Talk:Bitcoin

Daily page views for this article over the last 2.5 years
Detailed traffic statistics

Unsustainable energy use

Mining bitcoin uses about 24 TWh during 2017 and is rapidly increasing. Single bitcoin transfer consumes approximately 200kWh. This indicates that it is unsustainable and causing significant environmental damage, especially CO2 emissions. This topic is increasingly in news, in technical bitcoin websites usually promoting it, and in investor sites. Solution to mining energy use has been known for years, but has not been implemented. I have not seen any proposal to reduce energy use of transfers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:20C0:5570:210D:47FB:B904:6866 (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The entire article seems to suffer from a bizarre whitewashing, whether intentional or not. The entire "Criticisms" section consists of three sentences. Smite-Meister (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Re "whitewashing" - indeed, the consumption claim uses a totally nonstandard "as much electric power as the whole of Ireland" instead of standard ISO units. The energy use is described in the Bitcoin network subarticle citing more serious sources, and using standard ISO units. The other claim in the "Criticisms" section is poorly sourced too. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Why not refer to the original source of the Guardian article? https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption FolkertMuller (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

How about: "Because it is not a WP:IRS, just a hobby site?" Ladislav Mecir (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Smite-Meister: I see you have re-added the digiconomist hobby site content here [1]. Just because the Guardian cites it, doesn't make it an WP:RS, at least not to my understanding or what Ladislav is saying above. Looks like WP:TENDENTIOUS to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I re-added well-referenced Guardian content consistent with WP:RS after you removed it without any good reason, like my edit message states. You misunderstand what Ladislav is saying above. If you feel the information is incorrect, I'm sure you can find another reliable source that provides a contradicting figure, and then we may try to get a consensus on the actual number, or mention them both. Smite-Meister (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The guardian is citing a blog, hence WP:PRIMARY applies. The economist source says the same content 'bitcoin uses lots of energy.' This extra bitcoin is bigger than x country dialogue, citing a blog, is not adding anything to the article. Your edits are not cooperative. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what you mean. Here Digiconomist is the primary source, and the Guardian article (the one we're citing) a secondary one. This is how it's supposed to work. There's nothing wrong with the Economist article but it's three years old, and since then the energy consumption has gone up by an order of magnitude. To ease your concerns I added another reliable source that cites numerous other experts, all arriving at roughly comparable figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smite-Meister (talk • contribs) 19:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Calton: i reverted your edit. this content is being discussed here in this section. Digiconomist is not an WP:RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not doubt the claim that the consumption of the bitcoin network was estimated. That, however, is not what we intend to add to the article. What we want to add to the article is a reliable estimate, which is not what the digiconomist hobby site offers. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Digiconomist website states here [2]: "Digiconomist was created at the start of 2014 by Alex the Vries (born 1989) as a hobby project". Digiconimist is thus a WP:BLOG. Note there are existing claims in the article from The Economist that already goes into bitcoins huge energy consumption. What more does this blog offer to improve the sourcing? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Please notice that the paragraph you keep reverting now has two sources. The WaPo one cites numerous experts, not just Digiconomist. No matter how you feel about Digiconomist the other experts seem to roughly agree with him, so either way the paragraph is well sourced.

RS Noticeboard

I posted this Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#digiconomist. Feel free to comment. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

New source

@Smite-Meister: and @Ladislav Mecir: and @Calton: I Came across a new source [3] today at Politico for electric usage. Might be useful as quite a good mainstream RS in the face of some of the non mainstream blog level conjecture we see here on this subject. Here is a quote:

Still, even supporters acknowledge that that glorious future is going to use a lot of electricity. It’s true that many of the more alarming claims—for example, that by 2020, bitcoin mining will consume “as much electricity as the entire world does today,” as the environmental website Grist recently suggested—are ridiculous: Even if the current bitcoin load grew a hundredfold, it would still represent less than 2 percent of total global power consumption. (And for comparison, even the high-end estimates of bitcoin’s total current power consumption are still less than 6 percent of the power consumed by the world’s banking sector.) But the fact remains that bitcoin takes an astonishing amount of power. By one estimate, the power now needed to mine a single coin would run the average household for 10 days.

Feel free to comment. I might try to incorporate a little content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Decentralization

The section on decentralization has been cut down[4] to a point where it's meaningless and resembles a (failed) sponsored ICO advertisement with textbook WP:WEASEL statements like "researchers have pointed out some centralized weak points". Specifically:

• information on double-spending is part of official Bitcoin protocol documentation and has been sourced to it[5]; this protocol-specific information has been replaced by the vague weasel talk about "some weak points"
• Ghash.io reaching over 51% hash power was an actual event that caused widespread controversy in the Bitcoin community and was a practical example of decentralization failure; this has been also deleted
• specific statistical data about country-wide hash power distribution has been also replaced

Copying @Laurencedeclan: @Ladislav Mecir: to provide justification why this rather important facts should be replaced by the "some weak points" WP:WEASEL. Cloud200 (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I reverted just now as most of it is not WP:RS, such as medium, bitcoin.org, etc. Only decent source in the mix was the techcrunch source, but if i left only that content it would not be encyclopedic see WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. I am not sure if this apparently IEEE source is a peer reviewed article, or if it is some opinion piece. I think we would need to look at the original. Its an interesting subject in general, but needs to be explored with proper sourcing. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's go specific. Medium.com article is written by a respected security researcher Egor Homakov. Buy Bitcoin Worldwide article is well-researched and sourced on itself. bitcoin.org is referenced in this article 6 times, including the original BTC paper being primary reference for this article (mentioned 7 times!!!). Cloud200 (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Bitcoin.org and medium are both WP:PRIMARY. I have no idea who Egor is. You are making a new claim on the page, substantiated by WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY. You previously added the same content here[6] and it disappeared but I don't see the edit that deleted it, a second time here [7] and I reverted it here [8], and you again added it here [9], and I have reverted it a second time here[10]. This appears WP:TENDENTIOUS to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Bitcoin.org is already used six times (thirteen if you count ref reuse) on Bitcoin article page because concepts referenced are so basic that it just makes sense to reference the protocol specification itself even if it's WP:PRIMARY. 90% of Wikipedia articles on network protocols (starting with HTTP) reference Request for Comments and other Internet standards because, well, this is why they are for. Cloud200 (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Bitcoin.org is not even a WP:PRIMARY source. You can read at the site, that currently, it is written by various bitcoin enthusiasts, and therefore, provably not independent. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Egor Homakov - 1.2k followers on GitHub, 4.3k followers on Medium, corporate website, personal blog (discontinued) etc. Everyone in infosec industry knows who Homakov is and he's definitely WP:RS. Cloud200 (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

In summary, you have been presented a whole corpus of arguments proving relevance and reliable sourcing of the new paragraph and still chosen to simply revert the whole section and accuse me of being WP:TENDENTIOUS, rather than make slightest effort to improve any alleged deficiencies so I'd suggest it's now time to go and read WP:GF and WP:DGF. Cloud200 (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Like I said above, I think it is an interesting subject worth looking at more. What is needed is WP:RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure. This is why I asked for a second opinion here Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Bitcoin#Decentralization. Cloud200 (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

As the DRN has asked for more discussion, I would like to bring specific statements to the table and request that @Jtbobwaysf: be more specific about what are his issues about each if them:

• However, researchers have pointed out a number of issues with the decentralization of the Bitcoin ecosystem. — versus current WP:WEASEL: However, researchers have pointed out some centralized weak points in the Bitcoin ecosystem, such as mining pools and web wallets.
  • Ref Gervais, Arthur; Karame, Ghassan O.; Capkun, Vedran; Capkun, Srdjan. "Is Bitcoin a Decentralized Currency?". InfoQ. InfoQ & IEEE Computer Society. Retrieved 11 October 2016. — the same reference as before, no issues here apparently?

What was the change to the text here, just adding wallets and mining? Seems ok if so Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: The change here was to delete everything about the decentralization issues and just leave the "some centralized weak" WP:WEASEL. Cloud200 (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Because the transactions on the networks are controlled by miners, the network to be decentralized requires that no single miner or mining pool obtains 51% of the hashing power, which would allow them to fully control the blockchain including double-spending of coins, preventing chosen transactions from being verified and preventing other miners from earning income. — this is the Bitcoin protocol definition of 51% attack
  • Ref "51% Attack, Majority Hash Rate Attack - Bitcoin Glossary". bitcoin.org. Retrieved 2017-12-04. — Bitcoin.org is already used six times (thirteen if you count ref reuse) on Bitcoin article page because concepts referenced are so basic that it just makes sense to reference the protocol specification itself even if it's WP:PRIMARY. 90% of Wikipedia articles on network protocols (starting with HTTP) reference Request for Comments and other Internet standards. The double-spending has even more (academic) sources on that type of attack on crypto-currencies.
• In 2014 mining pool GHash.io obtained 51% hashing power which raised significant controversies about the safety of the network. The pool has voluntarily capped their hashing power at 39.99% and called other pool to act responsibly for the benefit of the whole network. — this is the practical occurrence of the 51% attack that proves it's not just theoretical and risks associated with it may materialize in the current Bitcoin protocol and infrastructure
  • Ref Wilhelm, Alex. "Popular Bitcoin Mining Pool Promises To Restrict Its Compute Power To Prevent Feared '51%' Fiasco". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2017-12-04. — any issues with that source?

This one above is about a 51% attack. Does the article today not even address a 51% attack? I just looked and didn't notice it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

No, it does not. And since the 51% attack is defined as "The ability of someone controlling a majority of network hash rate to revise transaction history and prevent new transactions from confirming" its logical place is the Decentralization section. Cloud200 (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

• Security researcher Egor Homakov pointed out that while the Bitcoin network was designed as decentralized, it gradually tends towards centralization as result of miners maximizing their gain and as of 2017 majority of the nodes are located in one country — China. — another materialization of the risk to Bitcoin's alleged decentralization
  • Ref Homakov, Egor (2017-12-03). "Stop. Calling. Bitcoin. Decentralized". Egor Homakov. Retrieved 2017-12-04. — Author Egor Homakov, a respected security researcher — 1.2k followers on GitHub, 4.3k followers on Medium, corporate website, personal blog. If you don't like Medium, the same article is also reposted on [11].

I dont think medium is an WP:RS. Also this is a WP:POV, not really sure it is suitable. It's like a critique, 'Bob from Motortrend said the Ferrari isnt very nice to drive'... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

You mistake point of view in article (unacceptable) with point of view in sources (acceptable): "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources. Also you have not provided any arguments why Homakov's analysis is not reliable. Cloud200 (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that medium isn't WP:IRS Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: In general it falls under self-published material but this specific Homakov's article fits the defined exceptions from the general rule: Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Exceptions Cloud200 (talk) 11:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, as mentioned above, the same article is published on L Technology Group corporate website, which even further satisifies the verifiability requirements of Wikipedia. Cloud200 (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cloud200: Realting to this 'expert' we will need to apply the WP:GNP against this. As far as my opinion is concerned if he doesnt have a wikipedia page, it probably isn't notable enough for this this. We currently use this same rule to apply what Dapps get listed on the Ethereum and Blockchain articles (meaning we delete those that lack a wikipedia entry). It is a clean, easy, and seemingly fair way to apply the test. Thus make a wikipedia page for this Egor person, if the article survives, then come over here on this page an try to add the content. But advocating a medium page is acceptable for an RS because the guy has github stars is unlikely to pass. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Forget Medium. Focus on this reference [L Technology Group. Cloud200 (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cloud200: This is also not an WP:IRS, this is a company blog. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

• As of March 2017 four of the five biggest mining pools (AntPool, F2Pool, BTCC, BW) were based in China. Allegedly, a number of other pools (ViaBTC, BTC.com, GBMiners, CANOE) are also run by AntPool to disguise its true hash rate. In total, Chinese pools account for 72% of global hashing power.
  • Ref "3 Things to Know About Bitcoin Mining in China". www.buybitcoinworldwide.com. Retrieved 2017-12-04. — this doesn't even raise the topic of decentralization, but merely looks at the BTC mining landscape in China with all the necessary statistics Cloud200 (talk) 14:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

China miners is a fact, I guess we could put that somewhere in the article. But we cannot add our WP:OR to say that means it is decentralized, even if it looks that way. Certainly buybitcoinworldwide.com is not an RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

No problem, I can add it anywhere else except for the Decentralization section Cloud200 (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cloud200: I don’t believe I have "cut down" on anything. FWIW I do not believe that material should have been removed. It is obviously factual. Laurencedeclan (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: Can you please explain why you have deleted this part: "As of 2013 just six mining pools controlled 75% of overall Bitcoin hashing power" with explanation "Claims not confirmed by provably independent reliable sources"?[12] Cloud200 (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

That is because the claims were citing sources that provably aren't independent. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: Please discuss here prior to deleting, because for each of these sources a consensus has been reached here through discussion. Cloud200 (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I see no consensus here, as far as the use of unreliable sources is concerned. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

You can't consume power

"At the end of 2017, the global bitcoin mining activity was estimated to consume between 1 and 4 gigawatts of electricity (between 9 and 35 TWh a year), with 1.2 GW as the theoretical lower bound assuming that everyone is using the most energy-efficient mining hardware available."

The watt is a unit of power. Power is a rate. You cannot consume a rate. It would be like saying the distance between city A and city B is 70/mph, or the event will occur 10 light years from now. A light year is a unit of distance, not time.

The sentence needs to be rewritten.

For example: ". . . to consume electricity at a rate estimated to be between 1 and 4 gigawatts." Betaneptune (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Your "would be like" examples are unrelated to consumption. In [13], l/100 km is claimed to be the unit of fuel consumption. In [14], kWh/year is used as a unit of electricity consumption. Note that 1 kWh/year = 0.114 W. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

The pdf file gets it wrong. That's inverse mileage, not consumption. Regardless, the article says consumes, not consumption. You can't consume a rate. Consume != consumption. My "would be like" examples are right. The article confuses a rate with an amount, and my examples illustrate the error by contrasting a rate with an amount. In the article one could instead say "consumes electricity at a rate of 1 to 4 GW" or perhaps "uses 1 to 4 GW of power". You yourself say that kilowatt/year is a unit of consumption. That's correct. But a kilowatt or a gigawatt isn't, which is what the article says is "consumed". Betaneptune (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

"You yourself say that kilowatt/year is a unit of consumption." - I see that you have a reading problem. That is not what I say, and it would be wrong, of course. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

kWh looked funny to me, so I thought the "h" was a typo. OK, it's kilowatt-hour. Sorry about that! (By the way, you have a grammar and punctuation problem.) You could say, "I consume three cookies a day". You could say, "I traveled 200 miles a day". But you wouldn't say, "I traveled 30 mph". You could say you traveled at 30 mph. You can travel 200 miles every day, but you can't travel 30 mph. I would think the same goes for gigawatts. Look at http://sentence.yourdictionary.com/consume. It gives several dozen sentence examples. In none of them is a rate consumed. I also cannot find "consuming a rate" in the dictionary sites. It's always an amount. Betaneptune (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

"OK, it's kilowatt-hour." - you are really having a reading problem. You also did not look at the cited source in my opinion. Maybe you can try once again? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course you can consume power! A 1kW electric radiator consumes 1 kW of power. You can also consume energy; Every hour, that 1kW radiator consumes 1 kWh of energy. That's what the units mean! Andrewa (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2018

203.100.69.154 (talk) 05:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

History section needed

The article needs a history section that would summarize in a concise overview the various phases in the development and use of bitcoin, including the current crash in value. -Wwallacee (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Wwallacee (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The Bitcoin#History section already exists and contains a short summary and a link to the History of bitcoin subarticle containing the informations you mention. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Ladislav... and, there is another article dedicated to the price bubble subject, titled Cryptocurrency bubble. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but the History section in ‘’this’’ article is very weak and doesn’t cover the necessary ground. The linked article is good, but a summary of it needs to be put into this more general article, which is the first 0,ace people will go to learn about Bitcoin.-Wwallacee (talk) 11:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Wwallacee. As to the moving of the "History" related information to a subarticle: consult WP:SUBARTICLE, please, since you seem to not know the policy. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I support Ladislav's position to move content off to the history sub article. There is no reason why we should try to prioritize what history is important and what is not, it is all part of bitcoin's history and thus is all important. Since it all cant fit on the main page, then let's continue to move content to the sub-article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with expanding the history section. Such things as Mt. Gox, Silk Road, and various technical changes (addition of P2SH for example) were defining points in bitcoin's existence. Laurencedeclan (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Technical language

I’m trying to flag this article as being too technical, but I keep being reverted. In my opinion the article is not only too technical for an average educated reader to comprehend, but is actually ‘’tautological’’ in places, basically defining bitcoin in terms of bitcoin. This problem arises from the fact that the article is written by technical people who are so immersed in what they are trying to describe that they can’t get outside of it and describe it to the non-initiate, except in terms that are already constructed out of the jargon they use.

Here is a New York Times piece that explains Bitcoin in a more understandable way:

NATHANIEL POPPER, “There Is Nothing Virtual About Bitcoin’s Energy Appetite”, ‘’The New York Times’’, 21 January 2018.

- I’m not suggesting the article should operate at that level of simplicity, but maybe a notch or two more detailed would do, with references to more technical treatments.

  -Wwallacee (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Wwallacee (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Disagree
  • "I’m trying to flag this article as being too technical, but I keep being reverted." - That is not true, Wwallacee. The fact is that Jtbobwaysf reverted your edit just once, the reason being that you failed to start any discussion related to your concern, which is what you should have done first.
  • "In my opinion the article is actually...‘’tautological’’ in places, basically defining bitcoin in terms of bitcoin" - You failed to mention where did you observe this, it should not be a problem to correct such formulations.
  • "Here is a New York Times piece that explains Bitcoin in a more understandable way..." - the piece you mention does not explain what bitcoin is at all. It already assumes that the reader knows what bitcoin is and tries to quantify its consumption using a terminology that is unsuitable for encyclopedic purposes, such as "...the computer power needed to create each digital token consumes at least as much electricity as the average American household burns through in two years..." Per reliable sources, the standard unit of electricity consumption can be kWh/year, MWh/year, GWh/year, W, kW, MW, GW, etc. The "average American household burns" unit is both nonstandard and nonneutral, assuming that the reader knows what the expression means. That is not true, though, since the world is not just America, America is not just the U.S., and not every household in U.S. is an average household.
  • "that explains Bitcoin" - Note, please, that there has been a wide consensus (the discussion archive is available for you to read) to use lowercase bitcoin as explained in the Bitcoin#Etymology section.

In my opinion, you failed to present any relevant information that could support your concern. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

• Disagree that the article is too technical. I am not technical at all and couldn't get my way out from a pile of code that fell off the shelf on to my head if my life depended on it. But I am familiar with some of the industry terminology, so that might color my view a bit. Let's also be aware that this is an article about software, not a political movement, or some comparison of what is the most efficient means of operating a money type in terms of electricity consumption. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Scalability intrepretation

@Ladislav Mecir: it seems that we have two issues in the scalability section.

• First we have to figure out how to treat this coefficient of 4. This sentence gives me a headache when i read it: "Per computer scientist Jochen Hoenicke, since the coefficient for non-SegWit data is 4 while the coefficient for SegWit data is 1, the actual block capacity depends on the ratio of SegWit transactions in the block, on the ratio of signature data and on the space efficiency of SegWit transactions."

• Second we have the issue of the intrepretation: Currently states: "Based on his estimate, if the ratio of SegWit transactions will be 50%, the block capacity may be 1.25 megabytes." However, the source states: "But, how exactly does SegWit increase capacity? Sometimes it is said, SegWit is a “2MB soft fork,” sometimes even a “4MB soft fork”, but at the same time it is said that SegWit only gives 1.5 or 1.8MB capacity....After all, we can assume, that SegWit adoption half a year after activation will be, at best, 85 percent, and, at worst, lower than 50 percent. The capacity of a block will be 1.25MB with 50 percent and 1.45MB with 85 percent. This size will further increase after six months. If the native SegWit addresses are used, and the adoption reaches 90 to 95 percent, a block size of up to 1.8MB is possible." Thus I think we should probably put in a range of potential blocksizes of 1.25 to 1.8MB until we there is some consenus on what it actually is. The current treatment a the low end of the spectrum maybe is not accurate (unless we clarify we have picked the low end number). I think we have even seen some very large 4MB blocks already in the blockexplorers. Another issue is that [15] is a 2.1MB transaction according to the blockexplorer.

Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

"Per computer scientist Jochen Hoenicke, since the coefficient for non-SegWit data is 4 while the coefficient for SegWit data is 1, the actual block capacity depends on the ratio of SegWit transactions in the block, on the ratio of signature data and on the space efficiency of SegWit transactions." - you are right, instead of coefficient I should have said "weight" to reflect the cited source.

'However, the source states: "But, how exactly does SegWit increase capacity? Sometimes it is said, SegWit is a “2MB soft fork,” sometimes even a “4MB soft fork”,' - you do not understand what the source says. The source mentions that "sometimes it is said...". You misrepresented this formulation stating that it was the source who made that estimate, which is clearly false. What the source did, instead, was that they asked a computer scientist Jochen Hoenicke for an expert opinion, and they obtained several possible estimates. The estimates were based on an assumption that after half a year from activation, SegWit would have 50% ratio of transactions. The situation is different, though, since the actual ratio is significantly lower than that, making even the lowest estimate too big. That is why it does not make sense to use any higher estimate. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I added the high bound estimate of 1.8MB, as I think we should include the full range with the bounds. Feel free to tweak of course. Seems the soruce is giving a bounded range of 1.25MB to 1.8MB, assuming full adoption. I think the reader can make their own determination if full adoption is realistic or not.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, the adoption is noticeably smaller than 50% at present so even the smallest figure by the expert is overestimating the actual state (which is what he attempted to predict). I am at odds why do you feel the need to overestimate even further... Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not the position of us editors to use our WP:OR guess what the segwit adoption will be (if it will be 10%, 50%, or 100% for example), nor per WP:CRYSTALBALL could we even cover sources postulating on what it might be in the future. It is fine to use the range that is listed in the source, as the reader can make their own decision. Here [16] is a nice source I saw today that talks about exchanges supporting it, but it doesn't give a current adoption number. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

"It's not the position of us editors to use our WP:OR guess what the segwit adoption will be" - sure, but in this case it is the expert who guessed the adoption half a year from adoption, i.e. now. And we do not need to guess what the adoption is now, we can easily find out using the available sources. If you claim that we should not use the future estimate, then, of course, that is correct, but then we should not use expert's estimates, since he actually estimated half a year into the future. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

After adding the source date, I see that the expert estimated the value even more to the future than 6 months, since the source date is 26 June 2017, i.e. the expert prediction was 8 months to the future. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

The higher prediction adds another six months which makes it a prediction 14 months to the future. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I suppose my suggestion would be to just leave the dates out entirely, and say something like "if 50% of people use segwit, then the size is estimated to be 1.25MB and if everyone uses segwit and the new wallet format, it the expert estimates it could go as high as 1.8MB." Or something like that. Does that work for you? My logic is to get rid of the dates to comply with crystallball, as I think the estimtes are workable without the dates. I am ok with the formulation in the article at its present time, if you are as well, we dont need to change it at least in my opinion. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

RfC on reinstating deleted history information

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Edit [17] introduced a reliably sourced claim (see The New York Times article citation below) that up until July 2017, bitcoin users maintained a common set of rules for the cryptocurrency (i.e. that the Bitcoin Cash split was actually the first one). The wording of the last paragraph of the section was

Up until July 2017, bitcoin users maintained a common set of rules for the cryptocurrency. On 1 August 2017, a change of rules was introduced. Since the new rules are not recognized as valid by the old software, the change is referred to as a hard fork. The cryptocurrency following the updated rules is called Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin Cash has a larger block size limit and had an identical blockchain at the time of fork. On 12 November another hard fork, Bitcoin Gold, was created. Bitcoin Gold changes the proof-of-work algorithm used in mining.

References

Should the information be reinstated? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support Since the information is reliably sourced and since it describes an important aspect of the history, it should be reinstated. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support. I'm surprised to see so little in the article on forks of Bitcoin. It's not obvious why this RfC was needed. Some of the resistance I see in the page above is because the concept of "fork" was inadequately explained; but the wikilink to hard fork addresses that. Some may be from PoV editors who believe "there is only one true bitcoin, all forks should be ignored." Maproom (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Of course information about Bitcoin forks should be included in an article about Bitcoin. Bradv 21:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I support including info on the forks, but oppose this text formulation as poorly sourced, with one sentece lacking any sources. Is this an RFC to input unsourced content? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Note Normally, it is not required to add sources to all sentences in the text. I can add more sources as explained in the discussion below. The fact is that the reliably sourced claim about the Bitcoin Cash fork being the first bitcoin fork that caused a durable split was deleted repeatedly, which is the main subject of this RfC. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose (summoned by bot) The problem is that the paragraph is trying to do two things at the same time. It tries to explain what a hard fork while also explaining why BCC is a hard fork. After reading the NYT article I agree with Jtbobwaysf that the addition smells like WP:SYNTH. Dryfee (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - summoned by bot - the statements appears to be neutral, accurate and properly sourced. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose – this information is completely incorrect. The assertion that "Up until July 2017, bitcoin users maintained a common set of rules for the cryptocurrency." is just an utter falsehood. There have been many changes to bitcoin's rules throughout its history, and many (most) nodes currently on the network do not follow the newest ruleset (Segregated Witness). One of the first big change of rules (the addition of a new standard transaction format, Pay-to-Script-Hash), occurred in 2012 [18], and resulted in several blocks being orphaned by miners not following the updated rules. Thus, it is quite obvious that they were not following a "common set of rules". This is most certainly not the only addition of new rules in bitcoin's history (random example). And even if you start moving the goalposts and say that soft forks don't count here, there was an incident in March 2013 which caused a hard fork with earlier clients, leaving them stranded on their own network. Again, not a "common set of rules". And let's not forget the 2010 incident where there where two separate chains for a period a time. Laurencedeclan (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Note "There have been many changes to bitcoin's rules throughout its history, and many (most) nodes currently on the network do not follow the newest ruleset (Segregated Witness)." - this sentence does not falsify the claim - the Segregated Witness was activated after July 2017, and the fact that the rules changed throughout history also does not falsify the claim that the users were able to maintain a common set of rules up until July 2017 (even though the rules were changing). Also note that the claim is confirmed by an independent reliable source, while your "falsification" is just a WP:OR. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
    • You should read again what I said. I gave empirical evidence of blockchain forks caused in the past because of the use of differing rulesets. See March 2013. Obviously not WP:OR. Laurencedeclan (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
      • March 2013 rule change was reversed, i.e. the common rules were maintained. You should read the sources. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Comments
• I will seperate my comments into a few sections since I think there are different subjects to cover.
  • First, these investopedia sources you cite are user-generated content not WP:RS, and have no business in this RFQ.
  • Next, this proposal is an apparent mixture of WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR. For example, you propose "Bitcoin Cash has a larger block size limit and had an identical blockchain at the time of fork." This is not supported by the techcrunch source (the sole RS for the sentence) which says "So all past transactions on bitcoin cash’s new blockchain are identical to bitcoin core’s blockchain." Clearly, it says the transaction history is identical, not the blockchain. Next, this sentence is wholly unsourced saying: "Since the new rules are not recognized as valid by the old software." This WP:OR old/new software, do you have a source for this? My understanding (my OR) is that different blockchain clients are concurrently running many different old and new software versions.
  • Last, there is no real need to get into a large discussion of Bitcoin Cash on this page, as it is not the subject of this article, we can discuss Bitcoin Cash on that separate article. This type of controversial change will just later bring in WP:NPOV issues as various editors on either side of this political debate begin to argue about which blockchain is newer, better, older, etc. We have been through similar issues where Ethereum and Ethereum Classic POV editors attempted to introduce content to disparage each other, no reason to start this here now.
  • This sounds a bit like a discussion Talk:Bitcoin_Cash#RfC_on_split_notion_use_in_the_article that you and Laurencedeclan (talk · contribs) were having previously. What was controversial about this edit that you sought to do an RFC about it right away (as it looks to me that you introduced the content)? Is it the fork vs split nature (previously discussed), or the poorly sourced content and some other editor reverted it (I didn't see the revert if someone reverted this content)? If I am off base here, please let me know and I can just strike this section.

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Re Investopedia sources—note that they are always used in combination with other sources.

In case of bitcoin and general cryptocurrencies, the use of "blockchain" instead of "transaction history" is not a WP:OR. It has been confirmed by many independent reliable sources.

Regarding the explanation of the hard fork jargon term in the text—there is no shortage of sources defining the term. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a really strange RFC, it appears you added content and then did an RFC for it (was anyone challenging this content, with user generated content as a source and one sentence unsourced.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

"was anyone challenging this content"—No. The content was deleted immediately, without any challenge. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

There is so much going on here that I can't tell if this RfC is closed or active.

• Strong Support of preserving history, but is that what is happening? There seem to be several different arguments involved here. I would say that this discussion should be closed, probably by someone more conversant with this topic, and with RfC's in general, and if there is a need (probably, imho), a new RfC, with a clearer statement of ONE controversy, be opened. Jus sayin ... rags (talk) 05:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Potentially serious problem

This might be a serious problem that someone in authority should evaluate. The District of Columbia Business Center Quick Search Results show that the "Entity Status" of The Bitcoin Foundation, Inc. is "REVOKED". This might mean that the corporation's powers are completely suspended or that the corporation may lawfully only take those actions that are necessary to dissolve the corporation or to bring the corporation back into good standing. Operating the corporation while its powers are revoked might subject the officers and directors to legal liabilities. Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

This is completely irrelevant. The Bitcoin Foundation isn't Bitcoin. It might be relevant on that page. Also, this is an encyclopedia, not a place to try to communicate with the Bitcoin Foundation organization. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought that it is relevant to the Bitcoin article because The Bitcoin Foundation redirects to Bitcoin. I wonder if it would be appropriate to delete that redirect or to amend the redirect so that it links to The Bitcoin Foundation. Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Aha. I've fixed that redirect, thanks. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Favourable perspective, weight or bias

This article seems to me to be unduly favourable to bitcoin. Many questions about it are either unanswered, or the answers are controversial. The article doesn't reflect this adequately IMO.

See for example https://www.the-parallax.com/2016/05/06/why-satoshi-nakamoto-matters-bitcoin/ for a more cautious perspective. Andrewa (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Since the article you cite discusses the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, I assume that you are missing the information that the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto is unknown. For this information, see the lead section, where this is clearly stated. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompy reply. No, I saw that. The identity and current holdings of Nakmoto are not the only questions! Andrewa (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Image

Article currently includes File:Cryptocurrency Mining Farm.jpg (at right).

It's a great image, but according to the image description at Wikimedia Commons it's of scrypt miners. As scrypt is a different blockchain to that used by bitcoin, these can't be used for mining bitcoin. Shouldn't the article at least say this? Andrewa (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

If it does not describe bitcoin, the image should not be in the article. Deleting. Thank you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Does it really matter whether the picture is of SHA256 ASICs or Scrypt ASICs? It illustrates the same thing – technical-looking boxes. I would rather have the image back. It illustrates what a cryptocurrency "mine" looks like. Laurencedeclan (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Quintillion

I think the use of the term quintillion in the Mining section is misleading.

Between 1 March 2014 and 1 March 2015, the average number of nonces miners had to try before creating a new block increased from 16.4 quintillion to 200.5 quintillion.[57]

In USA and Canada a quintillion is the number represented by 1 followed by 18 zeros. In Britain, France and Germany a quintillion is the number represented by 1 followed by 30 zeros. Significantly different.

Which one is intended here?

Lucas Bendix (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The smaller one, i.e. the former. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, not only was the British version a Victorian novelty that the US did not adopt, but the general trend in the UK and Commonwealth by now, for better or for worse, is to revert to the so-called American notation.

Actually the term was invented by the French and first used in the UK in the 1600s. In non-English countries the original (non-American) value is often still the norm. (q.v. international usage) Lucas Bendix (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it's unnecessarily confusing and misleadingly grandiose. The numbers are large enough (and problematic) without the ambiguity. rags (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC) rags (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)i

Energy consumption

I believe some minor mention of energy consumption should remain on the Bitcoin main article page. This is balance of POV, if nothing else. If the premise is falacious, I would love to know it, as it is one issue holding me back from investing. Pros and cons can be presented, as is normal in a balanced article. As a subtext of a subpage, energy consumption is somewhat buried on the last page, so to speak. Beneficial to investors, probably, but not transparent. I believe it has been introduced as a negative on this page more than once, and reverted immediately, possibly indicating an editor with a conflict of interest. rags (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

To change symbol from UTF8 to image in some cases.

I think it would be convenient to change from ₿ (UTF8 char) to (picture), because Bitcoin's UTF8 character isn't yet installed in the fonts of many computers, it's very recent¹.

Example: "Bitcoin (₿) is a cryptocurrency and..."

Exceptions:

1. If the symbol ₿ indicates a redirection of a url, then it must be its UTF8 character, example: "₿" redirects here.
2. Mention about the UTF8 character itself, example "Its Unicode character is ₿." GonzaloFernandez (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not think it is practical to do that. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Using an inline image will not be supported on all platforms in the same way, so we should wait until UTF-8 support is updated, which will be supported more universally. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

BitcoinCore.org as the official website of implementation

Why isn't BitcoinCore.org used instead of bitcoin.org? As far as I'm aware, bitcoin.org is not owned or maintained by a Bitcoin Core developer(s)? Fortibus (talk)

Bitcoin Core specifically refers to, and is the name of, the reference client. Bitcoin.org is the consensus network / protocol's website. Though, the term "bitcoin core" is used throughout both sites, it is sometimes maliciously used to separate "bitcoin core" from being "bitcoin." Bijalba (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Suggesting Deletion Of In Popular Culture

Bitcoin is mainstream enough that its been in countless productions. Listing 4 examples is odd given the frequency Bitcoin has been brought up in countless cable TV and digital media. TangleUSB (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)TangleUSB (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2018

Change Request: Remove `explorer.bitcoin.com` right next to `Block explorer` label. Reason: The site is misleading. If one clicks on the "Currency" dropdown menu, it lists Bitcoin as "Bitcoin Core (BTC)" and Bitcoin Cash as "Bitcoin (BCH)". A scammer can use this site to prove he/she sent Bitcoin to the recipient, but in reality he/she only sent Bitcoin Cash. Because the site tries to mislead its users, the recipient will verify the payment and get scammed. Suggestion: SmartBit is a well established block explorer, if three block explorer is needed to be shown, it may be replace the current, fraudulent one: https://www.smartbit.com.au/ Nopara73 (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done I removed the explorer site added with no source whose reliability has been challenged. Three block-chain explorers are likely not needed in any event. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't agree with this change. Who is the authority on how many block-explorers are needed? Bitcoin.com's blockchain explorer (especially with Advanced View turned off which is default) is the easiest to use for people new to Bitcoin. My mother uses Bitcoin.com's blockchain explorer which I found for her after she found blockchain.info confusing. I personally use blockchain.info as I don't support Roger Ver or BCash, however non-partially I must state he produces the easiest to use block explorer for new users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.244.249.97 (talk • contribs)

I don't agree with this change either and this fake 'scam' scenario is completely irrational and illogical. The block explorer in question clearly labels each chain differently, one as "BCH" and the other as "BTC". They also have different URLs for each blockchain instance. In addition within the BCH protocol they built specific address prefixes labeled "bitcoincash:" (called CashAddr) so it's impossible to send something other than BCH and think it's BTC. There is no scam here and I must also point out that I noticed that the person that removed this and opened this talk blatantly went on social media |to brag about it and get trolls to come and vandalize this wiki page. I've also used the blockchain.info explorer and wallet they now too support BCH so are you saying to remove that explorer also to avoid this fake "confusion"? The point here is the entire cryptocurrency system is a network of multi-currency coins, there are hundreds of them and it's extremely bias and unfounded to start discriminating against certain websites because of someone's disdain for them. This goes against everything that Wikipedia is and stands for. Davidswiki (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2018

Change: Malkavian (talk) 10:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 10:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2018

Change: | block_explorer = {{URL|blockchain.info}}, {{URL|blockexplorer.com}}

To: | block_explorer = {{URL|blockchair.com}}, {{URL|explorer.bitcoin.com}}

Why: Block explorers linked only let you explore Bitcoin Core (BTC) blocks, and not Bitcoin Cash (BCH) blocks. These others let you search in the two Bitcoin chains. Malkavian (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment: There's no issue with using trackers that display multiple blockchains, the issue is specifically with the tracker `explorer.bitcoin.com` which defaults to the forked BCH chain and also labels it as 'Bitcoin'. Whilst individual websites are allowed to do as they please, this particular deviation could be used to scam users by fraudulently presenting transactions on the much less valuable BCH chain as 'Bitcoin' transactions. The vast majority of users would expect 'Bitcoin' to refer to the original BTC chain, and so should not appear on the Bitcoin wikipedia page. I recommend denying this edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharklasers7 (talk • contribs)

Not done. Also, see section Bitcoin explorer below. Blockchain.info would be the only one listed unless otherwise discussed. « Ryūkotsusei » 22:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2018

Suggestion: Remove `explorer.bitcoin.com` right next to `Block explorer` label, because it is designed to be mislead its visitors. When someone clicks on its dropdown menu, it lists Bitcoin as "Bitcoin Core (BTC)" and Bitcoin Cash as "Bitcoin (BCH)." This is not just incorrect, but it can result in various fraud schemes, like the following: A scammer can use this site to prove he/she sent Bitcoin to the recipient, but in reality he/she only sent Bitcoin Cash. Because the site tries to mislead its users, the recipient would mistakenly verify the payment and get scammed.

If a third block explorer is needed I suggest SmartBit: https://www.smartbit.com.au/. It is easy to use, reliable and long operational.

Context: The above change was made previously by Eggishorn, however Apastuszak undid the change. Nopara73 (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

 Already done. The unexplained reversion was undone. « Ryūkotsusei » 18:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Bitcoin explorer

First, I note a Reddit thread on the block explorers.

I see no need to have three of these, apart from promotion/spam. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

As a semi-neutral party here, I would strongly resist making this list grow. If anything, even adding a second block explorer is something that likely should be removed but you can argue perhaps who that second one is.

blockchain.info is the granddaddy of all blockchain explorer sites and dates back to 2011 for its first appearance in archive.org. If there is any website that ought to be used, it is that one and I would argue sticking with it for now as it is even used as a reference elsewhere on this page. That website is technically older than this Wikipedia page.

Wikipedia should not and cannot be used to promote every brand new website and alternative block explorer. As a point of contention and being an edit war, leave it alone. If there is a better way to determine just who should be listed, I would welcome some civil discussion about the matter but otherwise let this issue drop. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Davidswiki, Ladislav Mecir, Laurencedeclan, ([19], [20], etc) please discuss before altering the block explorer parameter again. « Ryūkotsusei » 22:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

r/Bitcoin subreddit is not a valid source of any info, since it has strong censorship since 2015. Just search about it at google. -- Malkavian (talk) 11:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

As the person above stated, Reddit and even more so r/Bitcoin is not a valid source of information. Not only does Wikipedia frown upon using Reddit as reliable sources, the r/Bitcoin Reddit has had massive censorship for 3 years now. | Example 1, | Example 2 Simply put, other reliable sources need to be cited here for this to be taken seriously. I also commented in here on why I don't agree with this overall change. Clearly something fishy is happening here and I'm not sure if you're part of it or not. - Davidswiki (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment
  • The above linked Reddit discussion is no proof of anything.
  • All explorers list the same data, the difference between them being just the user interface.
  • The reason why to list at least two explorers is to allow the reader to look up the data even if one of the explorers happens to be temporarily out of order. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem that happens when you allow something like this to grow with no objective criteria for inclusion is that it tends to grow unchecked and turns the article into "List of....". I stated my reason for inclusion of blockchain.info so far as it is a genuinely notable site and has stayed out of the blockchain forks and battles for the most part. I accept that it might be generally useful for readers of this article to have access to a second explorer, but I am asking for you or anybody who wants to include another website to come up with a rationale that can be generally agreed upon.

I've had this problem on other Wikipedia articles, and culling such lists is a real pain. The alternative could even be simply eliminating this entry in the infobox altogether if it is causing too much contention and edit warring. Yes, I realize that such a move may be seen as having the trolls winning the day, but fighting over something this insignificant is also not in the best interests of Wikipedia.

As for the Reddit link, I should point out that the prevailing policy here is WP:CANVAS, which applies doubly so for that subreddit. They are hardly a neutral discussion forum and indeed that particular subreddit has a history of banning users for simply raising an alternative voice or even questioning the actions of the moderators. So the notification there of being a mass posting, biased, and partisan already checks three of the four boxes indicating an improper canvassing effort and private messages flying around checking the forth box of the canvassing effort too. As a vote isn't taking place right now, it is sort of irrelevant but that means you need to weigh the arguments a whole lot more too and filter out those who aren't familiar with Wikipedia as well. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)