Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Request to update the latest release

The latest release of the Bitcoin Core software is no longer 0.17.1, it is now 0.18.0 which was released on 2 May 2019. Please, change the latest release and it's date in the info box to 0.18.0 / 2 May 2019.

--Victorsueca (talk) 10:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Enivid (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 May 2019

Under the Financial Institutions section:

In 2018 JP Morgan indicated its interest and investments in blockchain technology and in 2019 the bank launched its own cryptocurrencyhttps://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/15/investing/jpmorgan-bitcoin-crypto-jamie-dimon/index.html. The JPM Coin, as it is called, is a stablecoin that is aiming to compete with Bitcoin. The launch marked a new area in cryptocurrency, as the largest U.S. bank now is now running its own cryptocurrency https://www.technologyreview.com/f/612961/jpmorgan-is-launching-its-own-cryptocurrency-but-its-very-different-from-bitcoin/. This was following several negative statements from the banks CEO Jamie Dimon about Bitcoin. Satoshibundaberg (talk) 08:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: JPM Coin is not relevant enough to Bitcoin to be mentioned in this article. Besides being a competing cryptocurrency, it is not related to Bitcoin in any way. You may want to contribute to the JPM Coin and List of cryptocurrencies articles, instead. — Newslinger talk 04:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Person name Craig Wright say he is Satoshi Nakamoto

Please add person name Craig Wright say he is Satoshi Nakamoto and try register copyright for original Bitcoin whitepaper.
Source from TechDirt (2019.05.24)
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190521/18063742256/copyright-office-weighs-after-wannabe-satoshi-craig-wright-registers-copyright-original-bitcoin-paper.shtml?threaded=false#c34

and Yahoo
https://news.yahoo.com/self-proclaimed-satoshi-craig-wright-140200611.html?soc_src=hl-viewer&soc_trk=tw

I can't edit this page because it is locked. Trinhhoa (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

That information doesn't belong to the Bitcoin article. It is already mentioned in the Satoshi Nakamoto article and the Craig Wright articles. As a general note, see the official response of the US copyright office - anyone can claim copyright, it isn't verified "officially". That information is also reflected in the two articles mentioned in my response. --Molochmeditates (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

The current disambiguation header reads:

{{Hatnote|"₿" redirects here. It is not to be confused with "฿" for Thai baht.

It should say:

"₿" redirects here. It is not to be confused with "฿" for Thai baht.

Can someone fix the "hatnote" portion? 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:49C:17A9:EF40:3B0D (talk) 07:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Done - a recent edit damaged the hatnote template. Fixed now, thank you for pointing this out. GermanJoe (talk) 07:38, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

edit request

include "The Trust Machine" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKwqNgG-Sv4) to list of films — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:4E18:4B03:204D:C20C:37DF:42A4 (talk) 13:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Why? It is not from a reputable media outlet. Just some personal channel, a self-published source. Retimuko (talk) 17:45, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 August 2019

UK Tax In the UK, individuals are liable to pay Income Tax and National Insurance contributions when they receive crytpoassets and Capital Gains Tax when they dispose of them. There are a number of instances in which cryptoassets can be taxable including selling, exchanging, and giving away. Recent websites and apps have become available for individuals to generate their own tax returns for crypotassets. <link redacted> Hannahbitcoin (talk) 13:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia generally doesn't include companies and websites, that haven't been covered in reliable, non-promotional sources first. Thank you for providing the UK gov source though. Maybe information from this source could be used somewhere in the article (although secondary sources are usually preferred). I'll leave this second point up to other editors to decide for future edits. GermanJoe (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

References

'Speculative bubble' in lead section?

The article has an entire subection devoted to characterizations of Bitcoin as a speculative bubble by a bunch of noted economists. Is there a good reason not to state this in the lead section? The lead exists to "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". This seems like both an important point and a prominent controversy to me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

It is currently summarized in the lede, with the lede saying: "Some noted economists, including several Nobel laureates, have criticized it as purely speculative." Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure that quite conveys the nature of the criticism. A bubble is a specific phenomenon with implications of unsustainability, unlike speculation in general. if that many respected economists are calling Bitcoin a bubble, then we shouldn't be coy about saying so. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you proposing to add the word bubble after the word speculative? Or are you proposing to add additional sentence(s)? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I think quoting them and noting the direct comparison to the tulip bubble is appropriate, given one editor already tried to whitewash the comparison on the basis that the quoted source didn't literally say the words "speculative bubble", just talked about speculative bubbles. I see the reference link has also been removed - David Gerard (talk) 07:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I removed a quote from the lede here [1]. I felt getting into quotes in the lede was too much detail and this should be explored in the body. Bubbles and the opinions of various pundits have whole sections after all, in fact Cryptocurrency bubble has a whole article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, there's a whole section on the speculative bubble characterization. The main point(s) of that section should be summarized in the lead per WP:WEIGHT and MOS:LEAD. I propose we change the sentence: Some noted economists, including several Nobel laureates, have criticized it as purely speculative to: Some noted economists, including several Nobel laureates, have characterized it as a speculative bubble (criticized already appears in the first sentence of the third paragraph). Is there a reason this would be an inappropriate summary of the relevant contents? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we use bold in the article? Or are you just adding for emphasis here on the talk page? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

For emphasis, showing the exact words I suggest changing. Do you have an opinion on the proposal? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not opposed to the proposed wording. Use of bold in the article is not ok (I am still unclear if you are proposing bold in the article or not). Also better not to remove cited content, I think this 4 nobel content was discussed in the past on this talk page. There is also no need for additional summation, the sentence in the past also did a fine job of summarizing that there are notable people who state that bitcoin is in a bubble (its a pretty simple statement). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

To editor David Gerard: I removed the citation here, since it isn't just the four economists quoted in that one article who have spoken of a speculative bubble. I wanted to focus on summarizing the relevant section as a whole. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

POV forking?

In fact, the Bitcoin-as-bubble section could be greatly expanded, given that Cryptocurrency bubble contains more detailed criticism of Bitcoin than the Bitcoin article itself. As it currently exists, it's a WP:POVFORK for information that belongs here. I would suggest basically swapping the Bitcoin-as-bubble content between the two articles. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Just expand over at the Cryptocurrency bubble and link to it from Bitcoin. You can reduce the section content on this article. This bitcoin article is already too large and this article would only need 'why bitcoin is in a bubble independent of cryptocurrency as a whole' (if there are sources that explore that subject). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:42, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

That seems rather arbitrary. If Bitcoin is described as a bubble specifically, then the bulk of that content belongs in this article per WP:NPOVFACT, not a general cryptocurrency-bubble article. If you want to create a valid WP:SPINOFF article just about Bitcoin-as-a-bubble, that's different; however, it would raise definite suspicions of POV forking.

A better place for the expanded content might be Economics of bitcoin, which would entail moving the Bitcoin-as-bubble content of this article to the § Economics section. That would improve the WP:STRUCTURE of this page as well. What do others think? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

My understanding is that this article covers the thing that is bitcoin (the software project), rather than the opinions of those of bitcoin (there must be many). I am only opposed to a large section in an already large article that gives excessive weight to either the promoters or the detractors of bitcoin (or both to maintain WP:WEIGHT). But maybe it would work fine as you point out to move it to economics of bitcoin, as that is likely a smaller article. Maybe others will comment as well. I am not suggesting to create a POV fork, we can always summarize the other article on the this article as well. We create other articles so the issue can be covered in greater depth. Right now the section looks a bit silly of a lot of people listed in bluelinks and the word bubble again and again (sometimes in quotes). There must be more than just x person says it is a bubble, and that could be covered in greater detail on sub-article (for example economics as you point out, or also the general cryptocurrency bubble article). Both choices would be fine, I think more in depth examination would be fine from my viewpoint. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

That's not what giving due weight means. Due weight means representing all significant viewpoints published in reliable sources. There must be many opinions about Bitcoin indeed; what of it? We're citing noted economists, central bankers, academics, and so on, not random bloggers or celebrities. In what way is that excessive weight?

WP:NPOV doesn't mean arbitrarily segregating facts and opinions in separate articles. Would you favor editing The English Patient (film) to only cover the thing that is The English Patient, i.e. the film project, rather than reception of the film, opinions of film critics, awards, etc.?

If there are WP:SIZE concerns, I see a lot of text that could be condensed and/or spun off. Why not work to trim the "History" section (a lot of which is WP:RAWDATA about price fluctuations), or "Legal status, tax and regulation", or create a spinoff article at Bitcoin mining, for instance? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Where there is a spinoff article we should seek to maintain only a summary in the main article. Indeed there is too much price info without context.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Preserve

I might reduce a bit, assuming this content has already been moved over to Economics of Bitcoin, but in case it hasn't will put it here below

Bitcoin, along with other cryptocurrencies, has been described as an economic bubble by at least eight Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences laureates, including Robert Shiller, Joseph Stiglitz, and Richard Thaler. Noted Keynesian economist Paul Krugman has described bitcoin as "a bubble wrapped in techno-mysticism inside a cocoon of libertarian ideology", professor Nouriel Roubini of New York University has called bitcoin the "mother of all bubbles", and University of Chicago economist James Heckman has compared it to the 17th-century tulip mania. Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has also described bitcoin as a "bubble"; the investors Warren Buffett and George Soros have respectively characterized it as a "mirage" and a "bubble"; while the business executives Jack Ma and Jamie Dimon have called it a "bubble" and a "fraud", respectively. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

References

reserve currency

@Ladislav Mecir: how/where do you suggest to handle this [2]? In Bitcoin article or at Economics of Bitcoin. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that it belongs to the "Financial institutions" section. The source does not discuss whether bitcoin is a "reserve currency", though. It rather mentions that there is a question whether bitcoin can be used in reseves of a particular central bank. In general, central banks are not obliged to hold their reserves in currencies. Central banks can also hold securities or gold. Whether the specific central bank can also hold bitcoin in its reserves may depend on the legislative situation in the specific country and on the technical ability of the central bank to handle bitcoin in its reserves. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:55, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, added it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 September 2019

There are frequent helpful charts from Blockchain.info throughout the article for liquidity, mining, etc; however, they end at 2017. Can these be updated to extend to the current day? Also, I think there could be more coverage of the exchange and trading ecosystems. You could cover data providers and trading tools like Cryptowat.ch in a section. 2405:9800:B910:30E1:1DEC:5FB2:51AF:C94A (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". — xaosflux ^Talk 13:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Update plots

Does anyone have access to non-copyrighted plots or data to update the current ones (from 2-3 years ago)? Saturnalia0 (talk) 03:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I can update the plots. The plots currently end in 2016. In 2017, there were two bitcoin splits. As far as the handling of these events in plots is concerned, the splits were analogical to stock splits. For stock splits or dividends, the Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) recommends to use split-adjusted prices in plots. See also this description of adjustments made to prices in cases such as cash dividends, stock dividends, stock splits, reverse stock splits, spinoffs, mergers, acquisitions or buybacks. Another option (not recommended by CRSP) is to disregard the splits in plots. Is there a consensus to use split-adjusted prices in plots? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I am confused by the stock split analogy. Are you saying that the price of old bitcoin is now the price of bitcoin + BSV + BCH + BTG, etc? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:09, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

"Are you saying that the price of old bitcoin is now the price of bitcoin + BSV + BCH + BTG, etc?" - No. That is not the approach recommended by CRSP. In case you are interested, I can give you examples of calculations to show where the differences are. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

I read the blog link you cited above about a spinoff. It appears to be some confusion connecting a corporate spinoff to bitcoin. I haven't seen any RS state that BCH took value from BTC or that BSV took value from BCH. I suppose there might be plenty of speculation on it, and it is interesting OR, but unless we have a preponderance of the sources we would not want to include such calculations wikivoice (which charts by definition would do). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

"I haven't seen any RS state that BCH took value from BTC or that BSV took value from BCH." - and rightly so! None of that makes sense. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

"I read the blog link you cited above about a spinoff. It appears to be some confusion connecting a corporate spinoff to bitcoin." - where did I say I connect corporate spinoff to bitcoin? You are really confused, as it looks. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

You said above that a blockchain split was similar to a stock split. Can you please explain this. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

"You said above that a blockchain split was similar to a stock split." - Not really. As far as the blockchain splits are considered, the most commonly encountered blockchain splits are accidental. Accidental splits, while most common, are temporary in nature. They are resolved in a short period of time, leading to just one version of history being kept, while the other versions are abandoned. While the most common blockchain splits are temporary, there are also blockchain splits that are permanent in nature. Due to the permanent nature, such blockchain splits lead to cryptocurrency splits. Only the cryptocurrency splits are similar to stock splits. The similarities are:

• Cryptocurrency splits and stock splits have the word "split" in their name in common.
• The splits are discontinuous changes in ownership: the ownership of one asset is transformed to the ownership of two or more assets.
• There is a split date (for dividends, it is called the "ex" date), at which the ownership is transformed.
• To calculate the realistic asset return, the prices of the asset should be adjusted for the change in ownership. Without the adjustment, the calculated returns ignore the change, which negatively impacts the result. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

My take is that split-adjusted prices be used in the plots, but it be clearly indicated. Tale.Spin (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Are we talking about updating the price charts? Then I don't think any adjustments should be applied - the price of BTC is determined on exchanges. The price charts should be based on price history from a specific exchange or an average of several exchanges. Now, if we are talking about plotting Bitcoin ROI, then some adjustments are due. Enivid (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Enivid. While the wish to not apply any adjustments to price charts looks logical, the fact is that the price chart in the article is not a pure price chart. It actually is a price and volatility chart. And volatility is calculated as the standard deviation of logarithmic returns of the investment. Taking that into account, do you still think that the price should not be adjusted? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:06, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The price is the amount of money that can be paid to buy something. Or the amount of money something can be sold for. If we apply split adjustments to it, it will no longer be informative as the chart will no longer convey the information about what price was BTC traded at on particular date. The volatility can be calculated based on price solely - it isn't necessary to calculate ROI volatility. However, if you feel like it, you can create some ROI charts too of course, but it seems to be a very difficult task (considering the splits), which might fall into the scope of WP:OR. Enivid (talk) 16:42, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Envid, price adjusted splits sounds like OR to me. I havent seen split adjusted pricing covered in RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Enivid, just curious. You wrote that "The volatility can be calculated based on price solely - it isn't necessary to calculate ROI volatility." - Let me remind you that volatility is defined as the standard deviation of logarithmic returns. Naturally, when using this definition to calculate volatility, it is necessary to calculate logarithmic returns first. Reading your comment, it seems to me that you prefer some other, fringe definition of volatility, don't you? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

If you are calculating volatility of price rather than returns, you use price data points rather than returns: "Volatility is calculated as the standard deviation of the price ratio, ln(Pt/Pt-1), that is, the standard deviation of the percentage changes in price over a given period." (NBER article on commodity price volatility). Enivid (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh yes, that is the correct definition, except for the fact that the logarithm you mention is not called "price ratio". It is called the logarithmic return, continuously compounded return or force of interest. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

You continue to confuse price and return. I have nothing more to add to this discussion since my second comment on October 7. Enivid (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, no. You simply ignore the fact that the same formula is using different names. Also note that the article you cite as a source is specific to commodities, for which no splits can be expected. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:22, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

According to the above discussion, it appears best to have more plots: a plot displaying just the raw prices unadjusted for splits, and a separate plot displaying logarithmic returns versus volatility. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Can a raw volatility chart be done? The "bitcoin is too volatile argument is often read in the media," thus it would be interesting to see if that has changed over time. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by "raw volatility chart?". Do you mean a separate chart displaying only the volatility? Otherwise, volatility is always calculated, i.e. not "raw". A parameter adjustable when calculating volatility, is the period for which the volatility is calculated. Periods often used are 10 days, 30 days or 90 days. I do not think that it makes sense to use a short period, since that would make the volatility plot very wobbly. That is problematic when trying to identify any trend. I guess that it may make sense to use 1 year period for calculation. Taking into account that return rate is often calculated as annual, that is also best compared with annual volatility. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I dont know how to do such a plot and I dont know much about how volatility is calculated. But I agree that your suggestion of using longer time frames to show mult year trends would be most useful. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

source

Nice source from Fortune covering bitcoin mining [3] Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The interview-based details should be taken with a grain of salt though, as a founder's PR statements about his own business are rarely unbiased. GermanJoe (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Another nice source [4] from Vanity Fair about a bitcoin equipment theft and related mining in Iceland. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit request: "Carbon Emissions" as new subsection within the chapter "Criticism"

Closely related to Bitcoin's energy consumption are the resulting carbon emissions, which cause increased concerns about Bitcoin’s environmental impact. The difficulty of translating the energy consumption into carbon emissions lies in the decentralized nature of Bitcoin impeding the localization of miners to examine the electricity mix used. The results of recent studies analyzing Bitcoin's carbon footprint vary. A study published in Nature Climate Change in 2018 claims that Bitcoin “could alone produce enough CO2 emissions to push warming above 2 °C within less than three decades.” However, this analysis is subject to strong criticism as the underlying scenarios are considered as inadequate, leading to overestimations. According to a recent study, published in Joule in 2019, Bitcoin's energy consumption amounts to almost 46 TWh resulting in a carbon footprint of 23 MtCO2 which is comparable to the level of emissions of countries as Jordan and Sri Lanka or Kansas City. These estimates are supported by the International Energy Agency. FirstMover (talk) 09:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Interesting content. Other's thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me, peer-reviewed academic sources too. I don't know of RSes making a countervailing case, most sources claiming this isn't a problem of note are blog posts and bitcoin think tank pieces - David Gerard (talk) 11:36, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@FirstMover: I added the content you suggested. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2020 and 4 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hennock,l.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Remove obsolete forecast

In the article, there is a claim

During their time as bitcoin developers, Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn warned that bubbles may occur.

This claim is a forecast expressing possibility and uncertainty about the future development - "bubbles may occur", that is already obsolete (the persons cited have not been bitcoin developers for about 5 years). For these reasons, and per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL it should be removed. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I like the text and suggest to keep it, as it refers to two developers that were historically significant in the history of bitcoin. Andresen was the person who Satoshi gave the keys to and the Hearn I recall was also early and quit bitcoin in a huff. Maybe by adding the years they made these forecasts it makes it clear this is past tense, and underlines the historical value. I also the text is not a crystal ball violation as it documents that these two notable people made these statements, and it doesnt say these things will occur in the future in wikivoice. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:58, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

"Andresen was the person who Satoshi gave the keys to" - yes, that is a significant encyclopedic information. It seems that you forgot that this information is contained in the "History" section. As far as economic bubbles are concerned, Andresen is not an expert, and his vague and obsolete prediction is not encyclopedic. The same reservation applies to Hearn: He deserves mentioning in the "History" section as a former notable bitcoin developer, but I object against mentioning him as a notable forecaster, since the vague and obsolete forecast he made is outside of his area of expertise, so there is no need to not respect the WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL policy in this case. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:42, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Well I suppose we disagree on this. Maybe someone else will chime in. As you note, both are notable historical figures, and their historical comments on the their opinion of bitcoin to me is kosher. There are plenty of other statements (or at least have been in the past) or various economists that state "bitcoin will go to zero" and I recall these have been in the article as well. Are they still there? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Your statement: 'There are plenty of other statements (or at least have been in the past) or various economists that state "bitcoin will go to zero"' indicates that you tend to use either the present or past wording of the article as a source for what should be present in the article. That, however, is discouraged by WP:CIRCULAR. Moreover, there are no such claims in the article now. Even if they were present in the article, economists can be recognized as experts on economic bubbles, which means that their forecasts may be acceptable per WP:CRYSTALBALL. On the other hand, the developers are not experts on economic bubbles, which makes their predictions unacceptable per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I dont see anything in NOTRS about present or past tense. I suppose we are debating if these two (who are very early bitcoin experts) were qualified to comment on bubbles, or if only so-called economists are qualified to comment on bubbles. I suspect at the time these two were commenting very few economists were even aware of bitcoin. Thus the historical relevance. Wikipedia is about documenting history (or at least a large part of it) and bitcoins early history seems quite important and I dont see much of a point of taking it out, unless there is a clear sourcing violation, policy violation, or a matter of redundancy...and I dont see any of those. If we want to clean out the bubble chatter a bit, we could clean out some of the 'bubble' contents by people like Jack Ma, who is neither a bitcoin expert, nor an economist.... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

In relation to the above note, I do agree that we should remove Jack Ma's citation, since there is no proof that he is an expert on the subject of economic bubbles, indeed. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I have removed it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

It is of note that the source cites Andresen as having said "I predict there will be between one and five Bitcoin bubbles (price will double or more and then crash back down below the starting price) in the next four years." Curiously, I am not aware of any such situation, i.e. the case when the price doubled or increased even more and then fell back below the starting point. The most problematic aspect of it is, that Andresen's definition of a bubble is not the standard definition of an economic bubble known from the reliable sources. Also note that Andresen's prediction was specific in predicting the behaviour of price in the four years following his prediction. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

As opposed to Andresen, Hearn is cited by as having said that "Sudden price movements attract the attention of the media, which writes about it, and that then causes more people to decide to get involved so the price goes up, so more people start speculating... This accelerates until it turns into a pure speculative bubble which then pops, leaving the price down from the peak but up from where it started," which is what actually was observed. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree, Andresen's quote is useless. Hearn's quote by itself (without Andresen) is not sufficient to summarize. I have removed the sentence. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2020 and 4 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hennock,l.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

vanity fair source

Vanity fair has said here [5]:

Bitcoin would enable more than two billion people who lacked access to banks to send and receive payment; it would offer stability to citizens of countries with chaotic currencies; it would eliminate all banking fees.

Ladislav Mecir & David Gerard (and others), Shall we use some of this in wikivoice in this article? Or in quotes? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Nontechnical popularising source, repeating a common claim by proponents, with zero detail ... I'm not convinced that's enough to state it as an established fact - David Gerard (talk) 09:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

your right, its a pretty huge number. didnt notice it was billion(s). Kinda in the face of common sense. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Could somebody with editing permission ...

...please put double square brackets around ‘ bitcoin network’ in the first para so that readers can more easily find it?

Many thanks! ElectricFeet ElectricFeet (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Done. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Lightning Network

Ladislav Mecir you quickly reverted my add of Lightning Network to the article here [6]. I was wondering why this article has no mention of the Lightning Network in the article, have you previously removed it as well? Please explain your removal of the content here. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I sort of wondered - it's not technically part of Bitcoin ... perhaps add to the "Scalability" section "Various solutions are posited, notably the Lightning Network." or something like that? (assuming there's mainstream sources to back that "notably") - David Gerard (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

As David Gerard mentions, it is not technically part of bitcoin design, since it is a layer 2 system. I also agree that, if it should be mentioned somewhere, there should be a special section for layer 2 solutions. Perhaps there are more layer 2 alternatives than just the Lightning Network. Also, I found some warnings that the users can lose their bitcoins because it is not for regular use yet. Other than that, if we want to mention that the Lightning Network is a notable scaling solution, we should make sure the notability is established by some sources. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

It has an entire article, we dont need to re-assess lightnings notability here on this talk page and form some local consensus. Added some RS here Talk:Lightning_Network#additional_RS, seems the lightning article was light on RS. One of those might be suitable for this article as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

"It has an entire article, we dont need to re-assess lightnings notability here on this talk page and form some local consensus." - if you want to insert unsourced claims here based on such a poor argument, rest assured that it is not compatible with Wikipedia policies. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I thought the text I added was uncontroversial and summarized. What part of the text do you object to specifically? I am ok with David's proposed text above as well. Seems this article could do with a sub-section of maybe a few sentences on the subject. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir:, you keep invoking the rules, pretending that they support whatever you are proposing, pretending the current abysmal sources prove that everything should be nuked. Of course, since you spend more time watching these pages than anybody else, you get your way. How can it be that you claim to be interested in digital currencies, but you somehow have managed to miss the mainstream coverage of Lightning for months? How can it be that you're working on a project concerned with spreading human knowledge, but in reality you end up deleting valid (yes, unsourced!) information instead of just adding the proper sources, for example using all those books on cryptocurrency on your bookshelf? Get your priorities straight.

I found some warnings that the users can lose their bitcoins because it is not for regular use yet

How does this matter, I thought you didn't care about unreliable sources?

Perhaps there are more layer 2 alternatives than just the Lightning Network

I think this is your convoluted way of saying we should delete Lightning because we don't have articles on the other PCNs?

If we want to mention that the Lightning Network is a notable scaling solution, we should make sure the notability is established by some sources

I thought everything had to be established by sources, why are you singling out LN? --Ysangkok (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Ysangkok:"I think this is your convoluted way of saying we should delete Lightning because we don't have articles on the other PCNs?" - That is a red herring fallacy. In this case, I mentioned that the layer 2 systems, whatever they are, i.e. not just the Lightnig Network, can be mentioned in a section devoted to layer 2 systems. You probably overlooked that I and David Gerard were in agreement that any layer 2 system is a separate system, not identical with the fundamental blockchain design.

Regarding your claim that "everything had to be established by sources" - yes, agreed. Why should there be any exceptions for the Lightning Network? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 January 2020

Just a small capitalization edit: please change "(over 150 GB As of January 2018)" in the first bullet in Wallets to "(over 150 GB as of January 2018)" Thank you! Fcs (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Mathematical feasibility of discovery of private key by computation

but the reverse, computing the private key of a given bitcoin address, is, in theory, mathematically unfeasible.

While this transform is, in theory, computationally impossible,here may be defects in the algorithm which makes a brut force attacks possible by a means which is not now known. Also, there may be backdoors. It is not technically accurate as stated without the edit. -- Bill Huston ^(talk) 01:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is not based on reliable sources (consult WP:OR). The sources claim that the reverse is practically (i.e. neither "in theory" nor "mathematically" ) unfeasible. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Forbes

@Ladislav Mecir: added some content today from a forbes staff writer source. Please have a look. If you could also find something about the price crash to the $3000 range in March it would be great to add that too. Maybe more examination of the correlation would be great. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Here is a stack of links from reliable sources, with changing views about causality with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic.

11jan Overview (Corona not stated) (by Euromoney)

Corona boosts BTC (by The Independent)

CCN is NOT a reliable source, but also shows how some attribute the BTC increase to Corona

24feb Corona boosts BTC (by Euromoney)

26feb Corona reduces BTC by Yahoo Editor-at-Large

27feb Corona reduces BTC FinTech Magazine

9march Corona reduces BTC Independent

Corona reduces BTC Forbes

12march. The largest daily drop, 37% from $7910 to $4970 happened a few days after the 2020 Russia–Saudi Arabia oil price war started, dropping the oil price from $40 to $30 (longer drop seems to be from $50 to $20)

13march Trading volume 74 billion at $5k. Volume is usually 10-$40 billion per 24 hours

Stock market reduces BTC Newsweek

Stock market reduces BTC CNBC

Corona reduces BTC Independent

Corona reduces BTC

15march Corona reduces BTC Forbes

https://finance.yahoo.com/chart/BTC-USD?p=BTC-USD (the March 2020 drop was to $5,000 , not $3,000 , but maybe you mean $3,236 in December 2018 ? Btw, I have no financial interest in cryptocurrency) TGCP (talk) 12:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: - unfortunately, your citation of the source was extremely inexact. Just to mention a few misunderstandings:

• It is not true that the 285,000 bitcoins changing owners were "volatility". They were a part of the trading volume on the specific day contributing to the (in article unspecified, which raises my doubts about its informative value) volatility.
• Similarly, you misunderstood what the Pearson correlation coefficient is. The coefficient is a number that measures the linear correlation between two variables (at this time, between bitcoin and the S&P 500). Thus saying that the Pearson correlation coefficient of bitcoin was similar to that of S&P 500 is nonsense – in this case, there is only one Pearson correlation coefficient, the one between bitcoin and S&P 500, which, according to the cited source, indicates that there is some correlation between the two. Unfortunately, such an information is heavily nonencyclopedic, unless we state what is the value of the coefficient, indicating the correlation. For example, if the value of the Pearson correlation coefficient is 0, there is effectively no linear correlation, if the value is -1, there is total negative linear correlation and if the value is 1, there is total positive linear correlation. (Once again, since the source does not specify the value, it looks extremely uninformative in this sense.) Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Your interpretation is extreme, and relies unduly on the poster's technical misunderstandings rather than discussing the content of the source. The correlation is notable in itself (and obvious when you compare the charts), it does not need a quantification. However, the quantification does increase the notability. This diagram indicates that there is usually no correlation (ρ is around zero) between S&P500 and BTC (in itself notable, but difficult to reference), but the March 12 similarity (ρ=0.52) is unusually high, as supported by the many sources shown here. I suggest saving this page to your computer for future reference. This chart on that page indicates an even higher correlation with the London Stock Exchange, however that is not specified or quantified. TGCP (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Ladislav & TGCP, I appreciate both your feedback and that is the reason I wanted to create this discussion. Please feel free to improve it. I will take a crack at it again with the other sources above tomorrow. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Re "Your interpretation is extreme, and relies unduly on the poster's technical misunderstandings rather than discussing the content of the source." – that is false. I discussed the contents of the source saying that the cited source discussed the volatility without mentioning its value, i.e. without saying what is the volatility in the specific time period. I also said that the source mentioned the Pearson correlation coefficient failing to mention its value. The correlation coefficient can be calculated for any pair of variables. What is important when the goal is to inform the reader, is to inform what the value of the coefficient is, not that it has been calculated.

Re "The correlation is notable in itself (and obvious when you compare the charts)" – that is false, again. There are no charts in the cited source.

Re "it does not need a quantification" – I am pretty sure that without the quantification, the claim that a correlation coefficient has been calculated is void.

Re "This diagram indicates that there is usually no correlation (ρ is around zero) between S&P500 and BTC (in itself notable, but difficult to reference), but the March 12 similarity (ρ=0.52) is unusually high, as supported by the many sources shown here." – The source does not look acceptable by the current standards, although you are right that the difference between about 0 and 0.52 looks big. On the other hand, the difference between about 0 and 0.52 is nearly the same as the difference between 0.52 and 1, i.e. the value does not mean that the correlation is particularly strong, especially when we take into account that the time interval when the correlation was about 0.52 was observably short. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Forks Confusing

The forks section confuses Bitcoin Core software forks (Bitcoin XT & Bitcoin Unlimited, though note that Bitcoin XT is no longer an active project), with other, non-fork Bitcoin full nodes (Pairity Bitcoin), with hard forks. It is super unclear from reading it that they are different things (one being different software, same Bitcoin, the other being different software, different token/coin). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Matt (talk • contribs) 21:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 April 2020

Please change 133 reference: "To heighten financial privacy, a new bitcoin address can be generated for each transaction.[133]" link is broken, and I found very reliable and comprehensive source of information, bitcoin adresses are well explained there: https://tokeneo.com/cryptocurrencies/bitcoin/ Patryk85 (talk) 12:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

The WIRED moved the article to another URL. I have now updated the ref. Enivid (talk) 09:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 April 2020

In section "Legal status, tax and regulation" the countries with total ban are 9 and not 8, Vietnam is missing. At page 4 of the source document https://www.loc.gov/law/help/cryptocurrency/cryptocurrency-world-survey.pdf you can see there is Vietnam included on the map as absolute ban, and the table with the country names is cut, but if you look very closely you can still read a piece of "V" and "t" letters of "Vietnam". 78.12.48.141 (talk) 15:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Updated. Thank you! Enivid (talk) 09:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Updated figures on the number of wallets

The article currently references a 2017 study by the University of Cambridge estimating the number of cryptocurrency wallets (Bitcoin#cite_note-CU2017-23).

Shall we replace the figure with the more recent Szmigiera M., Number of blockchain wallet users globally 2016-2019, Statista, 2020 - source - which is more than 6 times higher?

Mikispag (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Why not? The source is reliable. Enivid (talk) 08:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 26 April 2020

Cryptoze (talk) 02:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

To editor Cryptoze:  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 07:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Source for halving date

User:Ladislav_Mecir reverted my change to the halving date and I thank him for the thorough check. However, the reason indicates that there is no source, although there is a link [5] as well as the other page bitaps.com that both fluctuate back and forth between May 11 and May 12. I would like to ask to kindly reconsider this revert or indicate what is missing to justify this more accurate statement. Thank you in advance! Concisepleonasm (talk) 00:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Well, "between May 11 and May 12" does not differ substantially from "around May 12" anyway. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I will not insist because this is minor. For the future, I would like, however, to kindly refer to the following policy of Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary, in the interest of not discouraging people to contribute. I wish you a good day and thank you again for your diligence. Concisepleonasm (talk) 07:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

AFD

I posted this at AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin (disambiguation) in case anyone wants to comment. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

User:Jakesyl conflict of interest edit

Please revert this edit from User:Jakesyl. On his github account you can see his affiliation with the block explorer he edited into the info box. Mkwia (talk) 13:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done I have done this for now, and have encouraged Jakesyl to respond here. Note that I have no knowledge of Bitcoin or the merits of individual sites, so have reverted purely on the basis of the alleged WP:COI. If another editor has more knowledge and feels that Jake's edit is the more appropriate, I have no concerns. Darren-M talk 14:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Mkwia (talk · contribs) and Darren-M (talk · contribs)! @Jakesyl: this section is not to promote open source block explorers that are personal projects. I have replaced it with blockchain.info as it is a big player and for no other reason that it is #1 ranked on my google search. We can do a talk page section to discuss what explorer to include (if necessary), but it wont be a non-notable new one. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

This is fine. In hindsight, this was definitely in violation of WP:COI and should've been disclosed. The previous link showed a 500 error when I clicked on it so I just swapped entropy.rocks in. That being said, it might be a good idea to get some consensus around this as it looks like there's a bit of a revert war happening here Jakesyl (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Jake, I hadn't noticed the revert war. Please ping any others that are involved to this discussion. This article is subject to WP:GS/Crypto so we do have tools to deal edit warring. My logic for Blockchain.com is that it seems to be somewhat neutral, rather than Bitcoin.com owned by Roger Ver which is a promoter of a competing blockchain (aka Bitcoin Cash), nor does Blockstream see ideal as it is somewhat controversial. But I would be ok with blockstream as well, but as maybe a second choice. Other options should be WP:DUE. Comments? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Blockchain is clearly the best option IMO. You'd be hard pressed to find someone who disagrees with them being a popular, neutral and relevant block explorer for bitcoin. Mkwia (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not familiar with consensus in WP:GS/Crypto/don't see this documented anywhere but do we need to make any distinction here between Bitcoin and the soft forks (e.g. cash, sv). If not a Blockstream type explorer might make the most sense since it has the least ambiguity about what chain your exploring (blockchain.com supports multiple). If so that should be distinguished in the link out. The advantage of blockstream is they don't derive their income from the explorer which means that they don't have any sponsored content and there's no ambiguity about what's BTC. That being said, I don't have an issue with blockchain.com either (although non-commercial would be preferable) Jakesyl (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing in GSCrypto that says we have to use a particular block explorer, or even any judgement on content in general. GSCrypto just tightens the ban the edit warring. I am ok with blockstream as well. We also have attempted to document Bitcoin Cash as separate and unique. I think it is clear to the reader that Ethereum is unique. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

My question was more around the delineation between "Bitcoin", "Bitcoin cash" and (insert your favorite fork here) in this article. The semantics of forking are such that the bcash/sv people would consider themselves the original implementation with a consensus change. After looking, it looks like those articles start from the fork.

Indeed the is controversy around the Bitcoin Cash subject. We are treating SV as a fork of Bitcoin Cash for the moment, as I recall there are not enough WP:RS meet WP:GNG to establish a standalone SV article. Feel free to edit and improve! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

AFD 2

Couple of related AfDs today Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bitcoin_Core#Bitcoin_Core and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin Improvement Proposal. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf:, don't forget Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bitcoin_XT. Somebody's trying to disrupt your inclusionist agenda ;) --Ysangkok (talk) 17:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

In this case I am more suspicious of an effort to delete both Bitcoin Core and as you mentioned Bitcoin XT, and merge all into Bitcoin. These articles at times are so politicized, I wonder if that is another case here. I just dont see the point to delete polar opposite fringe case articles that alas meet WP:GNG and assist in telling a more complete story of the bitcoin scaling debate, which historically (at least to me) is of significant encyclopedic value. Yes, my position sometimes lands on the inclusionist side. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 August 2020

Replace 'using the name' in the first sentence, with 'using the pseudonym'. This is more accurate. ʎɐɹɹnɯ (talk) 10:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

To editor ʎɐɹɹnɯ:  Not done for now: curious as to how it would be "more accurate" when nobody really knows for certain if it is a pseudonym or the name of a real person. It could be Craig Wright's pseudonym, or it could be someone else's pseudonym or real name. So there would be a need for reliable sources to verify that the name is a pseudonym before such a change can be made. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 20:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Base58

I have seen a lot of reverts recently related to the Base58 topic. What is this and why is it controversial? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

"List of bitcoin wallets" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect List of bitcoin wallets. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 24#List of bitcoin wallets until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Ysangkok (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Bitcoin-related programming languages?

There is a discussion on this at at Talk:List of programming languages#DAML. Please reply there. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Citations needed

The following sentences in the lead need citations: Critics noted its use in illegal transactions, the large amount of electricity used by miners, price volatility, and thefts from exchanges. Some economists, including several Nobel laureates, have characterized it as a speculative bubble.Mkwia (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

This was sourced in the past (I recall). Most of it is not controversial in my opinion. Is it not cited later in the article and summarized in the lede? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Segwit 2013-2016 Citation needed

Potential sources:

• https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/09/bitcoin-segwit-milestone-paves-way-for-lightning-network.html
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2018/05/11/the-bitcoin-reformation/?sh=30c996e737bd
• https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/18/bitcoin-soars-as-miners-move-to-solve-the-digital-currency-scaling-problem.html
• https://mashable.com/article/bitcoin-10000-2019/?europe=true
• https://www.ft.com/content/abd7ba0b-40ef-3876-857c-cd5d49ec557e Bob (talk) 11:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

@Blockchainus Maximus: I couldn't find anything in those sources that refer to the 2016 dates. I didn't look at mashable as that is probably not an WP:RS for this article, but I did look at cnbc and ft. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Fair enough :) Will see if I can find something with more precise dates/times. Quite tricky to pin down! Bob (talk) 10:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

All-time high

As you all probably are aware, Bitcoin has once again hit an all-time high at $22,190. Should the article be edited to reflect this? Or should we wait to see if this is actually going to be the all-time high or whether it will go higher? NateNate60 (talk) 04:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Please remove misleading/inaccurate paragraph

Under Criticism: - First paragraph refers to a *2018* report listing several criticisms including lack of price stability. - Second paragraph says “The Economist describes these criticisms as unfair, predominantly because the shady image may compel users to overlook the capabilities of the blockchain technology, but also due to the fact that the volatility of bitcoin is changing in time.[219]” - However, the referenced *10/31/15* article doesn’t describe those criticisms as unfair / inaccurate. It just says blockchain technology shouldn’t be ignored. AND for price stability it says “The value of a bitcoin has been pretty stable, at around $250, for most of this year.” That has clearly not been the case since 2015. - The entire second paragraph should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GFTAnalyst (talk • contribs) 11:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

You seem to have a problem with reading the source. Find the text "This is unfair" in it, please. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I've rewritten the sentence. What the Economist said in 2015 should, at a bare minimum, be dated to 2015. It's especially strange to leave this out since the mention in the source is specifically about stability that year. Grayfell (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Other critical opinions

None of the items listed here are critical opinions. Someone who knows more about Bitcoin than me should update.Stanlygoodspeed (talk) 13:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

You seem to overlook that critical opinions can be either positive or negative. Do I understand correctly that, according to your opinion, critiques must always be negative? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Moreover, per WP:NPOV, we must be neutral and not cherry-pick just the critiques that are negative. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:20, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree that, technically speaking, critical opinions can be positive or negative. I also agree with the need to be neutral and to include positive opinions. Rather than being grammatically inaccurate, I just think that the Criticism section is unclear and reads poorly. Example: "Here are four criticisms of Person A: 1) he is mean, 2) he smells bad, 3) he hates dogs, and 4) he's a great guy".

But, given that the section is correct as is, I won't push too hard for a change if it's not a popular position.Stanlygoodspeed (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you and think the critical opinions should be negative. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, you seem to ignore that the critiques can be both negative as well as positive and forget that it is not allowed by the WP:NPOV to try to cherry-pick only the negative ones. I really do not understand why you want to eliminate the positive critiques from experts such as David Andolfatto. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Right now the main section is about criticism and sub section is about critical opinions. You are talking about critiques so I guess I am nitpicking. Taking a step back, in general I think we do need to rename the section to 'reactions', 'critiques's, etc. Then we can cover both +/-. In the past I think it was mostly edge case fringe people that were non-notable on the positive side, so the positive opinion wasn't due. I think the section has also been used as an area to allow for NPOV as there are a large number of DUE negative comments, which I suspect will only grow. But now there are both positive and negative critiques of the system. I stray off subject, I just mean to say here that if we are going to use 'critical opinions' it seems like negative opinions to me. So we should delete it, or maybe change to critiques as the subsection heading. Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• Was reading through the talk page out of interest. Is there a reason the 60-65% Chinese hash rate dominance is not included in the criticisms? This seems to be one of the most glaring and pertinent issues. Bitcoin, in this manner, seems to be becoming less decentralized with time in the sense that the ant-miners are all produced in China (low-cost access to perquisite hardware) & access to cheap abundant energy means mining infrastructure is easy to build and maintain in China. Since BTC mining will, roughly, follow the path of least resistance this trend is likely to continue. With 60-65% of the hash rate, China & the CCP could likely do some serious damage if they ever wanted to (to the network). Of course, this is me being a "devil's advocate" and I don't think this will happen. Source 1: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonbrett/2020/08/23/chris-larsen-executive-chair-of-ripple-argues-china-can-reverse-bitcoin-transactions/?sh=634594b44783 Source 2: https://www.forbes.com/sites/cryptoconfidential/2019/12/15/crypto-ponzi-scheme-china-dominates-bitcoin-mining/?sh=29c5e70d534b EDIT: Ah, I see now it is included under the section: Trend towards centralization - should this potentially be moved/ included in criticisms though? Bob (talk) 10:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

• Apart from perhaps moving the "trend to centralization section" to criticisms I noticed the criticism section "As a speculative bubble" - shouldn't this reference a time period? Almost every stock market in history has gone through some form of bubble period(s) yet we don't refer to them being in a perpetual state of "bubble" territory. For instance "Bitcoin, along with other cryptocurrencies, has been described as an economic bubble in 2017 & 2014 by at least eight..". Currently, the market is nowhere near the "mania" / bubble phase looking at the on chain metrics. Also, I find the section "Security Issues" interesting as it is not a criticism of Bitcoin but rather exchanges. Theft & exchange problems are exactly that: Exchange problems not "Bitcoin" problems. (just a thought) Lastly (on this section) - the "Other critical opinions" bit seems a bit out of place under "Criticisms" as these are all positive quotes by individuals - would this not be better placed under "In popular culture" Bob (talk) 10:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

First, we are not using WP:UGC type sources, such as the Forbes sites that have "contributor" next to the author's name. I also agree with you that the bubble claims should be time dated. Especially given that the earlier bubble now seems to the present market price again (which seems to contradict the bubble concept). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Re 'would this not be better placed under "In popular culture"' - certainly not. The "In popular culture" section lists the cases when bitcoin appeared in films, TV series, etc., i.e. in popular culture. That is not the case of the critiques you refer to, they did not have anything in common with the popular culture, in fact. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Re '"As a speculative bubble" - shouldn't this reference a time period?' - that seems logical, and you seem to wonder why the authors of the statement, reputable economists, didn't say things such as "Bitcoin market is in a bubble at the time being.", etc. A sentence such as "Bitcoin is a speculative bubble." perhaps looks to an attentive reader such as yourself as a statement not adhering to the existing definition of the speculative bubble term, however, that really is what the cited experts said and what they said that way on purpose. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I suppose to deal with this we need to date when these people are saying it is in a bubble. I am sure there will be more bubble claims as bitcoin runs into its next bubble over the next year or two. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: I also agree with you that the "Other critical opinions" is out of place under popular culture. Was musing as to where it would fit best as the user above (@Stanlygoodspeed:) is correct in noting that they aren't really "critical" at all, on the contrary they are endorsements. I think that the best way to handle the "bubble" section would indeed be to note when a statement was made as @Jtbobwaysf: suggested - otherwise it becomes rather vague and generalized as to whether Bitcoin is in a perpetual state of "bubble" territory. The current wording suggests that a feature/flaw of Bitcoin is that it is in a permanent "bubble" state. I currently do not have the prerequisite Extended-Protection level to change/adjust this as I am rather new here :) Bob (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

• My suggestion is to do something as seen below with date stamps indicating when an individual made a statement regarding "bubble", it provides context and is more accurate. Alternatively could use ("in" YEAR) rather than just the (YEAR).
• With regards to the "Other Critical Opinions" section perhaps it is best this becomes its own section slightly before/after "pop culture" as a -> "Notable Opinions" section. Here you could have both positive & negative quotes coming from individuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blockchainus Maximus (talk • contribs) 11:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

As a speculative bubble

Further information: Cryptocurrency bubble and Economics of bitcoin

Bitcoin, along with other cryptocurrencies, has been described as an economic bubble by at least eight Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences laureates, including Robert Shiller (2014), Joseph Stiglitz (2017), and Richard Thaler (2018). Noted Keynesian economist Paul Krugman has described bitcoin in 2018 as "a bubble wrapped in techno-mysticism inside a cocoon of libertarian ideology", professor Nouriel Roubini of New York University has called bitcoin the "mother of all bubbles" (2018), and University of Chicago economist James Heckman (2018) has compared it to the 17th-century tulip mania.

Alan Greenspan (2013) and George Soros (2018) both referred to it as a "bubble". In 2014 Warren Buffett called bitcoin a "mirage".

Bob (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Re "...suppose to deal with this we need to date when these people are saying it is in a bubble." - that is the problem you do not seem to understand. The reputable economists never said that bitcoin was/is in a bubble. They said that "bitcoin is a bubble", which they did mean as a different statement than the statement that the bitcoin market prices are/were in a bubble at the specific time. In constrast to that, they wanted to underline that according to their opinion, bitcoin should never have had an above zero price. I do not think that anybody claiming that should be considered an expert on the subject matter, but I want to respect Wikipedia policies and represent their opinion in the article no matter what my personal opnion is. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree and in no way am I saying this section should be removed in any way (I don't believe I ever said or implied anything of the sort) and I understand the perspective of those that have said it. In no way would the addition of a simple date stamp impact their opinion or statement. "According to their opinion, bitcoin should never have had an above zero price" - isn't that your opinion not theirs? I am simply saying that indicating when an individual said this provides context as it so happens most of these statements coincided with the 2014/late 2017/early 2018 peaks regardless of whether they meant it as a general statement (I for one don't claim to know their current thoughts opinions on the matter). JPM and many big banks can be quoted as saying they "hate bitcoin" yet now they are buying/ praising bitcoin. Context and time matters. One of those quoted above for instance recently changed his mind somewhat (for instance): https://www.forbes.com/sites/billybambrough/2020/11/13/nouriel-roubini-cryptos-fiercest-critic-admits-bitcoin-could-be-a-partial-store-of-value/?sh=12a951251615 Bob (talk) 12:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

The dates the statements were made are encyclopedic and become interesting as time passes. 'In may 2012 x said bubble'. 'In August 2016 y said bubble'. 'In Sept 2020 z said bubble.' I suggest this adds cohesion to the section and makes it more interesting as well. Is there a date policy we need to follow? Do we have to use the date, month, year? Or should we just go to year for this section? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this approach. Even if BTC is a bubble, it is notable that it has inflated again and again (and now to its highest valuation ever as of today). HocusPocus00 (talk) 19:39, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Considering we have a situation where price is rising and falling, we should do a better job of stating when the comments were made. I suspect some bubble comments were made in the hundreds of dollars, then others in 10-20k range, then it went back to less than $4k, now back to $20k. Is it all a bubble? I think it would be SYNTH for us to say it is always a bubble because people say it over time. Thus we can solve this with dating the comments, also makes it more interesting in the event someone actually calls a bubble accurately and if others were not accurate. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I strongly agree. dating the statements would be more accurate than just providing them without any temporal context. Enivid (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

It appears that there is a consensus that the temporal context for every "bitcoin is a bubble" statement should be provided in the article text. I support it too. Interpreting the statement in the context provided by the Economic bubble article, we should probably understand it as a historical (original) wording of the statement that "bitcoin market price is in a bubble". Interpreted that way, what the statement says is that when the statement was formulated by the respective expert, the bitcoin price appeared to him/her as implausible. I think that this also provides guidance as to whether we should provide the temporal context in the date, month, year form: I think that we should, since the price of bitcoin is rather volatile and mentioning just the month would not provide the necessary time/price context. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, interpreting the claims that way, two experts saying "bitcoin is a bubble" at two different times actually make two different claims, which should not be interpreted as equivalent. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I also agree. HocusPocus00 (talk) 07:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Capitalization nitpick

The capitalization of Bitcoin seems inconsistent, both in this article and in the article on cryptocurrency in general. When referring to the Bitcoin service itself, then "Bitcoin" should be capitalized. When referring to *a* bitcoin (i.e. the unit of currency), then "bitcoin" should be lower-case. It looks like Bitcoin (the service) is being written in lower-case on the basis that the logo is stylized in lower case. In general (but this is English so there are probably exceptions) I think that when referring to the service as a proper noun we should capitalize it as such. I don't think that the logo being stylized in lower case is a good reason to override the usual rules because doing so doesn't add anything of value to the discussion; in my opinion it mostly just adds ambiguity, and the inconsistency just looks sloppy to me.

I would have edited the article myself and just been done with it, but it looks like the article is edit-restricted, so can't do that, which is fine. I think someone with access should do it, though. That is my suggestion.

Senjoro Nie (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Senjoro Nie. Thank you for your contribution, but the fact is, that the capitalization is not inconsistent. Read the notes in the article, please. This has been discussed in the past (you can find the disussion in the history of this talk) and the editors agreed to use lowercase bitcoin exactly as described in the notes and per the reasons specified in the respective citations. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)