Jump to content

Talk:Bitcoin

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.132.21.52 (talk) at 17:53, 12 May 2017. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good articleBitcoin was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 14, 2010Articles for deletionDeleted
August 11, 2010Deletion reviewEndorsed
October 3, 2010Deletion reviewEndorsed
December 14, 2010Deletion reviewOverturned
January 26, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
April 4, 2015Good article nomineeListed
July 26, 2015Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article
Merged articles

Template:Friendly search suggestions

A superfluous, irrelevant and dubious citation

The first sentence in the "Ponzi scheme concerns" section is:

Various journalists,[1][2] economists,[3][4] and the central bank of Estonia[5] have voiced concerns that bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme.[6]

The problem with the citation[6] is that:

  • the citation is superfluous, since all the claims in the first sentence are confirmed by the other citations
  • the citation is irrelevant, since it actually does not confirm any of the claims in the sentence
  • the citation is dubious, since the cited article claims that there are only two objections by bitcoin opponents, which contradicts many sources listing numerous other objections by bitcoin opponents

Due to the above reasons, the citation[6] shall be deleted as superfluous, irrelevant and dubious. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree. Thereisnous (talk) 08:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Second there is irrefutable proof that bitcoin is not a ponzi scheme. Users purchase tokens, and those tokens are different (with a different serial number) from tokens sold to a different user. Maybe this should be mentioned in this section for NPOV. (Needs an RS, my opinion certainly doesn't qualify) Maybe what Mt.gox was doing was a ponzi, but that doesn't relate to the bitcoin platform directly... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ O'Brien, Matt (13 June 2015). "The scam called Bitcoin". Daily Herald. Retrieved 20 September 2016.
  2. ^ Braue, David (11 March 2014). "Bitcoin confidence game is a Ponzi scheme for the 21st century". ZDNet. Retrieved 5 October 2016.
  3. ^ Clinch, Matt (10 March 2014). "Roubini launches stinging attack on bitcoin". CNBC. Retrieved 2 July 2014.
  4. ^ North, Gary (3 December 2013). "Bitcoins: The second biggest Ponzi scheme in history". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 23 May 2016.
  5. ^ Ott Ummelas; Milda Seputyte (31 January 2014). "Bitcoin 'Ponzi' Concern Sparks Warning From Estonia Bank". bloomberg.com. Bloomberg. Retrieved 1 April 2014. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp= ignored (|name-list-style= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ a b c Popper, Nathaniel; Abrams, Rachel (25 February 2014). "Apparent Theft at Mt. Gox Shakes Bitcoin World". The New York Times. Retrieved 22 May 2016.

bitcoin, not Bitcoin

Please follow the guidelines you clearly spell out ... that you are following the "latter" style of always lowercasing.

76.178.161.118 (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bloated intro section pruning

I propose a significant pruning of the intro section, it is terribly bloated.

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Length

Article length Lead length
Fewer than 15,000 characters One or two paragraphs
15,000–30,000 characters Two or three paragraphs
More than 30,000 characters Three or four paragraphs

Looking for feedback on where we are at on this article. I count 5 paragraphs, and the first paragraph is so long it could easily be counted as 2-3 paragraphs in itself. Let's move this content down into the article so it can be readable for readers who arrive on the page for the first time. 

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Jtbobwaysf. I do agree that the lead section can be shortened. On the other hand, I disagree that the informations can be "moved down into the article", since I think that all the informations already are in there. The pruning should be done carefully to not remove really important informations from the lead section, though. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the intro section is too long and too technical for an average reader. I propose the following edition of the intro (more than x2 shorter than the current one):

Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency and a digital payment system[1]: 3  invented by an unknown programmer, or a group of programmers, under the name Satoshi Nakamoto.[2] It was released as open-source software in 2009.[3]

The system is peer-to-peer, and transactions take place between users directly, without an intermediary.[1]: 4  These transactions are verified by network nodes and recorded in a public distributed ledger called the blockchain. Since the system works without a central repository or single administrator, bitcoin is called the first decentralized digital currency.[1][4]

Besides being obtained by "mining", bitcoins can be exchanged for other currencies,[5] products, and services (legal or illegal ones).[6][7]

As of February 2015, over 100,000 merchants and vendors accept bitcoin as payment.[8] According to a research produced by Cambridge University in 2017, there are 2.9 to 5.8 million unique users actively using a cryptocurrency wallet, most of them using bitcoin.[9]

References

  1. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference primer was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ S., L. (2 November 2015). "Who is Satoshi Nakamoto?". The Economist. The Economist Newspaper Limited. Retrieved 23 September 2016.
  3. ^ Davis, Joshua (10 October 2011). "The Crypto-Currency: Bitcoin and its mysterious inventor". The New Yorker. Retrieved 31 October 2014.
  4. ^ Sagona-Stophel, Katherine. "Bitcoin 101 white paper" (PDF). Thomson Reuters. Retrieved 20 November 2015.
  5. ^ "What is Bitcoin?". CNN Money. Retrieved 16 November 2015.
  6. ^ Natasha Lomas (16 September 2013). "BitPay Passes 10,000 Bitcoin-Accepting Merchants On Its Payment Processing Network". Techcrunch. Techcrunch.com. Retrieved 21 October 2013.
  7. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/11/21/heres-how-bitcoin-charmed-washington/#
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference 100tmerchants was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Hileman, Garrick; Rauchs, Michel. "Global Cryptocurrency Benchmarking Study" (PDF). Cambridge University. Retrieved 14 April 2017.
Please feel free to modify it. - Sandegud (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since you invited edits, I made a couple of adjustments:
  1. used "digital payment system" instead of "electronic payment system" to reflect the cited source
  2. kept the claim that the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto is unknown
  3. removed the, somewhat misleading, claim that bitcoin is the largest of its kind Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The new version is better, thank you. Sandegud (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am good with the suggestions proposed. Suggest someone go ahead and make the edits, unless there is a feeling here that we need to wait for more input. Unless someone else really disagrees, I am also ok with just making the changes myself in a few days. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Jtbobwaysf. I (and maybe also Sandegud) just wanted to make sure other editors, such as yourself, get enough time to discuss this, because it may be perceived as a big change. The only question is what can be perceived as "enough time". Now it looks that we have got unanimous consensus, and the time we waited looks reasonable too. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have gone ahead and made the changes per our discussion above. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary processes

Hi, I have got several objections against the section being present in this article:

  • The section text is just a duplicate of a paragraph present in the Blockchain article. In my opinion, the text naturally belongs to the Blockchain article (if anywhere). It is unnecessary to duplicate the text here, since this article is linked to the Blockchain article anyway.
  • The first source cited does not look like an independent reliable source to me.
  • Per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, Wikipedia is not supposed to predict the future.

I believe that these points justify the deletion of the section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin.org

I was wondering why Bitcoin.org is not linked in the infobox? Ethereum links to Ethereum.org. It is the original Domain. It was registered even before the White paper was published. --2A02:908:5C8:F240:B1A1:4BEA:2EB:B2FB (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

paper

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2961405

Here's a paper on bitcoin.

Benjamin (talk) 09:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


accessory to crime

They could easily identify the scammers and ransomeware attackers but refuse to do so. It should be declared illegal.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bitcoin&oldid=780057718"