Talk:Bitcoin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q 1
When should the term "Bitcoin" be capitalized?

A:

  • Use "Bitcoin" (capitalized) for the system, the software, and the network it runs on.
  • Use "bitcoin" (lowercase) for the currency itself.

Example: "I installed Bitcoin software, downloaded the Bitcoin blockchain, and received 1 bitcoin after giving my Bitcoin address to my employer. I received 0.03 bitcoins as a tip. Maybe I'll sell my bitcoins on a Bitcoin exchange."

Former good article Bitcoin was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Bitcoin:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Maintain : archiving sources- basically none of the >200 url's have been archived

Ponzi scheme dispute[edit]

Someone should put some quotes from papers by economists describing the fiat system as the same here, for contrast.

Fee related edit war in the lead section[edit]

Edit #699960677 justified as "qualify categorical statement which is no longer necessarily true" introduced a change to the lead section. I reverted it to the WP:STATUSQUO due to the following reasons:

  • The purported "qualification" justification was not correct, since the qualification (information when) was missing.
  • The source on which the edit was based was a self-published article not satisfying the WP:RS criteria.
  • The cited source based its claim on a citation of a reddit discussion, which is another unreliable source.
  • The original reddit source discussed a fee asked by a specific software as a "priority fee" (whatever that means), i.e., not the fee actually paid.
  • As a matter of fact, the available transaction fee statistics confirm the original statement.

Due to the listed reasons I find the revert to the WP:STATUSQUO fully justified. Nevertheless, the original editor chose to revert again in #700113273. The problem is that the immediate revert does not follow the accepted WP:BRD policy, and that it constitutes a WP:EDITWAR. Moreover, its "boosterism/whitewashing" justification is not acceptable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Statistic material from Quandl[edit]

In the edit #702637124 Stesmo deleted the Bitcoin currency data - statistics from the "External links" section for the second time in a row justifying the edit as follows: "Reverting external link that doesn't meet WP:EL." However, per WP:EL, "what can normally be linked", are: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to [...] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics [...])." Since the discussed link is indeed a site containing neutral and accurate statistic material relevant to encyclopedic understanding of the subject, which cannot be integrated to the article due to the amount of detail, I disagree with the deletion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Ladislav MecirAdd it to the DMOZ. Keeping ELs to a minimum is important here and the DMOZ allows for editors to do that. Additionally, each currency on Wikipedia does not need a link to a page that tracks each currency's value against other currencies. This does not add to the encyclopedic understanding of Bitcoin, rather is just a tool for currency traders. Are you involved with, benefit from or are compensated by Quandl? Please stop adding this site to Wikipedia. Stesmo (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
  • "Are you involved with, benefit from or are compensated by Quandl?" - no.
  • As explained above, your interpretation of WP:EL is not based on understanding.
  • Also, your claim that the statistics is spam is mistaken.
  • The removal of the statistics is not important, and other editors may not have the same preferences as you do.
  • Re "each currency on Wikipedia does not need a link to a page that tracks each currency's value against other currencies" - indeed, descriptions of other currencies also don't contain sections related to bubbles, volatility, ... Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)