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


  • 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200 url's have been archived

Regards to the Bitcoin Article[edit]

Oh great. Now I have to renominate it again for the 3rd time. (GA1 failed, GA2 passed, 6 months later article got delisted) But first, I think there is nothing wrong, but if there is something wrong please do tell me. I mean, I don't see any edit warring going on. BUT, there is a content dispute. Can someone PLEASE tell me what is going on? Yoshi24517Chat Online 19:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The reason it was demoted was that GA2 wasn't a proper review, and people thought there was significant room for improvement. To my knowledge the only content dispute currently ongoing is the RfC further up on the page. Hope this helps explain things. Brustopher (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. That helps. Yoshi24517Chat Online 18:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit #681621567[edit]

The edit #681621567 replaced the original word "Conversely", with the word "However". Fleetham justified the edit as "Incorrect use of term". In my opinion (it was not me who introduced the word to the text), the word "Conversely" was appropriate and shall be kept. On the other hand, the word "However" (however well-liked by Fleetham) does not look appropriate, not communicating the same information to the reader. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC) My check in various dictionaries revealed that it is, indeed, possible to use the word "conversely" in such a situation, which makes Fleetham's justification invalid. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree Ladislav Mecir. Conversely is actually more neutral than However. If such a conjunction is needed Id prefer conversely. However is always at risk to smell of WP:SYNTH see WP:OPED.--Wuerzele (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Wuerzele, in this specific case I have to disagree. Do not forget, please, that the situation in the USA was described in the WSJ as a discussion related to criminal misuse, but the result of the discussion in the parliament turned out to be that the officials expressed their common opinion that bitcoin offers legitimate financial services. That is confirmed by the WSJ article, so there is no WP:SYNTH involved. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Ladislav i dont understand why you posted what you did, as you appear to have changed your mind. (maybe cross it out? I actually was more concerned with the "Officials state..." weasly part. that is really WP: Synth, if it's contained only in one source, and the sentence goes on stringing a series of different refs. whatever the case, I read the lede, and found it overall good, except for the language in the last sentences, which clearly differed. All in all this is a tempest in a tea pot and I will recuse myself from further comments in that matter. --Wuerzele (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit war in the last paragraph of the lead section[edit]

Wuerzele, please take this also as a response to the question in the previous section. The last wording of the paragraph) that was stable for some time looked as follows:

The use of bitcoin by criminals has attracted the attention of financial regulators, legislative bodies, law enforcement, and media. Criminal activities are primarily centered around black markets and theft, though officials in countries such as the United States also recognize that bitcoin can provide legitimate financial services.

While only one source (the WSJ) was used to confirm the last sentence, plenty of other sources were available. I mention this in reaction to "it's contained only in one source", which is rather inaccurate when examined properly. Now, new editors came and added a bunch of countries, which, according to your opinion, introduced some inconsistencies. For example, you noted that some of the countries listed, like the Isle of Man or Jersey, may not be countries. Also, you disliked the fact that the "Officials" word was used. I do not think it is reasonable to mention original research just because the editors added new informations to the existing text, but that may be a subject to discussion, which is what I want to start here. For example, to me, the word "officials" did not cease to be appropriate just because new informations and sources were added to a confirmed (by a respectable quantity of reliable sources) statement. To illustrate why I think that the "officials" word may be appropriate even when other countries are added to the statement, let me mention the case of the United Kingdom. The actual source mentions prime minister David Cameron, but there are other sources mentioning George Osborne, e.g. Yet another issue I am having with the text is the WP:OR text added by Fleetham as the last sentence. Summing up, I revert the paragraph to the status quo, until we find a better and consensual wording in this discussion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. My primary concern with the "OR" text was to make it clear that bitcoin didn't attract attention from law enforcement in some countries while in others it was praised as a legitimate financial thingy. Prior, the text could be interpreted as there being pro- and anti-bitcoin countries, but your revert makes it clear that it's reviled and embraced simultaneously in the same countries.. Fleetham (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Cryptocurrency task force Invitation to all[edit]

-- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)