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 (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200 url's have been archived

Eve, Alice & Bob (AKA the usage of unannounced and un-sandboxed cross-section narrative devices to explain important concepts)[edit]

Is this OK to do? The idea of using made-up people to explain concepts is time-proven, but not typically part of encyclopedic verbiage, and is not really introduced or perhaps more-concerningly clearly housed in some sort of sandbox within the article. It just starts in one section, unannounced, runs for a bit, then goes away. I'll leave it to those more versed in wikipedia governance to sort this out, but wanted to flag.

Ruling on BitCoin "Not being Money"[edit]

Saw this article today from the conclusion of the trial in Miami relating to BitCoin, and whether or not the Florida state judicial system recognizes the currency as actual money. An interesting and relevant decision, just wasn't necessarily sure where the info might fit within the article here as it stands. Let me know what you guys think. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Comatmebro, such findings and discussion fit best to the "Classification" section. Note also that there is an older federal case coming to a different conclusion, and that the orthography of bitcoin is described in the "Etymology and orthography" section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Understood - seems a bit contentious to add this early on so I will leave it out. Thank you for your feedback! Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The fifth paragraph of the lead section shall be deleted[edit]

Here is why:

  • Per WP:MOS, "...newly added information does not automatically always qualify as important enough for the lead. Information newly added to the article should preferably be placed in the most appropriate section or sections."
  • The cited source explicitly states that the newly mentioned theft was not as important as the Mt. Gox theft in 2014.
  • The newly mentioned theft, while it may be notable enough for news, is not important enough for the lead section of the article, because the article subject is bitcoin, not theft.
  • The text of the fifth paragraph violates the copyright of the cited source.
  • The text of the fifth paragraph is contradicting the fourth paragraph, where theft is mentioned, stating that "theft ... has also been an issue for bitcoin users", which makes no sense in the context. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)