Talk:Bitcoin

Merged articles

Unbalanced edit [#667946312]

The referred edit was described to:

• remove "unnecessary" bolding; - however, the bolding of the word bitcoin was not unnecessary. The fact is, that bitcoin is the name of the article, and that is why it is bold in the lead section at the places where it is defined.
• completely change a paragraph that seems to be the product of extreme source manipulation - The fact is that the paragraph mentioned the use of bitcoin as a form of payment. That use is known to exist and has been verified by reliable sources. Worse even, the text verified by citations introduced this uncited text: "Bitcoin has found its main uses in online gambling, speculation and the purchase of elicit goods." The text is not just unsourced, it does not even make sense. Moreover, the criminal misuses of bitcoin are mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead, which gives undue weight to the repeated informations making the lead unbalanced.

Therefore, I cannot agree with this unbalanced and essentially unsourced edit removing sourced informations. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Firstly it's not unsourced: "But the currency is still used primarily for online gambling, purchases of illicit goods and services, and speculation, according to several people who closely track its use." Secondly I did not deny that bitcoin is used as a form of payment in retail transactions, just that (as the reliable sources state) it's a small proportion of bitcoin usage.Bosstopher (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Nevertheless, there still are several problems with your edit:

• the fact that the criminal activities related to bitcoin are mentioned in the last paragraph, and it is not balanced to use two paragraphs in the lead section for them at the expense of removing the mention of another sourced activity
• the fact that "illicit purchases" and "speculation" are different cases, and it is not sensible to call them one "primary use"
• the fact that the source claims it to be "according to several people who closely track its use" - who are they? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

First, the idea that what Bitcoin is actually used to buy cannot be mentioned "because criminal activities are mentioned once in the lede already" makes me feel the page suffers from pro-Bitcoin bias. Also, who a citation uses as its primary sources isn't really relevant. Wikipedia editors can debate if a source passes wp:rs or not, but there's no Wikipedia policy that says reliable sources should reveal their primary sources or that a source can be challenged if it does not. Fleetham (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

My point is that the "illicit purchases" formulation does not specify what bitcoin is used to buy any more or any different than the "used in black markets" formulation already present. That is why I object to insert it once again to make the lead section unbalanced. Also, the information is dubious, since it claims three different use cases to be one "primary use", while the edit removes other, better and more widely sourced and discussed informations from the lead section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The supposedly better sourced thing I've removed is from Techcrunch which is far less academic in nature than the MIT Technology review source this information is sourced from. Also you're sourcing it to claim that Bitcoin's use in retail purchases is growing, which isn't actually explicitly stated in the source. All it says is that use of BitPay is growing, it could be that use of BitPay is growing while other retail uses of Bitcoing are in decline. Also a group of ways in which something is used primarily in no way makes information dubious, it at the very worst means its been phrased in a funny way.The article also states that 200,000 bitcoins are exchanged a day but only 5,000 in retail transactions, so the lede as it stands exaggerates the usage of bitcoin in retail markets.Bosstopher (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree and think restoring Bosstopher's initial edit is the best way forward here. Fleetham (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Bosstopher: "you're sourcing it to claim that Bitcoin's use in retail purchases is growing" - do not be personal, please. It is not me who inserted this specific claim into the lead section. You wrote: "Bitcoin has found its main uses in online gambling, speculation and the purchase of illicit goods" - that is not what the source confirms. In fact, the source is saying that the three above uses are "primary", which cannot be correct, since only one of them can be primary. This is a source of the disagreement here, no consensus on this exists. Another nonconsensual part is the fact that the "illicit purchases" formulation is synonymous with "used in black markets", which is already present in the lead section. You wrote: "Only a small proportion of bitcoin is used in legitimate retail transactions...", which is an opinion ascribed to Tim Swanson, and should be kept as such, instead of being presented as a fact, since the source confirms that it is not possible to determine the specific types of transactions. One more contentious formulation is: "Advocates of bitcoin claim retailers have an incentive to accept bitcoin...", which is not a correct citation of the respective source, in this case the source does not claim it to be an opinion of bitcoin advocates, in fact. Also, according to the style guide, the lead section should mention the facts discussed in the article body, which your formulation does not take into account. Finding out the consensus was not reached, I revert it to the status quo. In addition to the above, please respect that there are other editors of this article like Wuerzele, AlbinoFerret, Jonahtrainer and others, who did not get an opportunity to present their opinion yet. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"Finding out the consensus was not reached, I revert it to the status quo." I'm unsure how you arrived at that conclusion, as two people are in agreement that the material should stay, and you appear to be the sole holdout. Fleetham (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The consensus was not reached, since the consensus would need to take into account all the proper concerns raised. Per my above list, there are too many concerns remaining unaddressed yet. {U|Fleetham}}: Note, please, that the wording I reverted to the status quo was not the same as the wording originally discussed. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that "consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable)" according to Wikipedia:Consensus. I think the onus is on you to work towards getting the changes you want especially as the current consensus is in favor of keeping the material. I think Bosstopher's edit brought up legitimate concerns, and you haven't put forward any ideas that address those concerns. Instead, you've stated yours. I think it's best to suggest a compromise that speaks to both sets of concerns.Fleetham (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and restore Bosstopher's edit per lack of engagement soon. Fleetham (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Bosstopher: "The supposedly better sourced thing I've removed is from Techcrunch" - while Techcrunch was cited in the specific case, there are many other sources cited in the article in addition to Techcrunch, like The Economist, Internation Business Times, and many others, who also mention the the use of bitcoin for retail and its growth. It is not a single-souced claim as you mistakenly propose. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with Ladislav that Bosstophers edit is unbalanced (creating two paragraphs in the lead section for illicit activities and removing another sourced activity). We have had this discussion for a long time, and the consensus was to not allow illicit activities be stressed in that way. Fleetham was blocked for a month over this. Bosstopher please familiarize yourself with the arguments and check the archives.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we'll go ahead and incorporate Bosstopher's edit into the lede in a balanced way. Fleetham (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

If you want to propose something, now is the time for you to do so instead of editing the lead section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

There's no proposal. I'm simply doing what everyone appeared to have agreed on. Did you have a specific concern about my edit? Your edit summary ("please do not circumvent the ongoing discussion") doesn't really let me know what the issue was. Instead, I'm inclined to think that you simply reverted it due to mistrust or some suspicion you had rather than an actual content concern. I'm sure if you look closely at my edit, you'll see that it actually speaks to not only the concerns you brought up prior in this thread but also those of Bosstopher. I'll go ahead and restore my edit unless you respond as I currently am under the impression, per your edit summary, that this is simply a mistake made due to mistrust on your part and there isn't any actual concern or issue. Fleetham (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Fleetham wrote: "There's no proposal. I'm simply doing what everyone appeared to have agreed on." - you are not. For example, you inserted the part: "Advocates of bitcoin claim...", which directly contradicts the respective source as mentioned above. Also, when there is a dispute, you are not supposed to invent a version of yours and enforce it upon everyone else without discussing it. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so I'll reinclude the material without the word "advocates." Thanks for providing specific feedback. I imagine you have taken the time to be thorough and clearly explain everything you take issue with in my edit, but if that's not the case please do so soon. I will be re-posting the material taking your concerns into account. Fleetham (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I have taken the time to mention all the objections above, indeed. However, you did not take the time to read them. For example, your edit ignores my above: "...there are many other sources cited in the article in addition to Techcrunch, like The Economist, Internation Business Times, and many others, who also mention the use of bitcoin for retail and its growth..." Due to the broad coverage, there was a consensus on the text mentioning this fact to be present in the lead section for long time. Thus, I disagree with the attempts to remove it, and I hope you take the time to read all the objections and the history of the lead section discussion related to this. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Another issue I am having specifically with your edit is the fact that it mentioned speculation as a criminal activity in addition to online gambling. Both are dubious. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

The only concern you brought up that there are many other sources that "also mention the use of bitcoin for retail and its growth." However, the source Bosstopher used in the lead, the MIT Technology Review article, is one of the few that is recent (Feb 2015). So, please forgive me for making a mockery of your argument, but are you saying that outdated information should be kept in the lead because there was an outdated consensus to put it there? I'm happy to include other recent and relevant articles, but please show me some. Fleetham (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Fleetham, I advise you to check WP:RECENTISM. It is not relevant how recently the facts are published, more relevant is whether they receive broad coverage, which is the case of bitcoin retail growth from exact zero at its inception. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:RECENTISM clearly doesn't apply here. It's defined as "is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view." I'm not advocating we say bitcoin didn't see growth in the past, I'm saying the article shouldn't continue to state that retail use is growing.

I'll go ahead an re-include Bosstopher's edit making sure that any "historical" or past growth is documented as I imagine that will satisfy your concerns. Fleetham (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Fleetham: "I'm saying the article shouldn't continue to state that retail use is growing." - I have to inform you that your informations are very inaccurate. The lead states that the retail use has grown, which is not the same as stating that it is growing now. Bosstopher's edit did not obtain the necessary consensus due to its unbalanced nature. The problems are listed above. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I've gone over your concerns with you and addressed them one by one. The only concerns you have that I am aware of are the fact you didn't like criminal activities being mentioned twice in the lead and the idea that you didn't want information from previously used sources to be deleted. I think I've fully addressed those concerns and have agreed with you on every point you've made. Are there any specific issues or problems I failed to address but that prevent you from endorsing a change here?

Also, while you may not realize it as English doesn't appear to be your native tongue, the phrase "has grown" indicates an action that started in the past and is continuing in the present. Fleetham (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir Please do provide any feedback you have as I will go ahead and reintroduce the material with changes based on your prior feedback sometime in the coming month. Again, I am open and willing to making changes based on feedback you provide and feel the current lede needs to be reworded as it currently misinforms. Fleetham (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Fleetham There is no reason to say that the current wording of the lead section is misinforming, taking into account that all cited estimates are by one person who summarizes that "retail volume in 2014 has seen only a little, if any, increase", i.e., he did not say that the retail use is not growing. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

The MIT Technology Review article is pretty clear that growth is slowing stating, "it appears there has been very little if any increase in retail purchases using Bitcoin."

The lede of the wikipedia page currently does misinform for at least two reasons.

1) It suggests that growth is continuing when it actually has slowed.

2) It has too much focus on something most people don't do with their bitcoins--buy stuff--neglecting actual use cases such as hording and online gambling.

As the MIT article states, "Besides gambling, hoarding remains among the most popular things to do with bitcoins... the vast majority of addresses used to hold and exchange bitcoins have been dormant for at least four months. This suggests that bitcoins associated with them were acquired as an investment rather than a means of buying things."

To fix the first issue, I'll go ahead an soon reintroduce the material in Bosstopher's edit taking into account your feedback by making sure that it's clear any growth in retail use has slowed not reversed.

Perhaps the best way to resolve the second problem with the lede is another RfC asking if what bitcoin is actually used to do should be mentioned in the lede? I know that this is something you objected to when it was brought up earlier. Fleetham (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

you are incorrect in stating the lede is misleading by stating growth. you stated the MIT review states 1) growth has slowed.

slowing growth is growth, man ! overall there has been growth, simple fact. Fleetham you have proven to every oldie on this page that you have an agenda to make bitcoin look as bad and horrible as you can. now that Bosstopher arrived you think you can get going with it again? get neutral. --Wuerzele (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually according to MIT review "After some growth in 2013, retail volume in 2014 was mostly flat" i.e. no growth. Also please comment on content not editors. More importantly you're ignoring the more important issue Fleetham has pointed out "It has too much focus on something most people don't do with their bitcoins--buy stuff--neglecting actual use cases such as hording and online gambling. ." Also I posted a detailed critique of what I find wrong with the lede here if anyone wants to read. Bosstopher (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

And the thing is, because bitcoin is so little-used to purchase things (Reuters reported in late 2014 that "actual retail sales using bitcoin remain paltry"), it needs massive growth for the retail use of bitcoin to become relevant. As the MIT Tech Review makes clear, this isn't happening, which makes it all the more urgent to change to lede to reflect what people actually do with their bitcoins. Fleetham (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no need for the growth to be massive for it to be recognized as growth. Many sources recognized and mentioned the growthuh. Tim Swanson never said there was no growth since that is not what he did recognize from his analysis. He only said that the growth was little according to his opinion. There is no source claiming there is no growth. Opposite claims are based solely on WP:OR. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point, which is that few to none of the Bitcoins in existance are used to purchase goods or services, and so the lede is lacking because it devotes too much space to retail use of Bitcoin and none to popular uses such as online gambling and hoarding. Fleetham (talk) 09:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Fleetham: "...the point, which is that few to none of the Bitcoins in existance are used to purchase goods or services..." I do understand it is your opinion and WP:OR, but it is in direct contradiction with known reliable sources. Even the last cited Tim Swanson contradicts that. There are sources saying that it is "few" compared to daily retail transactions in USD, that, however, is something else than the statement of the sources mentioning the growth of retail in bitcoin. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not original research this is in the sources (admiteddly few to none is an exaguration). Few bitcoin are used in retail not only in comparison to USD but also in comparison to other uses of bitcoin. MIT technology review showed that 200,000 bitcoin were exchanged a day 5,000 of those in retail. That's only 2.5% of all bitcoin transactions. It may be growing, but we shouldn't just state it's growing and ignore that it's only a tiny tiny sector of bitcoin usage. Bosstopher (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

"...is an exaguration" - I am sorry, I do not understand.

"Few bitcoin are used in retail not only in comparison to USD but also in comparison to other uses of bitcoin." - Even if the retail use is small compared to all bitcoin transactions, it still remains unspecified by the sources whether, e.g., illicit use is greater or smaller than the retail use. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: Just to get the discussion back on track:

• 1) the lede mentions retail use of bitcoins while neglecting more popular uses such as hoarding and online gambling.

I'm sure you agree this should be rectified. In addition to adding a mention of popular uses for bitcoin, do you think the best way to address the issue at hand is to remove all mention of retail use from the lede or simply diminish the amount of space it's provided? Fleetham (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The point is that the retail use is notable, being widely mentioned in the sources. There are many sources mentioning it in addition to the sources cited in the lead section of the article. It is also discussed in the article body, which is required for it to be mentioned in the lead section. Therefore, it is neither acceptable to remove it from the lead section, nor to diminish the amount of space provided to it. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

This is clearly not going anywhere. I'm going to start an RfC.Bosstopher (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Repeatedly inserted wrong statement (edit #669398323)

As mentioned, Fleetham is repeatedly trying to insert a wrong citation to the article. Mistakes are:

• the cited source does not mention "That's down from $2.3 in 2014." as Fleetham mistakenly pretends. The fact is that the cited source states: "The only figures on retail sales in bitcoin are estimates and Tim Swanson, head of business development at Melotic, a Hong Kong-based exchange for digital assets, told Reuters global retail sales in bitcoin come to about $2.3 million daily (5,000-6,000 bitcoins)." - note the $2.3 million, not $2.3 as mistakenly mentioned by Fleetham.
• even if corrected to $2.3 million, the statement made by Fleetham is an incorrect synthesis: the fact is that the previous source citing Tim Swanson and comparing the figures comes to: "it appears there has been very little if any increase in retail purchases using Bitcoin", which is a different conclusion than Fleetham's synthesis. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm a little unsure if you can claim "synthesis," but I'll go ahead and reinclude the material with less contentious wording. Instead of writing, "[1.5 million in 2015 is] down from 2.3 million in 2014," I'll just say, "In 2014, retail purchases were estimated to be 2.3 million." The synthesis--that 1.5 is lower than 2.3--is something I guess I need to allow any reader to make themselves. Fleetham (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

You are probably still making a mistake, trying to compare apples and oranges. You cannot compare the whole year 2014 to 2015, since 2015 has not ended yet. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

No one's doing that; the section makes it clear that the estimate for 2015 is from February. Fleetham (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Retail use of bitcoin in the lede

Does the lede more accurately represent the reliable sources before or after this edit? Bosstopher (talk) 12:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

[Explanatory note: When discussing what people do with bitcoins, the lede currently only mentions retail use although gambling and hoarding are far more popular uses. In fact, little more than 2.5% of bitcoin transactions were associated with purchasing items at retailers. A recent MIT Technology Review article explains bitcoin's use-in-retail-sales deficiency succinctly. Fleetham (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)]

• After Have given my rationale here.Bosstopher (talk) 12:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• After Currently, the lede only mentions retail use of bitcoins, neglecting more popular uses such as hoarding and online gambling. This needs to change. Fleetham (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Before

• The formulation "elicit goods" does not make sense.
• The cited MIT article strived to make it clear that "the design of Bitcoin and the blockchain, its public transaction ledger, make it challenging to distinguish specific types of transactions," and that the formulation "after some growth in 2013, retail volume in 2014 was mostly flat" was an opinion by Tim Swanson. In contrast to the source, the edit presented the statement "retail usage having expanded in 2013 and remained flat in 2014" as a fact, misciting the source.
• In particular, the formulation "remained flat" was miscited. The opinion by Tim Swanson contained the formulation "mostly flat", which is not the same.
• It is a fact that the MIT article cites an opinion of "people who closely track its use" saying "the currency is still used primarily for online gambling, purchases of illicit goods and services, and speculation". The formulation is dubious, however, mentioning three different use cases as "primary".
• The edit based on opinions presented in one cited source removed the mention of retail growth in bitcoin found notable by Techcrunch, The Economist, International Business Times, Reuters, and other sources cited in the article body.
• The formulation "Criminal activities are primarily centered around black markets..." is present in the lead section of the article, it is placed in another paragraph. Its meaning does not differ from a formulation stating that "the purchases of illicit goods and services are one of the main criminal activities". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I do think for the most part the after edit is better because it makes uses of newer sources. The before edit takes a 2013 source and makes it sound like its still happening. One change I would make as Ladislav Mecir pointed out one source says "mostly" instead of "remained", good synonyms we could use are mainly, overall, and by and large. AlbinoFerret 14:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that while it's better after, some changes do still need to be made. Fleetham (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Definitely After Called by bot. The before version leaves out a good part of the article, and is also using language that is not encyclopedic. After version is definitely better. Darx9url (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment If the goal is to introduce new informations from bitcoin use analyses, then they should be mentioned in the article body. For example, the information that "the bulk of transaction volume has nothing to do with the actual buying of goods and services" seems to be confirmed by two independent sources, but, at a closer inspection, the sources contradict each other. The Reuters article cites Jeffrey Robinson ascribing bitcoin use primarily to "activities such as miners moving bitcoins between wallets", while the MIT technology article cites a Federal Reserve analysis ascribing bitcoin use primarily to "hoarding and gambling", and "several people who closely track its use" ascribing its use primarily to "online gambling, purchases of illicit goods and services, and speculation". The cited sources explain that "The design of bitcoin and the blockchain, its public transaction ledger, make it challenging to distinguish specific types of transactions." This explains why the ascribed primary uses differ significantly from source to source, and thus, that the primary use of bitcoin is, in fact, unknown. It makes sense to discuss the new findings related to the primary use in the article, but it makes no sense to do it first in the lead section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, moving bitcoins from one wallet to another isn't using them. Also, hoarding, when it comes to bitcoins, is a form of speculation. Paul Krugman wrote something a while ago promoting the idea that bitcoin would fail because people wouldn't spend them instead hoarding them because they imagined that bitcoins would be more valuable later. So, I imagine you're just confused by 1) synonyms and 2) the distinction between what people might do with bitcoins and how people use bitcoins. Fleetham (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• For me, the opinion of Jeffrey Robinson: "the bulk of that transaction volume has nothing to do with the actual buying of goods and services: activities such as miners moving bitcoins between wallets" is as sensible and revealing as an opinion that "the bulk of fiat transactions has nothing to do with actual buying of goods and services: activities such as bankers moving currency between accounts", with the reservation that it is you who put it to the article.
• "hoarding, when it comes to bitcoins, is a form of speculation" - this idea of yours is original. In fact, hoarding and speculation are terms with different definitions and uses. To find out that not everything is a speculation, I recommend you to read "Speculators play one of four primary roles in financial markets, along with hedgers who engage in transactions to offset some other pre existing risk, arbitrageurs who seek to profit from situations where fungible instruments trade at different prices in different market segments, and investors who seek profit through long-term ownership of an instrument's underlying attributes." mentioned in the lead section of the Speculation article. That sentence clearly and in an explanatory way distinguishes four different types of activities you seem to have a problem to set apart. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The point is, things like hoarding and moving bitcoins between different accounts are not actual uses. These are things that happen to bitcoins but not things people use bitcoins for. No one has ever said, "I feel an urge to transfer something from one account to another. Eureka! I will use bitcoins to fulfill my dreams." Fleetham (talk) 10:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

How does one tell whether a transaction is a peer-to-peer payment or merely a transfer between one entities accounts? For instance, the transaction where a friend pays off a debt to me does not appear any different than me transferring some spending money from my offline savings wallet to my smartphone spending wallet. Mrcatzilla (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and close the RfC soon as it looks like all interested parties have weighed in. Fleetham (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Fleetham , please REPLY to Ladislav's arguments, instead of evading to different issues (your unreferenced opinion of what uses are and are not) and doing your hallmark impatience pushing. just because YOU think the parties that shared your view have weighed in, you cant make the cut. No, Fleetham. 30 days, no less. --Wuerzele (talk) 06:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Before. The lede more accurately represents the reliable sources before Bosstophers edit. His edit is

• biased itself, while its author said he found bias. He inserts his personal opinion in particular (Advocates of bitcoin claim retailers have an incentive to accept bitcoin)and in general by stressing negative aspects of bitcoin.
• introducing poor style ("Bitcoin has found its main uses") with uneven expressions like "retail usage having expanded in 2013 and remained flat in 2014"), strangely while criticizing that as well (!)
• full of orthographic (elicit) and grammatic errors ( "data indicates" instead of data in plural).
• using editorializing terms like "rather than for use as currency" or "only a small proportion of bitcoin...."
• making inaccurate quotes (remained flat instead of mostly flat)
• removes sourced information without explanation.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The reason I wrote "advocates of bitcoin claim" is because that's what the source does too : "Bitcoin advocates, and especially merchants, say one of the currency’s most enticing promises is that it could significantly lower payment processing costs." The writer himself does not claim this. Any negative aspects of bitcoin I am stressing are also stressed in the reliable sources. I am just giving these aspects their due weight. I apologise for the poor spelling and grammar in that edit. However, I still think the general content and direction of my version was more accurate. Also what was the reliably sourced information I removed? Bosstopher (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Before - the after is full of grammar errors and does not cite enough sources for an accurate picture, as it sure sounds like it's biased. We can change that section, but I hope it doesn't end up being the text in the linked edit. ʬʬ (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

"Number of transactions per month" caption edit

The edit #670802992 by Fleetham added a note to the caption together with supporting citation. The problems are:

• The cited source makes it clear that "The bulk of transaction volume has nothing to do with the actual buying of goods and services." is an opinion by Jeffrey Robinson. Being presented as a fact, it is violating the WP:NPOV "avoid stating opinions as facts" principle.
• The note relates to the transaction volume. It is unrelated to the image, since the image plots the number of transactions, not the transaction volume. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Not sure I agree with the first point you make but you're right about the second point, it's unrelated to the image and seems like a bit of a shoehorn. I'm reverting. Bosstopher (talk) 10:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Ummm, "transaction volume" means "number of transactions." Volume in this case meaning, "the amount or quantity of something." The quote is directly relevant to the graph. Perhaps it should go if it's clearly labeled as an opinion and there's a specific wikipedia policy against that sort of thing... but the quote is talking about what is shown in the graph. Fleetham (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Fleetham '"transaction volume" means "number of transactions."' - Please check transaction volume and number of transactions to see the difference. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Both charts show the same thing. One is denominated in USD and the other in bitcoins themselves. Notice that the chart you name "transaction volume" is actually "transaction volume in USD." Fleetham (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Apologies didn't actually read the second bullet point properly. What I meant to say was that it's a bit of a shoehorn to put it into the caption, because it's not something directly addressed in the image. Bosstopher (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Fleetham 'Both charts show the same thing. One is denominated in USD and the other in bitcoins themselves. Notice that the chart you name "transaction volume" is actually "transaction volume in USD."' - Wrong again, please see transaction volume in bitcoins. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Ah, "transaction volume" really means "transaction value." Fleetham (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you want to use an encyclopedia, I use Wikipedia just for sentimental reasons, although the definition is equivalent: "Volume (finance): In capital markets, volume, or trading volume, is the amount of a security (or a given set of securities, or an entire market) that were traded during a given period of time." Restricted to bitcoin it becomes: "Volume, or trading volume, is the amount of bitcoins that were traded during a given period of time." Hope that helps you to understand the notion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

No, I understand now... for bitcoins, "transaction volume" means "volume of bitcoins transacted" not "volume of transactions." Fleetham (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

"Block chain" versus "blockchain" spelling

Powerful Lomax replaced all occurrences of the "block chain" spelling by "blockchain", claiming that '"blockchain", as a single word, has become the de-facto spelling for the distributed ledger and its supporting technologies throughout the technical community, and in academic and commercial research into distributed concensus systems'. After examining the cited sources, I found out: the "blockchain" spelling is used in 6 cited sources, none of them being an academic research article, while the "block chain" spelling is used by 15 cited sources, including academic research articles. Taking the existing consensus into account (this is not the first time the spelling was discussed), I revert the unsubstantiated edits. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Removed video for now

I've removed the Simpleshow video for now. I found it one-sided and possibly advertorial. I do support having more videos on Wikipedia, so this video is something of a "good try" but I think it is a bit off. Simpleshow is a for profit company who has worked with Wikimedia Austria, see http://simpleshow.com/us-en/explainer-video-workshop-wikipedia-2/ . There's a lot to discuss about this project - mostly good, but some possible problems.

Unfortunately, I'll be gone in an hour for the weekend. Please hold-off on reinserting this video until Monday at least. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

What it really is

BitCoin is a digital currency with hidden factors, touted as a payment system, originally housed by England in its Fort Terror complex, for sake of delivering it to the world as a kind of pseudcurrency, or pyramid/ponzi scheme, which would gain in popularity amongst young people who idealize openness in the markets, but then would become ensnared if they invested largely, by virtue of buying into a aristocrat-run crime-syndicate forted institution, insistent on resisting the "work Dollar" the common term for the World Bank "credito," as designed by the Vatican to be an egalitarian way of assessing work value. BitCoin became solvent when Barack Obama, as a favor to Joseph Biden, transformed 58,000,000 dollars of BitCoin currency through the Bank of Philadelphia, which then concealed the log of that transaction beneath the bank of PNC, "under China" Bank PNC fault, establishing legitimacy through corruption and fraud at the highest level. Hence the trick of BitCoin was to give the impression that the whole log lived in the cloud in unison, but in fact would be broken into chunks which would effectively make it so that separate secreted accounts, amounting to over forty billion times the nation budgets of these two states, China (Zhong-guo) and the Netherlands, of Dutch-Spain (read into).

This kind of grouping of aristo- and oligarch elements goes back a hundred years, and has secret milestones in the endings and beginnings of each of the major wars that England under the UK system has been involved in. The Breiviks, Chalmers, and the Odierno groups each represent paramilitary wings of the Euro-forted (Nordic, British, Hispanic), Nihon-Manchu fortedforted militas, who have worked in espionage agains the United States, with planning and involvement in diabolical terror operations abroad, around the world, to gained access and escalated privileges in government.

(Crossposted to my Facebook). God is with me. Adam Ocuana, -Stevertigo (t | c, ed. 2002) 23:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)