From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Q 1
When should the term bitcoin be capitalized?


  • Use bitcoin (lowercase) in all cases.

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.
Merged articles
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200 url's have been archived

RfC: should recent edit of "Ponzi scheme concerns" section be reverted?[edit]

Should this edit of the "Ponzi scheme concerns" section be reverted? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Supplemental information: the texts to compare are the wording of the "Ponzi scheme concerns" section here versus the wording of the "Ponzi scheme concerns" section here.

  • Yes
    • The edit is nonconsensual, it uses incorrect "Ponzi sceme" instead of the correct "Ponzi scheme" term.
    • The edit is nonconsensual, it was originally made by a vandal indefinitely blocked from editing meanwhile.[1]
    • The edit is nonconsensual, the consensus in this article is to use citation templates, while the edit in question replaces the templates by less informative references, referring to the same sources.
    • The edit is nonneutral, trying to characterize three journalists as "mainstream", even though their opinion is a minority opinion.
    • The edit is nonneutral, using vague characterization "various" to suggest there are more authors supporting this opinion than the number supported by the sources.
    • The edit is nonneutral, trying to suggest in Wikipedia voice that "bitcoin is still 'a little bit' of a Ponzi sceme or pyramid scheme" Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
A few things. First, you don't need an RfC to fix a typo. It's been fixed. Secondly, the wording was the result of discussion which you agreed to, barring the last sentence which was made by an editor who has not been been indefinitely blocked, so I'm not sure what you mean there. You refer to a consensus regarding templates, would you mind linking that discussion? The wording you're opposing is wording you yourself agreed to, it's not suddenly "nonneutral". What changed? Various journalists is a valid way to write that, your edit made it seem as though seven people had these concerns, no more. That's not the case, and it's not one or two named journalists who are known above others to have these concerns, so it's WP:UNDUE to call out one or two and name them as if they, and they alone, are the ones who have these concerns. It's unrealistic to list every single person who has mentioned concerns of Bitcoin being a Ponzi scheme, so the sentence summarizes the idea. This isn't List of people who think Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, but trying to list out a few people in a way that suggests that only those people have voiced these concerns is not in keeping with WP:NPOV.
As for the last sentence, the one that wasn't part of the previous discussion, I think it needs to be reworded, but I'm not sure it needs to be removed entirely. Especially because the article as currently worded does not suggest any such thing in Wikipedia's voice, though it could be reworded to make that more clear. However, except for your last bullet point, these have all been addressed previously and are not as you present them. - Aoidh (talk) 09:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "A few things. First, you don't need an RfC to fix a typo." - I am pretty sure the RfC is necessary. For example, the "Ponzi sceme" issue has been discussed above,[2] quite a long time ago, and you reverted it for the second time at least.
  • "...made by an editor who has not been been indefinitely blocked" - made by an editor who has been indefinitely blocked[3]
  • Now, when the wording is being discussed, please refrain from modifying it - it was you who was content with the wording and who reinstated all the problematic parts, calling the result "neutral, consensus version".[4] Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I think the whole naming of journalists in this section is unnecessary. Next, I think the whole quote 'a little bit of a ponzi scheme' is ridiculous, and reads like a comic book line. Maybe Bernie Madoff thought he was only running 'a little bit of a ponzi scheme,' but who cares... I think we can keep the section and say "a few" or a "a handful" of the press have called it a ponzi scheme. We need to keep in mind that there are articles written every day about Bitcoin (from big sources such as NYT, WSJ, Bloomberg, CNN, etc who I haven't seen refer to it as a ponzi) so we need to be careful of WP:UNDUE here implying that there is some consensus in WP:RS that bitcoin is being referred to as a ponzi scheme, because it is not from what I have seen. As far as I can tell there are a few WP:FRINGE theories that bitcoin is a ponzi scheme (aka conspiracy theorists) and we can include it in the article as such (water fluoridation has such inclusions, as I guess 9/11 does as well). But let's not start thinking we are going to give this a lot of weight when the Swiss Government is going to sell bitcoin in the train stations from their ticket machines. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is ridiculous. Don't reintroduce a typo purposefully into the article just to try to justify other edits. - Aoidh (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I notice that, after I discussed the issues in two sections above, and was forced to fill this RfC, you finally decided to support my point that your version was, in contrast to your cited justification, neither "consensual" nor "neutral". But keep in mind that I have only a little understanding for your effort to completely rewrite the section in an attempt to deprive fellow Wikipedians of the possibility to check and discuss the issues in the state you prepared. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
The only editor who attempted to "completely rewrite the section" was you, and the edits I reverted were not discussed in your discussions with the other editor, What I did was revert it back to the version that had consensus, a version which, I might remind you, you agreed with after the last RfC you requested. This is the version you agreed to. Reverting your problematic edits were not an "effort to completely rewrite the section," because the version that's currently there is literally word-for-word the exact same as the version you agreed with, that is as far from a "complete rewrite" as one can get. All I did was restore the status quo, this story you've presented about my attempting to rewrite the section has no basis in reality, and I strongly invite you to cite a diff to back up your claim. Cite a diff, please. Show me where I've done anything but restore the section to previous versions at any point since May, when I last discussed this. - Aoidh (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
It looks much better now, all this 'a little bit of a ponzi scheme' and naming of the journalists has been removed. If more countries jump on the bandwagon and call it a ponzi, by all means we can add them to the mix with Estonia. I think it is good that Ladislav made a RfC, it is the point of wikipedia to resolve discussions on the talk page, nothing wrong with it at all, we are here to seek consensus. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Generally speaking, and per WP:RFC, the content in dispute should be discussed before an RfC is opened. This section was discussed back in September, but the edits LM made were not discussed in any way. RfC doesn't need to be bogged down by things that can resolved on the talk page, as it has been here. - Aoidh (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
The main problem is that, in contrast to my effort to discuss things, you did not react and discuss any of the issues before the RfC was created. Thus, the RfC was actually the only remaining way how to make sure the issues are taken seriously. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Restarting the discussion of Bitcoin being the first Virtual Commodity and not a Crypto-Currency.[edit]


Bitcoin is not money but a commodity; and it took me two years to come up with the simple answer to what bitcoin is: Bitcoin is the first Virtual Commodity ever created.

Money has been virtualized more than 200 years ago with the first check; and that is what cause the confusion. With Bitcoin, a Commodity has the same exchange speed as money. Money is created by a state/person that can protect it; Commodity exist regardless of what the state/person says. It's just there; and that is why it is not money.[1][2][3]

When I discovered what bitcoin was, I asked a friend of mine, an internationally recognized expert on public debt finance, and to give me his opinion on bitcoin, and then on money. He sent me his paper on "The Functions of Money and Other Issues."[4]

At the meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, at the meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Blockchain Technologies,[5] I pushed for the correct classification of what Bitcoin is, a Commodity.

Carla Reyes, the Moderator said: "I think the question of how to categorize the thing that it is is a good one. I'm from the United States and that's where I am most engrossed in how a government is trying to categorize this thing. It has been called virtual currency, not cryptocurrency. It has called property by the IRS. It has been called stored value by the states. Called a commodity by the CFDS but they would agree with you but it has been called a security by the securities exchange commission. So yes, categorizing what this thing is is difficult and I think though to focus on distributed ledger technology, DLT is where we might get the most bang for the governance discussion whether than focusing on the currency commodity itself."[6]

By mentioning that the classification of what it is using the lack of standard by each Regulatory Agency seems to be the general approach, albeit the wrong approach. The approach need to be the scientific method, and historically, what define (and to this day) money is that it can be created and destroyed by the power of a single entity (Central Bank, Authority, etc ...) A commodity exist regardless of what the power to be want.

Theochino (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


Not the first virtual commodity. Buyable in-game assets have been in games for years. Second Life has markets in virtual commodities.[5] John Nagle (talk) 05:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, bitcoin is not the first virtual commodity. Actually, bitcoin is not a virtual commodity. Some reliable sources call it a commodity, digital commodity, digital asset or a digital collectible, while no reliable source calls it a virtual commodity. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of that, it's clearly not the first. Digicash was probably the first. John Nagle (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
"The approach need to be the scientific method, and historically, what define (and to this day) money is that it can be created and destroyed by the power of a single entity (Central Bank, Authority, etc ...)" - this is wrong, in fact, and pure WP:OR. It does not apply to commodity money. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

"Buyable in-game assets" are Currency since they are created by the game maker, the game maker is what control it. Second life are not commodities because they are also controlled by the game maker; Second Life is actually a Commodity Like behavior but it is not.

What differentiate a Commodity and a Currency is Control by a central entity that Creates and Destroy the Currency (French Franc, Euro, Hawaii Dollars) ....

It's not because everyone want it to be a Currency that it is ... the mistake comes that Virtualization of Currency took place two hundred years ago when the first check was written against currency. The check became an instrument representing the currency (but was not the currency.)

bitcoin (small B) doesn't represent anything ... bitcoin is here for itself. It's value is derived by the needs and wants of it's user (own wikipage definition) and therefore it's a commodity; it share the exchange speed of a currency but "speed" is not what makes the definition of a currency; control does.

Theochino (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

bitcoin is not a Commodity money either. It can become a commodity money if a central bank declares it legal tender, but noone has done that yet.

Theochino (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Theochino, I reverted your edit. Please find some WP:RS to make such a major change to this projected page. WP:OR wont cut it here... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Jtbobwaysf, you are saying that the definitions in Wikipedia of what is bitcoin (with small B) are correct ? Should we change the definition of Commodity and Currency to match bitcoin's ? It is explained in State of Florida (vs) Espinoza Theochino (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Theochino, I addressed some WP:OR aspects of your research above, here is just an additional note. You wrote: "bitcoin is not a Commodity money either. It can become a commodity money if a central bank declares it legal tender, but noone has done that yet." - I do not want to discuss whether bitcoin is money or not, since that dispute is still going on. However, note that commodity money does not need to be a legal tender, which is another WP:OR aspect of your 2 year research. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Ladislav Mecir, how do you come to the idea that is Commodity Money ? Where is the reference you use ? Because according to Wikipedia, it need to have a value of it's own; as far as I see (even on DarkNet, the value of merchandise priced in Bitcoin is pegged to the exchange rate of the national currency. To be a Commodity Money it would require that good be priced in Bitcoin regardless of the exchange rates on the markets. Wouldn't you say ? Theochino (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Theochino, you have a problem with reading comprehension. I explicitly stated that the question whether bitcoin is money or not is subject to dispute that is still going on and that I, therefore, refuse to claim that bitcoin is money, which means that I refuse to call bitcoin commodity money too. My above note is about the WP:OR nature of your findings that ignore common knowledge from available sources, trying to also push your own definition of commodity money. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Ladislav Mecir so why the heading starts with "is a cryptocurrency" and that is what is in dispute. Bitcoin is not commodity money, it's just a commodity. Theochino (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Theochino, well, previously, the sentence stated that bitcoin is a digital asset. However, an editor (I reverted his edit once) changed the wording to the current one not respecting the status quo. Nevertheless, taking into account that the cryptocurrency is characterized as a "digital asset designed to work as a medium of exchange", there is actually no significant problem, since bitcoin indeed is a digital asset as confirmed by reliable sources, and was designed to work as a medium of exchange as confirmed by other sources. Therefore, I think that the main point of controversy is just a misunderstanding. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Ladislav Mecir What source would that be that came up with the "Digital Asset" classification ? Because I read papers trying to make that argument and digital asset is Intellectual Property and not tied to bitcoin. So by using Digital Asset, it is becoming the exact thing we are arguing here. Bitcoin is now 9 years old and it's properties have been studied; My source whose a PhD that worked on public debt says it's a commodity; does my source trump your source ? Theochino (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
"What source would that be that came up with the "Digital Asset" classification ?" - all of these: [1][2][3][4][5][6], and the list is in no way exhaustive, while your "source" is not what Wikipedia means when defining WP:IRS.
"...and digital asset is Intellectual Property and not tied to bitcoin." - here you are making two mistakes:
  • you are trying to come up with your own understanding of what a digital asset is and interpret it in some way. That is WP:OR.
  • you do not realize that the standard approach is to rely on WP:IRS to do the research and tell whether bitcoin is a digital asset or not, while you shall only cite the findings
Moreover, the classification as a commodity and the classification as a digital asset are not necessarily mutually exclusive, which you fail to notice. I do not know whether this illustrative example helps or not, but here goes: Wikipedia defines gold as "a chemical element with the symbol Au (from Latin: aurum) and the atomic number 79.", while your PhD source would probably classify it as a commodity. Does that mean that the Wikipedia definition is wrong? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ Casey, Michael J. (11 March 2015). "Ex-J.P. Morgan CDS Pioneer Blythe Masters To Head Bitcoin-Related Startup". Markets. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 19 November 2015. 
  2. ^ Bheemaiah, Kariappa. "Block Chain 2.0: The Renaissance of Money". Wired. Retrieved 4 January 2016. 
  3. ^ Groom, Nelson (9 December 2015). "Revealed, the elusive creator of Bitcoin: Founder of digital currency is named as an Australian academic after police raid his Sydney home". Daily Mail Australia. Retrieved 4 January 2016. 
  4. ^ Shin, Laura (21 October 2015). "Q&A: CEO Adam Ludwin On How Money Will Become Digital". Forbes. Retrieved 4 January 2016. 
  5. ^ "BitGo Partners With Powerhouse Kraken Bitcoin Exchange". Business Wire. 10 November 2015. Retrieved 4 January 2016. 
  6. ^ Polansek, Tom (2 May 2016). "CME, ICE prepare pricing data that could boost bitcoin". Reuters. Retrieved 3 May 2016. 
Ladislav Mecir Yes, the definition in Wikipedia is wrong. It's a circular reference by popular voting which is totally wrong.
I started by following the first link in this chapter Cryptocurrency and got to this reference:[1]. I tried to reach the author but she doesn't work at Thomson Reuters anymore and the only Person citing Cryto-Currency is Timothy B. Lee.
I contacted Timothy B. Lee via his Twitter asking if he stood by original statement to Thomson Reuters.[2]
Timothy B. Lee replied that stood by his answer[3] and that Merriam-Wesbster of currency
Merriam-Webster says "something (as coins, treasury notes, and banknotes) that is in circulation as a medium of exchange."
After reading the Merriam-Webster definition, the theme of Central Creator was not present[6] and I emailed Webster to request clarification. See twitter entry:
Our definition of  "currency" includes the meaning "something (as coins, treasury notes, and banknotes) that is in circulation as a medium of exchange." The individual definitions of "coin," "treasury note," and "banknote" all indicate the involvement of some form of central authority.
Theochino (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


Theochino, it is admirable that you are trying to contact various persons with your questions. However, the private conversations you mention do not confirm your formulation that "Bitcoin is the first Virtual Commodity ever created.", and the lack of supporting evidence is the main problem with your original results. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Ladislav Mecir thanks. And it's interesting that those that actually talked to Satochi at first classify it as "Virtual Commodity." What is the supporting evidence that it is a Currency? I offered a whole table of evidence that Bitcoin is a Commodity or are you arguing the "First" in the sentence? My Question is whether Bitcoin = Virtual Commodity (and not whether it is the first.) Theochino (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Ladislav Mecir do you agree then that Bitcoin == Virtual Commodity ? Theochino (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Do I agreee that bitcoin is a virtual commodity? - No. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Ladislav Mecir Ok, you don't believe it's a commodity.
Question #1: what do you believe it is and what arguments do you use to justify ?
Question #2: is the classification I made in the table in the section below wrong ? If so, what ?
Theochino (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
"Ok, you don't believe it's a commodity." - that is not true at all. I see that you have serious problems with reading comprehension. I do believe bitcoin is a commodity, that is why I do not believe bitcoin is a virtual commodity. I also found out that you may have a conflict of interest, being engaged in a litigation. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Theochino, I agree with you that State of Florida v. Espinoza should be included in the article. I did a quick check and didn't see it. Please be bold and consider adding it to this Bitcoin#Classification section, or another section you deem appropriate. It is important to have a section that discusses the different ways that bitcoin is being classified, and the debate surrounding it. I do agree that this current section seeks to state definitely that it is a digital asset, and I think I have seen some debate on that. Certainly State of Florida v. Espinoza is notable and ought to be included. I think it could even be covered briefly in the header section (IFF there really is a significant debate), but first let's put it in a content section (maybe Bitcoin#Classification) and then later we can discuss on this talk page and find some consensus about the header section. Theochino, I think @Steel: might have been asking similar questions as you... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Misleading edits in the lead section -- POV_Check requested[edit]

According to the various Wikipedia pages defining Fiat Money, Medium of Exchange, Digital Currency, Commodity; bitcoin fit the commodity profile and not the currency profile. All the source cited have Political Agendas to get bitcoin accepted as a Currency and not as a Medium of Exchange.

As you can see, everything under Commodity end up with a astonishing "yes" and everything under Fiat, Currency and Money has a "no"

How can bitcoin be something that has many "no" I advance.

See table below.

Wiki Name Definition Apply to Bitcoin
Fiat Money Fiat money is a currency established as money by government regulation or law. No
Medium of Exchange Value common assets Yes
Medium of Exchange Common and accessible Yes
Medium of Exchange Constant utility Yes
Medium of Exchange Low cost of preservation Debatable
Medium of Exchange Transportability Yes
Medium of Exchange Divisibility Yes
Medium of Exchange Recognisability Debatable / but working on it, Yes
Medium of Exchange Resistance to counterfeiting Yes
private currency is a currency issued by a private organization No
Digital currency Both virtual currencies and cryptocurrencies are types of digital currencies, but the converse is incorrect. Wrong Statement
Digital currency A virtual currency has been defined in 2012 by the European Central Bank as "a type of unregulated, digital money, which is issued and usually controlled by its developers, and used and accepted among the members of a specific virtual community". Is bitcoin controlled by its developers ? No
Commodity commodity is a marketable item produced to satisfy wants or needs. yes
Commodity Often the item is fungible. yes
Commodity Economic commodities comprise goods and services. yes
Commodity currency A commodity currency is a name given to currencies of countries which depend heavily on the export of certain raw materials for income. No
Hard currency the associated country's political and fiscal condition and outlook, and the policy posture of the issuing central bank. no
Commodity The inventory of commodities, with low inventories typically leading to more volatile future prices and increasing the risk of a "stockout" (inventory exhaustion) yes
Commodity In classical political economy and especially in Karl Marx's critique of political economy, a commodity is an object or a good or service ("product" or "activity"[9]) produced by human labour Debatable
Here the labor is done by computers (Karl Max v2 ?) - Galactica & Terminator ?
Commodity On a commodity exchange, it is the underlying standard stated in the contract that defines the commodity, not any quality inherent in a specific producer's product. yes

Theochino (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The entry in question is :

'''Bitcoin''' is the first virtual [[commodity]] (commonly referred by the misnomer [[cryptocurrency]]) and a [[payment system]]{{r|primer|p=3}}


'''Bitcoin''' is a [[cryptocurrency]] and a [[payment system]]{{r|primer|p=3}} 

Theochino (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I think your debate is if Cryptocurrency should exist as an article? Maybe nominate it for AfD instead. This is a very strange debate that I don't yet understand. But I think you might create a discussion here, and wait a few days before making major changes (one I reverted and subsequently tagging the page to support your proposed discussion). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
The goal is to bring a bit of order in the whole space :) CryptoCurrency should exist as an article. Ripple is a CryptoCurrency since Ripple controls it. Since Bitcoin has no controlling party, it's a CryptoComodity. Once you think as Bitcoin as a commodity, everything falls in place; multiple markets place (BTC-e, BitFinex, etc ...) multiple exchange rates depending on local demand (same as lettuce.) The Wikipedia page with the wrong definition creates so much confusion for everyone (took me 2 years and 9 month to realize it.) That is why Bitcoin and the Blockchain is revolutionary; it removes control from the creator. Theochino (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Please see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. You need to find WP:RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, please see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. You need to find WP:RS, your 2 year research does not suffice to meet Wikipedia standards. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Ladislav Mecir (talk · contribs) It's not WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS since Judge wrote it in her decision [1][2][3][4][5][6] Theochino (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


So if it is not money, and ready the definition of currency "in the most specific use of the word refers to money in any form when in actual use or circulation" then it's a commodity.Theochino (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned above, you still need a huge leap of faith to come to your original result that "Bitcoin is the first Virtual Commodity ever created." Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: removed the POV tag after this discussion went nowhere. @Theochino: you re-added the POV tag today. Let's finish this discussion here and remove the tag unless we find a specific problem. Theochino, your WP:OR isn't enough. If you have WP:RS to show bitcoin is an asset, please by all means add the content to the article. There are certinaly differing discriptions of the how bitcion is classified, including the Florida case. All of those classifications that are supported by WP:RS shall be provided equal weight under WP:NPOV. But this tag is not necessary as a tool to force a discussion of it, and I support Ladislav's removal of it. Theo, please just add the content and if someone deletes it, we can again have a discussion here on the talk page, that's what the talk page is for. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf I readded the tag because the discussion has not even started. According to the rules, you and Ladislav Mecir have been the admin of this page that you also have some interest in the topic. I am asking that people that don't know anything on the topic take a good look at the various facts and make an honest judgement on those facts. Now, a judge in Florida has asked the question and came up with a good answer and contradict your classification: Let's talk facts. Trowing at me WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:RS wishing that I go away, ain't going to happen. Being on the Internet too long to be deterred. I started a new section to discuss the facts from scratch. Theochino (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Jtbobwaysf So you know who you have to deal with, here is a bunch of presentation I did in New York City: and I knew when this happened I reached my first goal (kind of the real life version of Godwin's Law) - Here I am asking the regulator a question : ... I know that the three of us want bitcoin to succeed; but what I am trying to say is that the definition is wrong and it is a disservice to us and to those who make the law. You can listen to and see how your belief make people not really understand what it is and we ended up in this limbo. What I am asking is that we reexamine the facts based on new information. Theochino (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Jtbobwaysf Before starting the lawsuit, I believe what was written here was correct, but in studying for the lawsuit I discovered that everything was incorrect. A private key is just a random x,y coordinate and the public key is just another x,y coordinate mixed with and known elliptic curve. Now tell me I am wrong Theochino (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Jtbobwaysf, you wrote: "Let's finish this discussion here and remove the tag unless we find a specific problem. Theochino, your WP:OR isn't enough. If you have WP:RS to show bitcoin is an asset, please by all means add the content to the article." - I cannot agree with your characterization of the discussion. There actually are two findings that are subject to consensus.
  • The claim that "Bitcoin is the first Virtual Commodity ever created." is WP:OR, not supported by reliable sources. This has been found out in the discussion, and there is only one editor, Theochino, ignoring it.
  • Theochino is taking a part in a litigation related to this specific subject, and, as such, he has a conflict of interest and is not supposed to edit the article at all.
These findings justify the deletion of the related tag inserted by Theochino, who wanted to make the edit to the lead section as described. Your formulation "If you have WP:RS to show bitcoin is an asset" is ignoring what Theochino really asked for, which is the formulation not mentioning the word asset at all. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I have today added some content to the classification section that this talk page discussion brought up was missing. I have added two court rulings (Florida and New York) that have differing views on classification as well as the conflicting views by the CFTC and the IRS. While I am not sure if this solves the broader debate that may (or may not be going on here), this discussion bring up the fact that there is indeed some dispute as to how bitcoin is currently classified by the courts and the regulators. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
In today's Wired Magazine Theochino (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, you found a new article. I read it, but couldn't find anything confirming your "Bitcoin is the first virtual commodity." Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Seeking consensus on a cross link[edit]

The first sentence in the "Classification" section is:

Bitcoin is a digital asset[1][2][3][4][5][6] designed by its inventor, Satoshi Nakamoto, to work as a currency.[7][8]


  1. ^ Casey, Michael J. (11 March 2015). "Ex-J.P. Morgan CDS Pioneer Blythe Masters To Head Bitcoin-Related Startup". Markets. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 19 November 2015. 
  2. ^ Bheemaiah, Kariappa. "Block Chain 2.0: The Renaissance of Money". Wired. Retrieved 4 January 2016. 
  3. ^ Groom, Nelson (9 December 2015). "Revealed, the elusive creator of Bitcoin: Founder of digital currency is named as an Australian academic after police raid his Sydney home". Daily Mail Australia. Retrieved 4 January 2016. 
  4. ^ Shin, Laura (21 October 2015). "Q&A: CEO Adam Ludwin On How Money Will Become Digital". Forbes. Retrieved 4 January 2016. 
  5. ^ "BitGo Partners With Powerhouse Kraken Bitcoin Exchange". Business Wire. 10 November 2015. Retrieved 4 January 2016. 
  6. ^ Polansek, Tom (2 May 2016). "CME, ICE prepare pricing data that could boost bitcoin". Reuters. Retrieved 3 May 2016. 
  7. ^ Nakamoto, Satoshi (October 2008). "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" (PDF). Retrieved 28 April 2014. 
  8. ^ "Monetarists Anonymous". The Economist. The Economist Newspaper Limited. 29 September 2012. Retrieved 21 October 2013. 

The question is whether there is a consensus to remove the cross link to the digital asset article. As far as I am concerned, there is no such consensus, and the cross link should remain in the text, since it can aid understanding of the digital asset term. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I saw this revert and also was confused what the objection with the cross link was. Is there a dispute going on if bitcoin is a digital asset or a cryptocurrency? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
No, bitcoin can be both, and this is just about the question whether there should be a cross link or not. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Right, I have seen it referred to as a digital asset as well. Theochino (talk · contribs) in the talk page section above also seems to be suggesting that asset be added to this page for NPOV. I don't see a problem with it. Maybe we put somewhere it has been referred to as a cryptocurrency, digital asset, token (maybe, if true), etc Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Bitcoin is a digital asset in the sense that it's a resource of economic value (see asset) that exists in the digital realm. I have no particular problem describing it as such. The issue is that the Wikipedia article on digital asset refers to digital assets of the sort that a designer might use and manipulate on a screen in his or her job, "photography, logos, illustrations, animations, audiovisual media" (quoted from the article). Ladislav Mecir does not make this distinction but I do. The term has more than one meaning depending on context. Hence leaving the description in the article but removing the wikilink to something unrelated. – Steel 19:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
For awareness, Ladislav Mecirand I have discussed this previously at /Archive 27#.22Digital_asset.22. – Steel 19:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I must think that the issue is caused by a lack of reading comprehension on Steel's side. He does not take into account, e.g., these formulations from the digital asset article:
  • "A digital asset in essence is anything that exists in a binary format and comes with the right to use."
  • "The term "digital asset" refers, but is not exclusive to..."
  • "Types of digital assets include, but are not exclusive to..."
  • "In March 2015, The Wall Street Journal mentioned digital currencies as a type of digital asset."
What I find sufficient for the discussion is whether bitcoin is called a digital asset in reliable sources - the answer is "yes", and actually, this is not opposed by any reliable source I know of. What remains to be decided then is whether the cross link would help to understand the formulation in the article by pointing a user to the related article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I think I agree with user Steel here, it is not appropriate to link to this digital asset as it looks like it is about web-design. Nothing to do with this second definition. Ladislav, if you want to make a new article for 'digital asset (token),' (or something like that) and doing the disambiguation page, we can look at linking it. But for now, it doesn't make any sense to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Jtbobwaysf - here you are making exactly the same mistake as Steel, trying to use your own understanding of digital asset and come to the conclusion that bitcoin is not one. That is what is called WP:OR. The correct approach is to rely on WP:IRS to do the research and find out whether bitcoin is a digital asset or not. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
I think you might want to edit the digital asset article first to include your proposed definition before you second link this article to it. If you cant reach consensus to edit the digital asset article with a new definition of it, then you need to create a new article (e.g. digital asset (crypto) and link to it, and do the disambiguation. I am sure this is not the first time this has happened at wikipedia. You can't just link random new definitions to existing wikipedia articles that have nothing to do with what you are linking them to. As far as I can understand the argument you are making has nothing to do with WP:OR or WP:IRS. You have found good sources, and there are lots of sources that call Bitcoin a digital asset, both true. But the digital asset article you want to link to is about a different subject matter, and this is the second time that Steel says you have brought it up on this talk page. I might be totally off base here, maybe @David Gerard: will comment here? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Jtbobwaysf, my point is that I do not propose any definition of what a digital asset is, and would prefer you to stop claiming otherwise. I use WP:IRS claiming that bitcoin is a digital asset, that is all. If there is a consensus to use a RfC to determine whether a cross link to the article shall be present, it can be done. Just, please, realize that your idea that digital assets are "about web-design" is your original interpretation of the digital asset article and not a fact confirmed by reliable sources. Yet another problem with Steel's preference to use two successive links to two articles looking as follows: digital asset is that it does not follow the principles in WP:MOS suggesting that there shall not be two or more successive cross links, and if there is a more specific digital asset article, it shall be linked instead. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
@Ladislav Mecir: The digital asset article you are proposing to wikilink to says: "Digital assets are classified as images, multimedia and textual content files." Just first add some stuff to the digital assets article about Bitcoin or cryptocurrency, then link after you are sure the content is going to stick on the page (there might be editors over at that page who object to it)... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Jtbobwaysf, there already is "some stuff in the Digital asset article about bitcoin or cryptocurrency", you can find it if you try. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

{{help me}}

Ladislav, I have reverted your edit that we are discussing above. Steel pointed out this is the second time this issue has been discussed (earlier discussion archived). I am somewhat at a loss over this whole discussion. As far as I can tell, @Steel: and myself are both opposed to linking to digital asset article that appears to the both of us to be an article about web design (for lack of a better word). I think I will ask for others to look at this, as I too am confused about the wikipedia policy regarding this type of thing. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
bitcoin is not both, one cannot invent classifications that don't exist on a belief that it should. None of all the article mentioned in the reference explain how they come to the conclusion it's a currency vs commodity. The inventor set to invent something (called a Cash system) but managed to invent a Commodity. It's clearly shown in the table above using only Wikipedia definitions. Theochino (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Please do not discuss whether bitcoin is a currency here. I explicitly stated that this question is still being disputed in reliable sources, and I do not want to take any side. You are also being off topic. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't see why these classifications are mutually exclusive. - Shiftchange (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Satoshi Nakamoto wanted to be a Currency; but it does not match the classification of a currency. It's like building an encased bicycle and calling it a car; and then wanting it to be a car. One can clearly see that it's not a currency. The Webster Merriam definition would be valid is bitcoin was first defined as a Commodity, otherwise even that definition is invalid. Theochino (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Theochino, if you want to discuss unrelated issues, use the above section, you are off topic here. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Asking for a debate on Fact is NOT COI[edit]

Ladislav Mecir Asking for a neutral look at the properties of Bitcoin is not COI. Otherwise everything would be COI. What is your interest as saying it's a currency (vs) a commodity ? Let's discuss the mathematical and scientific economical properties and our different beliefs. Can you show me using the scientific method that I am wrong ? Calling COI is a character defamation. Theochino (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

"Calling COI is a character defamation." - well, no. COI does not have anything in common with character. The fact is that you are taking part in a litigation, and being in the COI, you are not supposed to make any changes to the related Wikipedia texts. Per Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia, you are not supposed to edit the article at all, which you are still continuing to do. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Requesting edit on POV-Check[edit]

The check that Theochino asks for here has been performed above with these results:

  • The claim that "Bitcoin is the first Virtual Commodity ever created." is WP:OR, not supported by reliable sources. This has been found out in the discussion, and there is only one editor, Theochino, ignoring this result.
  • Theochino is taking a part in a litigation related to this specific subject, and, as such, he has a conflict of interest and is not supposed to edit the article at all.

These findings are sufficient to refuse to add the requested POV-check tag again. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done It seems that you have already removed the tag yourself. Please note that the edit request template is to be used only by editors with a conflict of interest. If Theochino has a conflict of interest, then he should be requesting edits on the talk page and not editing the article per WP:COI guidelines. st170etalk 23:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
St170e Here is the source from Bloomberg that Ladislav Mecir : or refusing to consider .... I am not a daily wikeditor so I don't know all the little rules that have creepted up over the years but either Ladislav Mecir but he had been keen on keeping that info out and now is claiming that my lawsuit is a WP:COI breach. The writing of the lawsuit is what is what made me realize that Wikipedia entry is 100% wrong and that it need correction. Since he called a COI on me, I am asking the

so someone from outside can see the facts at hand and issue a

on the article.

Hi there. The request edit template is not for content disputes of any kind, it is present in order to allow people with COI in the subject area to improve the articles, which requires a neutral editor to view and submit the changes. In case of arguments, prior consensus should be present before any proposed changes are submitted to the requested edits section. Edit request declined per no consensus. Oh, and make sure to sign your post by typing four of these ~ after any talkpage comment. Regards, VB00 (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
VB00, so what is the process to correct this information ? I wrote my piece here trying to reach consensus with and I left a long explanation here: What tags from do you suggest I use to trigger a complete independent review of the material since the content presented is inaccurate ? Theochino (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
VB00 Found my own answer : ... I'll give Ladislav Mecir a few days to review and digest my long ass explanation then I'll following the Dispute Resolution stuff. Theochino (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Just a tip - adding a cleanup template will not "trigger an independent review of the material" in any near future, because the NPOV Dispute Category still has stuff from December 2010... Well that's actually not so bad, considering that it does not rely on anyone "waiting for an answer" (at edit requests, some people have had to wait a year before receiving a reviewer reply...). Regards, VB00 (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

A superfluous, irrelevant and dubious citation[edit]

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

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

The problem with the citation[6] is that:

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

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


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

Currency status[edit]

This is a very good article but it is unclear on the monetary status of bitcoin. Two questions are unanswered:

1. Who controls money supply? The article does not explicitly spell out how the supply of bitcoin is restricted, but there is an indirect description in the form of the "Mining" section. It says that bitcoin is, essentially, created through the virtual equivalent of gold mining. But who owns the bitcoin-supply algorithm? Can anyone create their own algorithm and thereby new supply? This question is not answered in the article.

2. Does bitcoin have intrinsic value? For a commodity to become money, it cannot have any intrinsic value. A pack of cigarettes is not money because it has value of its own. Money can only be a carrier of value. I glean from this article that bitcoin has no intrinsic value, but there is room for clarification here in order to further explain the monetary status of bitcoin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Re "The article does not explicitly spell out how the supply of bitcoin is restricted" - This is explicitly mentioned in the "Money supply" section, where it is stated that the rules specify how the supply grows. (Currently by 12.5 bitcoins when a new block is created, until next halving, ...)
Re "But who owns the bitcoin-supply algorithm?" - the algorithm is open source (its behaviour is described in the article) and everyone, including yourself can use it.
Re "Can anyone create their own algorithm and thereby new supply?" - Everyone, including yourself can create any algorithm they like, but unless it is accepted by bitcoin users, it cannot increase the supply of bitcoins.
Re "Does bitcoin have intrinsic value?" - There are various interpretations this question can have:
  • For coins made of precious metal, the "intrinsinc value" means the value of the metal from which the coin is made. For bitcoin, this interpretation does not make sense, since, in case of bitcoin, the "coins" are unspent outputs of transactions registered in the blockchain, not made of any metal.
  • When interpreted in the sense described by the intrinsic theory of value, the question is also obscure, since the intrinsic theory of value is heterodox, known to be inferior to the currently standard subjective theory of value. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
It clearly states it is limited to 21,000,000 bitcoins or 2,100,000,000,000,000 Satoshi. (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

bitcoin, not Bitcoin[edit]

Please follow the guidelines you clearly spell out ... that you are following the "latter" style of always lowercasing. (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)