bit of information, its done by consensus and in this case its clear you have none for this material that has been in the article some time. If you want it removed, try an RFC to see if you have consensus to remove it. AlbinoFerret 14:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Well said. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Fleetham, I would advise you to adopt a more civil approach towards your fellow editors here; Ladislav Mecir made a simple and reasonable request for clarification from you (using language that was about as polite and collegial as possible) and you're response was a passive-aggressive dig at his ability with English (which is utterly competent from all evidence here, for the record), rather than responding with any kind of argument for your case on terms of policy. To make cryptic assessments of another editor's abilities, rather than providing policy justification for your perspectives, is the very definition of a personal attack under our behavioural policies. Furthermore, you are engaged in edit-warring on the talk page to remove comments critical of you. This is also a violation of policy; if you feel that a comment directed against you has violated our guidelines, you are free to seek out administrative review of that comment, but you are not allowed to remove another editors contributions in a discussion space. Persist in either of these behaviours and the manner will have to be referred to an administrator or ANI. Snow talk 10:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

My reading of the last sentence is that Williams is saying there is a low chance of bitcoin significantly exploding in value. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Paragraphing and summary sentences

Apparently @Ladislav Mecir: has taken issue with edits that introduced paragraphing and summary sentences. I encourage you to express why you have an issue with the content below. Your recent editing behavior appears to be obstructionist not contributory. I encourage you to contribute to the page. Fleetham (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I justified my edits to indicate that I have taken issue with the removal of cited informations. Unnecessary formatting changes cannot justify the removal. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Well you're welcome to put back cited material make and changes to summary text as well. I'd prefer you do that than revert. Fleetham (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information that has been in the article is by consensus. If someone reverts its removal it is clear there is no consensus to remove it. It is the responsibility of the person seeking a change to change the material, not the person who wants to keep it. AlbinoFerret 19:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Wisely spoken,AlbinoFerret, amen.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bitcoin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Replaceinkcartridges (talk · contribs) 02:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC) This article has been nominated by User:Yoshi24517 for GA status. As someone who has not significantly edited this page, I think that it is well-written, the use of unnecessary jargon is kept to a minimum, and established citation needs little improvement.

An average wikipedian who knows nothing about Bitcoin can find meaningful content in this article. The only problem is the semi-rare edit wars. I think good article status should be granted to the page. This article should be reviewed for it through discussion.

Consideration I welcome the GA review. One caveat: Until 2 days ago the problem of edit warring pointed out above has not been 'semi-rare', but almost continuous, which made the article very unstable, thus not meeting the WP:Good_article_criteria#The six good article criteria At present, I predict a 30-day window of stability until February 11, 2015, during which an editor involved in edit warring and numerous board filings, that had kept the site unprotected until January 11, has been blocked. After this date, I predict -based on the editor's 4 year history of disruptive editing- edit warring will resume. Reviewers should keep that in mind and consider that the article, even if makes it through the review in 30 d, might be delisted soon afterwards. Disclaimer: I am a regular contributor to this page since 2/2014 and thus will not participate in the review. wuerzele (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Wuerzele (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thats a fair point. Realistically, that may be the sole reason this article has not been nominated for GA status sooner.

The GA criteria states "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." I took data from 1 September to 1 January to test this. Starting in September this article contained 16520 words. In October it contained 16982 words. It dipped in November at 14817 words and went back up to 19277 in December. In January it leveled out at 20120 words.

Exactly a 3600 word difference. This difference shows relatively good growth, but I can see what you mean by edit warring.

This is an important consideration to take into account and it may stop this article from reaching GA status.Replaceinkcartridges (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Replaceinkcartridges:I did contribute a Units section. P.S. I declare my WikiCup participation. Yoshi24517^Chat _Absent 21:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

(stalking) Just popping my head through the door, I notice as I write this there is a small edit-war about whether "Bitcoin" in a quotation should be in caps or lower case. I share Replaceinkcartridges' concern that this article may not be stable enough to pass GAN at this time, but it's his review so I'll stop the stalking and duck out here..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Replaceinkcartridges:So...Final results? Yoshi24517^Chat _Absent 01:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Yoshi24517 I did a lot of thinking about it, and at this point it probably doesn't meet the criteria.

Looking at the GA criteria, the article does not meet all of them. The article does not provide broad coverage and gets to far into the weeds. For example, the etymology section is unneeded and could easily merged with the history section or introduction. Done.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Another example is As protection from confiscatory policies, talking about Argentinians using Bitcoins to fight confiscatory policies is unneeded. Done.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

As @Wuerzele pointed out, edit warring is a problem in this article. Therefore, rendering the article unstable and raises concerns of a lack of neutrality.

But, I do still agree with what I said in my original paragraph. This article has meaningful content and can provide valid information. Although it is obvious this article needs improvement. I think waiting a couple days before assigning a rating would be a good idea as suggested in the GA review guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Replaceinkcartridges (talk • contribs) 02:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Tagging: @MusikAnimal: What do you think? If so, please promote. Yoshi24517^Chat _Absent 01:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, just popping in to say that I'm both a Wikipedia editor and an active follower/user of Bitcoin and its technologies. If you're looking for a neutral input from someone who understands both Bitcoin and Wikipedia's guidelines, please ping me. Good luck with the GA! -Newyorkadam (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Newyorkadam's suggestions

Alright, I couldn't resist and just took a quick read through the article. @Replaceinkcartridge: I hope you don't mind me making these comments, as it is your GAR– please let me know if you'd rather I stay out of it.

• Section 4.7, "Declarations of death", needs a lot of work. It's literally one sentence that doesn't explain anything– it just lists different news websites calling Bitcoin dead. As a reader I'd ask, What exactly is this section trying to tell me?.
• I think Russia should be mentioned in the Legal section– it's a large, powerful country that has taken a stance against Bitcoin. In general, I feel like the legal section is incomplete. A huge discussion point of Bitcoin is the legality of it, and the section seems too weighted on the US section. Check Legality of Bitcoin by country for reference.  Done. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 17:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Also, there appears to be too similar (albeit one being much smaller) legal sections– try merging these. --Wuerzele (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• The article doesn't mention (what I assume to be) Bitcoin's two largest discussion forums, Bitcointalk.org and /r/bitcoin on reddit– it's in these two places that the (again, what I assume to be) majority of Bitcoin's community converges. It also doesn't mention IRC, through which Bitcoin in general, along with development, pricetalk, trading, and mining, is discussed. However, I'm not sure if these modes of discussion should be mentioned– just putting the idea out there.
• Just a side note, not related to this GA– I can't believe there isn't an article on Bitcoin mining. We'll have to make one...
• Does etymology needs its own section? It's only two sentences– perhaps merge it with another section. Done! --Wuerzele (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• Perhaps a leadership (or something similar) section? Might want to have the Bitcoin Foundation have its own section, considering its influence. Also, maybe discuss the Bitcoin Center NYC. I can provide pictures if needed as I've visited it!
• Might want to discuss QR codes and Bitcoin's URI scheme, both of which are important for sending and receiving Bitcoin. However, this may be better suited in a new article like "Usage of Bitcoin" or something.
• The top of the article does a good job with pictures, but the bottom 3/4 has hardly any– perhaps obtain some pictures of different things discussed (like a screenshot of CryptoLocker).

I would love to see Bitcoin at GA status and it's something I've been meaning to do–– please do let me know if you need any help. Thanks! -Newyorkadam (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Thanks for the review, I have also briefly read through the article so I want to address all of your points.

• Section 4.7 was most likely included as a passive-aggressive way of saying that the media has been wrong about Bitcoin for half a decade. The section is not exactly something that belongs on an encyclopedic website.
• I agree that Russia should have a mention in the legal section. Norway is also worth a mention because it is the largest non-EU European economy.
• I don't necessarily think that Bitcoin related forums are notable to the currency. Fourms on the Internet are always changing and are made up of members with diffrering opinions. In a few years the fourms will most likely not be relevant.
• The wiki page on Bitcoin Mining was deleted roughly 4 months ago. Bitcoin mining is notable enough to warrant an article, it should be remade.
• As I pointed out earlier I think the Etymology section should be merged with the history section or introduction.: Done!--Wuerzele (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• Bitcoin doesn't have a 'leadership' per-say but I agree that prominent organizations deserve to be mentioned.
• Maybe the QR codes and URI schemes could have a subsection under the Transactions section or the Buying and selling section. Done!--Wuerzele (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• I was thinking the same thing about the pictures in this article. The security section could easily have more images because malware is not protected under copyright.

Thank you for adding this to the GA review. All of these claims are valid to this article and should be addressed. This article currently does not meet the GA criteria but I do think it will in the future. This might be a good place to end the review as roughly a week has passed since the beginning of the review. Replaceinkcartridges (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Damnit, sorry for all of the edits. Repinging as I spelled it wrong– @Replaceinkcartridges:

I forgive you for misspelling my user name.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Replaceinkcartridges (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 00:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Can I just throw in another comment? At the moment, I'm wonder whether it would be appropriate to add {{jargon}} to this article. Now, I don't like drive-by templating, but I think sentences like "The system is peer-to-peer; users can transact directly without needing an intermediary" and "Transactions are verified by network nodes and recorded in a public distributed ledger called the block chain", up-front in the lead, don't mean anything to a layman reader who might wonder if you can use bitcoins to buy a loaf of bread in Tesco (and that's a serious point, this article is ranked within the top 100 most important articles and about 2.2 million people view it every year). That is a must fix for a GA. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Final Verdict

This review has unfortunately proven the article does not meet all of the GA Criteria. Stability and broadness are currently not maintained in this article.

I have added a GA status not meet tag to this this page. If the article reaches GA criteria in the future, a new GA reassessment is welcome. Replaceinkcartridges (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Two "history" sections

It does not look good that there are two "History" sections (a main section and a subsection) in the article. Any idea how to improve this? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The subsection is under 'Wallets'. I suggest renaming that to 'Reference client' as it currently only covers the reference client. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 09:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Good idea Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ladislav, I have never liked this either but it was low on my list.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning words as words

WP:WORDSASWORDS states: "Use italics when writing about words as words, or letters as letters (to indicate the use–mention distinction)." Taking the contents of the Bitcoin#Etymology section, this is how the text looks now:

The word bitcoin is a compound of the words "bit" being itself a compound of the words binary and digit, and "coin", originally meaning wedge, stamp, corner.[97] The white paper that is the basis of bitcoin[10] frequently uses just the shorter "coin".

, and this is how it would look applying WP:WORDSASWORDS:

The word bitcoin is a compound of the words bit being itself a compound of the words binary and digit, and coin, originally meaning wedge, stamp, corner.[97] The white paper that is the basis of bitcoin[10] frequently uses just the shorter coin.

My question is whether there is a consensus to apply WP:WORDSASWORDS in the article in this and in similar cases. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:WORDSASWORDS is part of the Manual of style, a WP guideline. It should be followed, I dont think its necessary to have consensus to follow it. As its a guideline its possible not to follow it, but those situations should be rare, and by consensus. AlbinoFerret 15:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I wanted to be sure since Fleetham deleted many cases of WP:WORDSASWORDS as "nonstandard". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Vendors accepting bitcoins? They require exchanges. Bitcoins always require dollar backing.

Do we need to clarify the reference here to vendors accepting bitcoins? According to the author of "Bitcon", every vendor he checked actually requires that you go through an exchange. And in the fleeting moments of people actually accepting bitcoin as bitcoin, they themselves immediately exchange it for dollars. There seems to be no validity to the notion that bitcoins themselves can exist without dollar backing.Tgm1024 (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

What source would you use for this? AlbinoFerret 16:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You overlooked that there already is a note related to this. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Where?Tgm1024 (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Note 12 is what I think you are looking for. AlbinoFerret

No, that says that transactions can occur without an intermediary. The claim by the author of BitCon (during an interview on NPR) is that not one of the places claiming to take Bitcoin actually do so: they require an immediate transfer to dollars beforehand. If there is validity to this, then it should probably be spelled out wherever we list vendors "accepting bitcoin as payment".Tgm1024 (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I have not read the book, but unless he specifically mentions companies at best you have a general opinion. While you could add the information as the opinion of the author, sourced to their book. It would be better to have specifics on each listed company that accepts bitcoin from reliable sources. Otherwise it could be easily worded to become original research by syntheses. AlbinoFerret 02:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Bitcoin is dead

Bitcoin is dead. This should be acknowledged in the article. Kraainem (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Please provide a WP:RS reference for the assertion that Bitcoin is dead. SPECIFICO talk 20:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Kraainem, Bitcoin's value went down to $171.41 on Jan. 14. Yes, there's been a lot of "disappointment", "enduring problems" and "erosion of confidence" in an opinion piece Bitcoin is latest victim of disinflation by Edward Hadas on Reuters January 16, 2015 , but I havent read it's dead recently. Unless you refer to death prognoses Jonathan V. Last in Bitcoin Is Dead from Mar 5, 2014 in the Weekly Standard or Taylor Owen from Vice News Bitcoin Is Dead — Long Live Bitcoin on March 24, 2014, or aBlog Bitcoin is (Nearly) All Dead from December 17, 2014. As of today, Bitcoin has died 38 times in reliable sources since 2010; you can read all the bitcoin obituaries here--Wuerzele (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir added a section today on the "Death of Bitcoin" and it reflects what you pointed out Wuerzele. That so called experts have said its dead for a long time and it hasnt happened yet. AlbinoFerret 03:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Kraainem to a certain point that something along the lines should be mentioned, but I dont think an extra section is needed. Since there are at least 38 pronouncements of death, it would be nuts / boring to list them all. I think one sentence of this apparently enduring phenomenon is enough like: "As of January 2015, reliable sources have pronounced Bitcoin dead at least 38 times. Almost half of these pronouncements were made in December/January 2015." Would you all agree with this,AlbinoFerret, Ladislav Mecir, AndyTheGrump, SPECIFICO?

I would like to see an information like "Pronouncements of bitcoin death occurred as soon as 2011." Also, I prefer the sources to be named for readers to know who publishes the informations. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Self-contradicting sentence in Black markets

The sentence: "Non-drug transactions were thought to be far less than the number involved in the purchase of drugs,[268] and roughly one half of all transactions made using bitcoin c. 2013 were bets placed at a single online gambling website, Satoshi Dice.[269]" looks self-contradicting. If the second part is true, then the betting transactions were not far less than the drug transactions, am I missing something? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the sentence uses two different sources to come to conclusions. They are both good sources, but perhaps looked at different data because of the different dates of publication. -One is looking at the perception or what was thought. The other looks at it from what happened according to the data they had. It is also a run on sentence, perhaps its best if it were split. AlbinoFerret 22:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

A related question: are gambling sites considered "black markets"? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I would say no. Gambling isnt really selling you anything. They can be out on the regular web, but they can be dark sites if on a hidden service like tor. That could be the reason for the difference. AlbinoFerret 22:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

'Obituaries'

There seems to be some resistance to actually using a factual name for this section. 'Obituaries' relate to persons. Bitcoin is not a person. Accordingly, the section needs to be renamed. Assuming it is kept at all. Frankly, I can see little merit in separating out differing forecasts and statements regarding the future of bitcoin from each other. It looks to me like spin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The section was requested above. See "Bitcoin is dead". The sources do not forecast, they declare bitcoin dead. It is a misinterpretation to say that the source "forecasts", when it says "bitcoin is dead", when it writes an obituary, declares bitcoin "expired", etc. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of whether these are statements or forecasts, they are not obituaries. Nobody died. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The sources say: "Bitcoin is dead", "obituary for bitcoin", etc. I do not think we are allowed to correct the sources, whatever it is we think about it. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)