Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

allocation vs generation of bitcoins

@George strawberry: I am intrigued by your edit summary info: "It is a misnomer that Bitcoins are "generated" when all the bitcoins that will ever exist have already been generated by the first version of the bitcoin protocol that was locked into the protocol by Satoshi Nakamoto. They are now being allocated...when explaining it to new people, the idea of "creation" confuses, while "allocation" clarifies how the protocol actually functions." I am all for making thing easier to understand. Do you have any sources to back this up? --Wuerzele (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

That actually contradicts all the sources already present in the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I read about this idea back in 2011 in bitcointalk.org. The poster suggested that by explaining it in this way, even his grandmother could understand the whole process. Why? Simply because it is better use of the English language. I have explained the way the protocol functions to over 2000 individuals in the past 3 years. My experience hads been the same as the original poster suggested, when talking about "miners who generate bitcoins all over the world" I always got a whole bunch of questions like: Who controls how many can be "generated" they are "generating them out of thin air, for free" what stops hackers from Generating more? etc... etc...

When explained the other way, somehow the reality of what happens sinks in INSTANTLY. It must be because it is actually how it is. By defining the TOTAL NUMBER of Bitcoins, in the protocol, you actually have "created" ALL the bitcoins that will ever exist. Now, the question people ask is: How do you determine who "gets" the 21 million bitcoins? And once you explain that the protocol "allocates" the bitcoin, this word describes exactly the process: Generating or Creating or Distributing all don't work as well as "allocating" I know this from empirical experience. I can't go into the tiny semantic differences between the meanings of each word, though I sense that "allocation" fits best to a process that suggests "automation" and a definite FIXED quantity that the process is dealing with.

George strawberry (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

found the forum thread...https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=697.msg75392#msg75392

you can read here, that many are having the problem with explaining it. The original source of this use of the wrong words comes from the "What is Bitcoin Video" that went viral, and made everybody continue propagating the confusing and in my opinion WRONG wording of the actual process.

George strawberry (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please put it back to the way I had it... i don't know how to revert. George strawberry (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, George strawberry it is a known fact that for every complicated problem there is a simple but wrong explanation. The existence of bitcoins is recorded in the public ledger called the block chain. You can find out that the total quantity of bitcoins created until now is 12,578,575 bitcoins. It is not true that any other bitcoins have been created already. It is not a surprise that the simple explanation is easier to understand, but that does not make it correct. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

George, thanks for trying to improve the clarity of the explanation. I think it's a decent explanation, although the fact that there's a 21 million coin cap could just as well been left out of the spec, with room for an infinite number of coins, and the mining process would have been essentially the same. However, our opinions on the explanation is immaterial: Wikipedia requires information to be verifiable with what is defines as "reliable sources", or independently published with reputations for fact-checking (e.g., The New York Times), and specifically precludes citing of internet forums or blogs as sources. See the Wikipedia page WP:RS for more on reliable sources. I think most sources would refer to mining as generating the coins. If some reliable sources refer to it as allocating, I think it would be reasonable to include that as an alternative explanation, perhaps something like "This is also sometimes explained as 'allocating' the coins from the predetermined limit of 21 million."

Reverting an article change can be done by using the "undo" feature in the "history" tab of an article, if there have not been other changes after the change you want to revert. However, you should not revert this change or add material back unless there is a consensus to do so, and you shouldn't add any material without citing a reliable source.

As an aside, the convention Wikipedia talk pages is to sign posts with ~~~~ at the end of a post, rather than the beginning, and to add colons (:) at the beginning to create indentations, to aid in the following of a conversation. I took the liberty of editing your posts to follow these conventions.

––Agyle (talk) 15:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Argyle,for the edits and suggestions. I will not "revert" anything until this is fully discussed, I will still stand by my "research" that the word Generated always confuses new people, and thus it is not the right term! This was propagated by the "What is Bitcoin video" and has been taken up by The New York Times and other "reliable" publications. I will look to see what else I can find to convince anyone here, obviously my little "research" is not documented and non-referable at the moment.

George strawberry (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

"Currency-like virtual medium of exchange" or virtual currency?

A currency-like virtual medium of exchange would be a very correct term conveying the correct information about bitcoin. TwoEscarf (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

A way to resolve this issue may be to hold a Request for Comments. A short section detailing the difference between real and virtual currencies may be an improvement linking to the main article at Virtual currency.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC) EDIT: there is already quite a good section on this in the article Bitcoin#Economics

I did this once before with an article, and it's still going, and close to being ended. However, RfC has one caveat that may be relevant; RfC has to be open for at least 30 days. So even if there's a huge consensus, the RfC can still be continuously happening. Ging287 (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Shall we have a Request for Comments as follows: Is a bitcoin a currency in terms the generally accepted definition of a currency having the follow three attributes: 1. Unit of account 2. Store of value and 3. Medium of exchange? Options: If bitcoins have all three attributes, we all agree that it is a currency. If bitcoins do not have all three attributes then we all agree that it is not a currency. I agree to such a RfC. Please set it up and give me the link where I can vote. TwoEscarf (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, Jonpatterns (talk), I agree with you setting up such a RfC. TwoEscarf (talk) 18:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

User:TwoEscarf, you say An item can only be "money" or "currency" when it has all three of the features of money or currency: 1. Medium of exchange 2. Store of value and 3. Unit of account. What is the source of this? --John (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi John (talk), Here is the source: Money TwoEscarf (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@Jonpatterns: Since this discussion has barely taken off on the talk page, I am not in favor for an RfC at this time. I think finding consensus without this instrument ispossible and preferable. @Ging287: I assume that the RfC you started was not for an article that has as many watchers as this page? I'd like to know what your experience with it was, but its premature, since it's not even been 30 days. @TwoEscarf: What you suggest does not sound like an RfC, but an up or down vote with "if...then" conditionals forcing an agreement. Or is this a April Fools' Day Request for Comments after all?--Wuerzele (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Here it is. It got pretty big and heated, but in the end, there was a big consensus to exclude it. Even though that is true, it's still ongoing and can't be stopped/assessed for consensus until 30 days have passed. Ging287 (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

User:TwoEscarf, a Wikipedia article cannot be a source for another Wikipedia article. If that is your only source for this belief, we wouldn't be able to use it. --John (talk) 19:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I will see if I could find you a United States Federal Reserve Bank of other Central Bank reference. The three required functions of money/currency are very generally known.TwoEscarf (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Its not for me to start the RfC as I don't perceive a problem with the article. I only mentioned as a possible path to resolve conflicting views. In my opinion the short hand of calling bitcoin a 'virtual currency' is better than 'currency-like virtual medium of exchange', as long as the article points out what it means by 'virtual currency' which it does. Jonpatterns (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

John (talk): Functions of Money as per the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Luis. TwoEscarf (talk) 19:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Jonpatterns (talk), Thank you for your reply. It is all about the term "currency or money". A currency or money has to have those three attributes. When an item does not have all three attributes it is not money or a currency. That is it. Very simple. That is economic science. I fully agree with everybody that everyone calls bitcoins a currency. I agree 100%. That is the popular way bitcoin is seen. However, if bitcoin were to be analyzed in terms of economic concepts/definitions/principles, then it is very clear that it is not a currency or money. I also know that it is basically a waste of time trying to get solid economic concepts/principles/definitions onto a Wikipedia article like this. The popular or desired view of something like bitcoin is what Wikipedia is about. Unfortunately this leads to Wikipedia being seen as not a very reliable source of information. I personally would never take anything written in a Wikipedia article as correct - as I find it in the article. If I were really interested in finding out the correct answer I would always get a non-Wikipedia article reference. I´m sorry, but that is reality. TwoEscarf (talk) 19:56, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel you've been wasting your time here. Your answer would be to bring more high-quality sources that back up your point, and make specific arguments here about how you think the article should be changed to reflect these sources. --John (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I supplied you with the highest possible quality reference, the St Luis FED, stating that different forms of money always have those three attributes in common. You ignore that. I think most people would agree that was a waste of time on my part. TwoEscarf (talk) 21:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I think Scarf has good references, and the topic should shift to how the article should be changed to reflect Bitcoin's recognized status as a quasi-currency. Fleetham (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@Fleetham: which "good references" are you referring to? the wikipedia cross links ? It cant be the Economic Lowdown podcast series produced by the St. Louis Fed for high school students, since it is singular (n=1). Hmm.... when I introduced the 3 functions of money/currency in the Bitcoin#economics section, you deleted reverted and criticized the edit sarcastically as so often in the edit summary, sthg like: why bother with a rarely used definition. --Wuerzele (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Currency has multiple meanings. Reliable sources typically introduce Bitcoin on first use as a virtual currency, digital currency, or similar explanatory term to provide context, and frequently repeat the term, but also use just currency later in the article where it would not cause confusion. I'd suggest this article do the same. A survey of 7 sources:

The New York Times:

• 2013-07-01 "The currency grabbed the attention of global markets in April when the value of a single bitcoin spiked..."
• 2013-07-01 "The currency was invented in 2009 by a programmer or, possibly, a group of programmers..."
• 2013-09-25 "...the future price of bitcoin, a currency generally traded on unregulated..."
• 2013-10-31 "The currency known as Bitcoin – a much-hyped and..."
• 2013-12-05 "...primer on Bitcoin and described how it is 'mined,' said that a 'fair value analysis' of the currency suggested..."
• 2014-02-25 "...to buy and sell Bitcoins. But the firm has suffered several intrusions and technological mishaps, which have led to steep declines in the currency’s price."

The Wall Street Journal:

• 2013-12-12 "Like many other U.S.-based Bitcoin startups, Coinbase has already spent between $1 million and $2 million in legal fees to comply with emerging state and federal guidelines governing the currency."
• 2014-02-26 "But the unregulated currency isn't backed by a central..." "...a provider of storage accounts for the currency..."
• 2014-03-07 "Mr. Nakomoto denied he had anything to do with the currency." "Fans of the currency..."

The Financial Times

• 2013-11-28 "...subpoenaed early Bitcoin companies for investigations into the currency."
• 2014-03-17 "...during his AP interview – in which he referred to the currency as 'Bitcom'..."
• 2014-02-24 "China had initially taken a hands-off view of the new currency..."
• 2014-03-25 "...a growing number of businesses have started accepting the currency..."

Bloomberg:

• 2014-02-28 "...according to Bitcoincharts.com, which compiles prices and currency data..."
• 2014-03-18 "...prosecutions of Bitcoin-linked money laundering, concerns that governments would restrict the currency..."
• 2014-03-28 "Called a blockchain, the currency’s underlying design opens up possibilities..."
• 2014-03-31 "to accept Bitcoin, recent events have underscored concerns about the viability of the currency."
• 2014-12-04 "Fed Chairman Ben S. Bernanke told the Senate committee the U.S. central bank has no plans to regulate the currency."

The Los Angeles Times:

• 2013-05-17 "...representatives of the growing Bitcoin economy will gather to discuss how far the currency has come..."
• 2013-10-03 "Bitcoin boosters like it because it is a currency that's decentralized..."
• 2013-11-18 "...Bitcoin gained international notoriety as the currency of choice in the Silk Road..."
• 2014-03-25 "The currency exists only online, and its value is based on an algorithm."

The Telegraph:

• 2014-02-25 "...the Bitcoin Foundation, a group that oversees and represents the currency..."
• 2014-03-11 "...associate bitcoin with money laundering, because it gained traction in its early days as a currency for buying illegal drugs..."
• 2014-03-02 "Regulators have suggested the currency could be a legitimate alternative to cash..."
• 2014-03-05 "...using bitcoins, but it is the highest-profile flight booking to date using the currency."

The Washington Post

• 2013-04-04 "No one knows what, exactly, is behind the currency’s staggering climb..."
• 2014-02-25 "...shore up confidence in the currency by saying Mt. Gox’s collapse..."
• 2014-02-28 "The currency won support initially among technology enthusiasts and speculators..."
• 2014-03-08 "...her Bitcoin investments. A California man fingered as the currency’s mysterious inventor reacted..."

Agyle (talk) 06:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Three functions of currency/money:

Fullerton College [1]

Oswego State University of New York [2]

Federal Reserve Bank of St. Luis - Educational Resources [3]

Business Dictionary [4]

Money, Banking and Monetary Policy, McConnell (Publisher: McGrawHill) [5]

The Measurement of Money Supply, Bank of Jamaica [6]

Money and Banking by Horace White [7]

Money and Banking by E. NARAYANAN NADAR [8]

International Monetary Fund [9]

Bank of Canada: What is money? [10]

TwoEscarf (talk) 14:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The above are high-quality reference to the fact that unit of account is one of the three basic functions of money/currency. Bitcoin is not widely accepted as a unit of account because it is not relatively stable. Bitcoin thus does not qualify as a currency. There is absolutely no doubt at all that bitcoin is popularly regarded and seen and described and named and stated as a currency. However, in terms of economic fundamentals it is not a currency or money.

If required I can supply many more high-quality references that unit of account is one of the three primary functions of money/currency.

TwoEscarf (talk) 14:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The search "three functions of money" produces 220 million links. This confirms the fact that it is very generally known what the three functions of money are. TwoEscarf (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Functions of Money:

Principles of Macroeconomics (6th Edition) N. Gregory Mankiw P. 325 [11]

TwoEscarf (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit: To change the article lead to define bitcoin as "quasi-currency" it is necessary to find appropriate verifiable sources defining bitcoin as such. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC) Also, please consider that there already are verifiable sources in the article defining bitcoin as "currency", "virtual currency", etc. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I really do think that Scarf has a point here... why don't we follow convention by continuing to refer to bitcoins as currency but also make more prominent mention of the fact that bitcoins are not money instead simply a medium of exchange? (And yes, I know that a German court once ruled them to be a unit of account, but they're really not used as such. References if you need them can be provided.) Fleetham (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Fleetham, TwoEscarf's suggestion wasn't to mention anything, it was to replace the description of Bitcoin as a "virtual currency" or "digital currency". In answer to your own question, the reason not to state that "bitcoins are not money" is the same as why not to state "bitcoins are money": it's an opinion, not a fact. Scholarly sources can be cited for either side. Agyle (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly not an "opinion." What scholarly sources can be cited that make the argument that bitcoins are, in fact, fully fledged money? There is a generally recognized definition of what money is, and no one disputes the fact that Bitcoin doesn't meet that definition's criteria. Fleetham (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Fleetham: Nobody says it's a fully fledged currency, don't you get that? We've said this numerous times. And maybe you dont know this: but yes, a lot of scholarly work are " opinions", so just accept/live with the grey.--Wuerzele (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It is fine to describe bitcoin as a virtual currency or digital currency - in terms of generally accepted, popular practice in the press and on the internet. No-one denies that fact. It is also a proven fact that - in terms of generally accepted, high-quality, verified research (see only a few references supplied above - google currently produces 223 million references for "three functions of money") bitcoin does not meet the three criteria for being defined as money because it is not widely used as a unit of account. I support Fleetham´s suggestion above to "follow convention by continuing to refer to bitcoins as currency but also make more prominent mention of the fact that bitcoins are not money instead simply a medium of exchange." This would be an encyclopedic approach relating to all branches of knowledge. TwoEscarf (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The reference quoted above for bitcoins being accepted as a unit of account in Germany carries on: "The designation stops well short of treating bitcoins as currency or even e-money". Thus, although it is being treated as a unit of account, it "stops well short of treating bitcoins as currency or even e-money." The second reference states "Germany's ministry of finance has formally recognised the digital currency Bitcoin as a "unit of account" which can be used for private transactions – meaning that the ministry will now be able to tax users or creators of the four-year-old virtual money." and "While not putting Bitcoins on the same footing as formal currencies such as the pound or dollar, Germany's move does mean that people who have speculated in the online cryptocurrency could be liable for capital gains taxes if they sell them less than a year after acquiring them." The term "unit of account" is thus not being used in the German ruling in its very wide meaning it is employed as when used as one of the tree essential criteria for an item to be defined as money in terms of economics. The German ruling uses the term "unit of account" to make bitcoin transactions taxable in Germany and not to make it money equal to the Euro or Dollar.TwoEscarf (talk) 10:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The popular practice in the press of calling bitcoin money can be seen in the second German quote. It refers to bitcoins as "virtual money" - that is how the paper sees it - but carries on to state that in Germany bitcoins are not put "on the same footing as formal currencies such as the pound or dollar."TwoEscarf (talk) 10:27, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The "unit of account" ruling in Germany is thus misleading. It mistakenly appears that the German "unit of account" ruling legalizes bitcoin as money in Germany. It does not. It simply legalizes bitcoin transactions to be taxed. It does not legalize German companies to do their financial reports in terms of bitcoin. All German companies prepare their financial reports and the whole German economy is based on financial data measured in terms of the Euro which is money in Germany. The ruling did not make bitcoins money in Germany although most probably all reports about bitcoins describe it as virtual money, digital currency or simply currency or money. It is misleading to quote that reference and trying mistakenly to use it to prove that bitcoin is money in Germany. It is not. The German ruling simply made it legal for the German authorities to tax bitcoin transactions - in terms of the Euro and not in terms of bitcoins. Bitcoins will now be treated as any other commercial item generating a profit that can now be taxed in Germany. TwoEscarf (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Fleetham, "full-fledged money", which I'd take to mean "real money", "legal tender", or "fiat money" legally recognized by central governments, is different than "money" in the formal, 3-criteria economic sense. (Note that those three terms often have distinctions between them, different meanings, and specific definitions within laws of different nations; there are many different types of money.) In this article, the two issues (treatment as money by economists, and legal treatment by governments) are treated separately under "economics" and "legal status". A citation of an opinion that Bitcoin meets the 3-criteria test in the economic sense:

• Plassaras, Nicholas A. (2013). "Regulating Digital Currencies: Bringing Bitcoin within the Reach of the IMF" (PDF). Chicago Journal of International Law. 14 (1). The University of Chicago Law School. (Link is to pre-publication draft.)

As TwoEscarf noted, popular coverage of the German ruling can be misleading; it didn't literally declare Bitcoin legal tender, which was sometimes reported (note the correction in a CNBC article), but treats it as a type of "private money" (privates gelt in German) meeting a specific definition of unit of account (Rechnungseinheiten in German), rather than as a foreign currency.

If you think the legal status should be summarized in the opening section, I don't think it would be controversial to add a statement (with sources) like "Bitcoin is not issued or backed by a central government, is not considered legal tender or 'real money' like the Euro or dollar, and its legal status varies in different countries." However, I didn't think it was controversial to describe bitcoin as a virtual or digital currency either, yet here we are, with several removals per day from the opening sentence. :-)

––Agyle (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

It may be worth mentioning bitcoin's economic and legal status in the lede, and referring the reader to those sections for the fuller explanation. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Jonpatterns,Agyle Yes, and that's why I had slipped in the lede the 3rd sentence that Bitcoin is decentralized, no central bank, as a quick info for readers it aint fiat money. making lengthy explanations about its legal status wont work. dont forget, peer-to-peer also should imply it aint fiat money. Its just too much to grasp at the very beginning, its educational suicide to hammer a reader with 4 wikiterms in one line. the first sentence always seemed bad to me.It needs to be relaxed at the very least there need to be non wikiterms between peer-to-peer and payment system, because I think people dont realize its 2 diffferent terms and just read over it. I doubt people look each term up. One needs to move from known to unknown, but peer to peer is virtually unknown. see Talk:Bitcoin#suggestions to improve readability from Febr 28 --Wuerzele (talk) 00:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Prose in Block chain section

The block chain sub-section currently begin with "The ledger is integral to Bitcoin as a sequential record of all transactions." Starting the section in this way presumes that a reader will already know that what is being referred to as "the ledger." I propose changing it to something like "Integral to Bitcoin as a sequential record of all transactions called the block chain." I think this change will make it easier for those who do not have much prior knowledge of bitcoin to read. Fleetham (talk) 03:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Good, I think it's clearer now. It used be explained well, but for whatever reason was whittled down until it didn't even mention the block chain. The paragraph could still use citations for the "ten minutes" and "prevents double-spending" parts. "Prevents" overstates it a bit anyway, without going into the details of transaction confirmations (i.e. unconfirmed or fast transactions, or transactions with only a couple confirmations, are still vulnerable to double spending fraud). Agyle (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Agyle:so why arent you editing that in? ---As far as good and clearer now, I dont see that. Fleetham, I request that you ping me if you expect a response. I am not combing through these pages to see if and where you may have addressed me. To call your proposal "unopposed" after waiting for less than 24 h and go ahead and edit are poor manners. your complaint about the word ledger having to be explained comes more than 1 month late. I introduced the term to the site. chrisarnesen didnt even want to wikify it ( I did), downplayed its importance saying its a common term anyway and I gave in. So , ledger has been a WP:status quo explaining blockchain. It stays. furthermore, I dont think the pompous sentence construction does any good. Integral in the beginning is teh wrong stress. You moved it to the front.

My proposal is to connect each sentence logically like this: The ledger is integral to Bitcoin as a sequential record of all transactions. In Bitcoin terminology it is known as the block chain. Because approximately every ten minutes a bundle of transactions, called a block, is added to the systemwide block chain. It thus records bitcoin ownership at present and at all points in the past. By keeping a record of all transactions, the block chain prevents double-spending, which is a core challenge of digital currency design.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, by starting with "the ledger" you may confuse those who have no idea what this refers to. Is this not true? Fleetham (talk) 08:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

and again: ledger is the appropriate analogy, a common term per chrisarnesen. --Wuerzele (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@Wuerzele:, the reason I didn't change "prevents double-spending" is that I expect it to be a contentious issue where simple citations won't suffice, and I don't want to spend the time to find multiple detailed citations and defend the edits when it's likely to be reverted anyway. Per your objection to Fleetham's edit occurring with less than 24 hours notice, no notice is required for Wikipedia edits; normal convention is to make an edit, then revert and discuss if it's disputed (see WP:BRD). Why do you think it's important to remove the term block chain from the description? While the block chain is often succinctly described as a ledger (or acting like a ledger), a "record of transactions" seems like a more descriptive alternative, and I think is just a matter of word choice, not accuracy. ––Agyle (talk) 19:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Agyle: I did not remove the term blockchain plse read suggestion again.--Wuerzele (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: Ah yep, thanks. I had just read the first sentence. I think it's better to refer to it as the block chain or blockchain, in the first sentence, and without qualifying it as "Bitcoin terminology". While the term wasn't used by Nakamoto, it is referred to as "the block chain" or "the blockchain" in technical journal articles about Bitcoin that discuss it, as well as articles about other cryptocurrencies, and "block chain" has been used generically in computer science for decades (e.g., for chains of data blocks in file systems and other I/O systems). Non-technical journals often call it a ledger or public ledger, but I wouldn't suggest "the ledger" as the correct term in an encyclopedic article, which is one way of interpreting the proposed first sentence.

A different issue is that both the current "there is only one block chain" and the proposed "systemwide ledger" seem to oversimplify that there are always multiple versions of the block chain; if there were just one, double spending wouldn't be a problem. While Bitcoin network's treatment of block chains excludes some information included here, I think it strikes a better balance of technical accuracy vs. simplification in what it does say. ––Agyle (talk) 03:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@Agyle:I do not see blockchain explained in Bitcoin network; please quote or send send subsection link. Recall I am the editor for the common man and Wikipedia is not primarily aimed at experts; therefore, the level of technical detail in its articles must be balanced against the ability of non-experts to understand those details. Therefore, I stand by using the term ledger first, followed by the bitcoin term "block chain", as I think an encyclopedia would too.

As far as oversimplification using "only one block chain" or "systemwide ledger": dont like any? Make a better proposal, plse. I think both Fleetham and I are trying to say the same thing. He says only one, and I call the longest blockchain, which becomes the systemwide approved transactionhistory, the one that all others will have to use from the moment on when its established to be the longest. I think this isnt oversimplified and any further (technical) detail should be under Bitcoin network, thats what the split in page was for.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Should any mention of "one" or "systemwide" simply be removed? I tried to find a mention of it on Bitcoin network but wasn't able to see how that page handles the issue. As I understand it, in theory there should only be one block chain, but it can be fragmented for various reasons. Perhaps something along those lines should be mentioned? Fleetham (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Tracking users /Lack of Anonymity

@Wuerzele: Please don't knee jerk revert...

• In this instance, the source clearly explains how "tracking the temporal flow" of bitcoins only applies to users who have multiple Bitcoin addresses. [User:Fleetham|Fleetham]] (talk) 04:29, 31 March 2014

You are mistaken. the source clearly states any user who makes multiple payments can be tracked.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

My edit, which you reverted, adds this information to the page. Also, it's a big claim to say the revert is due to "tracking [being a] more important issue in media." More important than what, exactly? [User:Fleetham|Fleetham]] (talk) 04:29, 31 March 2014

I had twice explained it in the edit summary. This is how you communicate 90% of the time. you didnt discuss. --Wuerzele (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• This revert uses this source to support the following statement: "as of 2014 economists do not agree, to what degree Bitcoin is truly money." The source's thesis, however, is clearly that Bitcoin does not fully meet generally recognized criteria for money as can be clearly seen from this quote: "economists reckon money is anything that serves three main functions. It must be a “medium of exchange”... It should be a stable store of value... And it should function as a unit of account... The American dollar meets all three conditions. Bitcoin has some way to go." The source clearly supports the idea that bitcoins are not money, and it nowhere mentions a debate among economists on this matter. Fleetham (talk) 04:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

BTW Your saying "the source clearly supports..." is mere insistence and adds no argument, because it doesnt add thought, and thats no discussion--Wuerzele (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Fleetham: stop the slander: its no knee jerk, and it's you who reverts, cuts and deletes without discussing. you mass reverted me from the day I arrived here. do not confuse people with a false heading ('Wuerzele reverts'). This time I maintain the WP:status quo in that section, that I earned collecting sources. The fact that tracking the temporal flow of bitcoins can give a clue of identity is mentioned in innumerable sources. You cut that however to give moneychangers collection of customer's personal data "required by law in many jurisdictions", more prominence. your 8/2013 Washington Post blog quote will be even less guaranteed, because Bitcoin intermediaries will be required to collect personal data on their customers anonymity will be even less guaranteed, because Bitcoin intermediaries will be required to collect personal data on their customers." Think: that's bizarro. citing bank secrecy laws as a loss of anonymity is not the risk to anonymity, bitcoin users have, nor whats represented in the media .-The Economist CLEARLY mentions that Bitcoin isnt a fullfledged currency. Economists do not agree, so back off. bring evidence to the contrary, if you want to change it. --Wuerzele (talk) 05:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to revert your reverts because you didn't address any of the issues I brought up.Fleetham (talk) 06:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

this is not true on 2 accounts: I addressed issues 24h ago @06:55, 30 March 2014‎(→‎Anonymity: reinserted sentence "flow of bitcoins can give clues as to who owns them" (del by fleetham) which is core info for lack of anonymity, not the fact that bitcoin exchangers record names. Again the Washington Post-blog argument you inserted I consider not worth mentioning. and hey, why didnt you come out and participate in the talkpage discussion on this "issue" between me and Chrisarnesen a while ago? (He talked me out of using the term 'pseudo-anonymous') I know exactly why. --Wuerzele (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Also, please read WP:NPA Fleetham (talk) 06:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You sit in the glasshouse, and you know it.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

what I meant when I said you didn't address issues was that you didn't address the issues mentioned at the start of this post. All you said is that sources other than the ones you provided support your edits. Why did you initially use the original sources, and can you please provide better ones? Fleetham (talk) 09:48, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

also can you please explain what the below sentence you added means? It surely is not supported by the citation you've given it as that source does not explicitly explain how bitcoin fails to be a unit of account. Is does say that bitcoin will not have the status of money until people think in terms of bitcoins and mentions that goods are not priced in bitcoins. Your sentence reads, "Bitcoin has not yet achieved the status of "a unit of account, against which the value of an economy is measured". This is because of its money supply problems, both the disappearance of large exchangers, and because of its finite reserves, the arbitrary cap of 21 million bitcoins." Can you say this again using other words or is there no other way to explain the concept you're trying to convey? Fleetham (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: Please don't respond inside my posts. It's difficult to follow that way. Please answer below the post. Let's start over.

I said, "in this instance, the source clearly explains how 'tracking the temporal flow' of bitcoins only applies to users who have multiple Bitcoin addresses."

You are mistaken. the source clearly states any user who makes multiple payments can be tracked. --Wuerzele (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, to respond to you... The source does not say "any user who makes multiple payments can be tracked." It only supports the idea that users who use multiple bitcoin addresses can be tracked. Please see the below quote from the source itself "Figuring out this kind of information isn't easy, but it's possible, Dumontet says. In order to combat this, most merchants create a unique Bitcoin deposit address for each sale, but when the merchant decides to bundle all of those deposits together they could still be giving a competitor a way of tracking all their Bitcoin transactions. So a competitor could learn something interesting about a company by first paying them in Bitcoins and then tracking how that money flows through the block chain."

This is something like the third time you've said a source supports something that it absolutely does not. Please read source material closely to prevent this type of error in the future. Fleetham (talk) 11:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

@Fleetham: your first sentence in this section is incorrect (tracking the temporal flow" of bitcoins only applies to users who have multiple Bitcoin addresses). My guess is, it is based on a faulty understanding of how tracking works. If you find me one reference that states the above, we will reach immediate consensus.

Fleetham, your attacks on me (kneejerk revert = strange, exactly what you have done even in this section! and numerous times, your unproven allegations, and the derogatory subject line "wuerzele reverts" (where it's you reverts before editing or discussing) are immature, if not ill-spirited, most of all, unproductive. also your complaint, that I reply within your posts (if I do I move a signature to the interrupted post to outline the author!)is curious;a month ago you didnt even follow the etiquette to file below a talk-post. since you messed with the format, nobody can figure out who said what. if you "want to start over" you should have fixed formats properly. and BTW you still dont address me at the beginning of a paragraph, as is etiquette, so: careful throwing stones in the glasshouse. since you dont like teh subject line "fleetham reverts" i suggest a factual, informative subject heading, ok?--Wuerzele (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that Wuerzele's talk-page statement "any user who makes multiple payments can be tracked" is wrong, but it wasn't included in the article, and seems irrelevant to the topic. I'd suggest sticking to the original change being discussed in this thread, in which Wuerzele wrote "However the temporal sequence or flow of bitcoins can give clues as to who owns them." Taking "can give" to mean "sometimes gives", it seems like an accurate, if unclear and comma-deficient, derivative of the cited Wired article sentence "So a competitor could learn something interesting about a company by first paying them in Bitcoins and then tracking how that money flows through the block chain -- Bitcoin's public ledger -- and studying the other transactions that got bundled with the competitor's original payment." By "first paying them in Bitcoins", and "then tracking how that money flows", that is a temporal sequence, even if it's not the word choice I'd use.

Moving forward, both versions of the edit are laudably concise, but I think a slightly lengthier description of how identity can sometimes be traced and can be obfuscated would be of interest to readers. The issue of anonymity is important to the subject of Bitcoin, and explaining it well would be a real improvement to the article. ––Agyle (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

How about something along the lines of....

The public nature of Bitcoin means that, while those who use it are not identified by name, linking transactions to individuals and companies can be done. (1) Additionally, many jurisdictions require exchanges, where people can buy and sell bitcoins for cash, to collect personal information. (2) In order to obfuscate the link between individual and transaction, some use a different bitcoin address for each transaction (3) and others rely on so-called mixing services that allow users to trade bitcoins whose transaction history implicates them for coins with different transaction histories. (4)

1) Mapping the Bitcoin Economy Could Reveal Users’ Identities MIT tech review

2) Five Surprising Facts about Bitcoin Washington Post

3) How Bitcoin lets you spy on careless companies Wired

4) The Politics of Bitcoin Mixing Services Forbes

Fleetham (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Please post any comments or criticism. Fleetham (talk) 06:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@Fleetham: @Agyle: first, I have changed the offensive subject heading. second I think Fleetham's paragraph above is poorly written. It crudely states something, then uses the trademark "while" sentence construction to state another thing. It explains nothing and doesnt use the terms. The second sentence is especially problematic. Since neither of you seems to have read the thread or cared to respond I will repeat: I think giving the 8/2013 Washington Post blog quote "anonymity will be even less guaranteed, because Bitcoin intermediaries will be required to collect personal data on their customers." so much prominence (=undue weight) is not helpful to understand the issue, because it's bizarro ( and nobody else to my knowledge has ever repeated it). citing bank secrecy laws for a loss of anonymity is wrong because it's not the risk to Bitcoin customer anonymity, nor whats represented in the media.I propose this instead:

===Anonymity of users , public transactions=== 

Because the block chain identifies receivers by Bitcoin addresses, and not individuals' names, it affords owners and recipients a high degree of anonymity. They are not anonymous, which is why some scholars have referred to them as ‘pseudo- anonymous’ ( in difference from pseudonymous). On the other hand, transactions are public by virtue of the decentralized accounting work in the blockchain. Transactions are largely untraceable, but context and history of transactions can give clues as to who owns them. --Wuerzele (talk) 07:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I understand that you don't like the style, but I don't understand how saying the fact that bitcoin intermediaries are compelled to collect personal information doesn't lessen the anonymity of the system. Also, how is including this "undue weight?" Giving due weight doesn't mean editors are compelled to create an article where all subjects covered are given the same amount of space as the number of sources that particular subject has. If there's other sources that say bitcoin intermediaries aren't compelled to collect info then yes, this is an "undue weight" issue. If not, it's not. Fleetham (talk) 07:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Agyle:citing bank secrecy laws for a loss of anonymity is wrong, because it's not the risk to Bitcoin customer anonymity, nor whats represented in the media. have you ever heard that about non bitcoin money exchanges? right. therefore it follows that giving the 8/2013 Washington Post blog quote "anonymity will be even less guaranteed, because Bitcoin intermediaries will be required to collect personal data on their customers." as much prominence as the public transaction issue means you are giving undue weight. This is not helpful to understand the issue, because it's bizarro and nobody else to my knowledge has ever repeated it. its a use-less statement. I will change it. --Wuerzele (talk) 04:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits to the "Ponzi scheme" subsection of "Criminal activities"

I would like to thank Fleetham for the edit making some progress. I corrected the "prominanet" typo. That said, there are significant issues remaining:

• Bitcoin is still presented as a "Criminal activity", which is not a neutral POV
• The "While no court has found Bitcoin to be a Ponzi scheme" formulation looks biased:
  • there is no verifiable source for the information
  • there was no real accusation, so no court had a reason to address this
• the "a 2012 report by the European Central Bank noted that Bitcoin has some features of Ponzi schemes" formulation is biased:
  • the report lists the features of a Ponzi scheme as given by SEC
  • the report does not mention a feature of Bitcoin that is in that list

Summing up, the subsection is still significantly biased. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

To address Mecir's concerns:

• I don't think that the section presents Bitcoin as criminal activity. The section does not say "Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme."
• I actually think the no court ruling bit helps bring neutrality to the section. I don't think we need a source because it's unlikely that one could be found. (I mean, can you find a source saying that no scientist thinks the world is flat?) And I'm not sure what you mean by "real" accusation. Reliable news outlets and prominent economists have made real accusations that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme. I think it helps the reader to know that while actual accusations have been made no legal accusation has been brought before a court.
• The ECB does say that Bitcoin is a high risk system that exhibits information asymmetry and one that is at risk of sudden collapse. The only further characteristic of a Ponzi scheme is a promise or expectation of quick profits. You say that the ECB report lists the features of a Ponzi scheme as given by the SEC. Could you please quote the source for this? My suspicion is that the ECB defines the term Ponzi scheme as given by the SEC. I am inclined to agree that this "characteristics of a Ponzi scheme" sentence should be removed, however. The source does not clearly say this, but it does clearly state that it's difficult to determine if Bitcoin is or is not a Ponzi scheme—and if Bitcoin shares no characteristic or features with Ponzi schemes, why would making this determination be difficult? Fleetham (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Re "The source does not clearly say this, but it does clearly state that it's difficult to determine if Bitcoin is or is not a Ponzi scheme—and if Bitcoin shares no characteristic or features with Ponzi schemes, why would making this determination be difficult?" - I do not have any objections against mentioning that the ECB finds it difficult to determine whether Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme or not, because that is mentioned in the report. I do have significant objections against making any conclusions based on this fact, since we cannot determine with any certainty or reliability why the author(s) wrote that, we can only make some guesses, and we should not put guesses to Wikipedia. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Bitcoin as one of the "Criminal activities"

@Fleetham: Re: 'I don't think that the section presents Bitcoin as criminal activity. The section does not say "Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme."' You are right, the section does not say "Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme", at least not since you made the latest edits. The problem is that the section name is "Criminal activities" as mentioned above. Listing Bitcoin as one of the "Criminal activities" means presenting the non-neutral POV I am speaking about. I am not the only editor recognizing this problem. Agyle recognized the problem and proposed to move the paragraph to a more neutral section like "Reception". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

As Bitcoin has been accused of being a Ponzi scheme, that's the appropriate place for the section. Ponzi schemes are illegal. As written, the section makes it clear that Bitcoin, while being accused of being a Ponzi scheme, is not necessarily a Ponzi scheme. I can't imagine a normal person reading the Ponzi scheme section and coming away with the idea that "Bitcoin is without doubt a criminal activity." Fleetham (talk) 06:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

'I can't imagine a normal person reading the Ponzi scheme section and coming away with the idea that "Bitcoin is without doubt a criminal activity."' - Maybe, but a normal person reading the section can come away with the idea that Bitcoin is without a doubt listed in Wikipedia as one of the "Criminal activities". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Bitcoin is not a currency, i.e., it is not a generally accepted verifiable unit of account

Bitcoin is not a currency!

This article loses a lot of credibility when it is repeatedly stated that bitcoin is a currency. It is not. There are many references to that fact. It is already generally accepted that bitcoin is not a currency. Obviously bitcoin speculators all want it to be a currency. Unfortunately, it is not. Speculators´ and bitcoin enthusiats´ hope that it can be made out to be a currency, is easy to understand and accept. However, governments have the final say and they say bitcoin is not a currency. The general members of the public know that. It would be better to remove the many references in the article that bitcoin is a currency. It is not money either. It has widely accepted as a unit of account for that purpose. That is not the case. TwoEscarf (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTTRUTH. Ging287 (talk) 00:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the lesson on Wikipedia editing. I read the link and the first two things you learn are: [to quote]: The policy reads, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Written more verbosely, this means "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is not truth." [More is required.] So I did a Google-search on [bitcoin currency] and get 154million hits. The top hit is for a Forbes article 11 hour ago, "For Bitcoin, Lessons learned in the history of failed currencies" and the second highest rating by Google hummingbird is "Bitcoin is legally property, says US IRS. Does that kill it as a currency?" To me, common sense says that if it's used in commerce, one can consider calling it a currency. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a small note. It's not a binding policy, it's just an informative read and just inculcates WP:V to an extent. Nonetheless, glad it was helpful. Ging287 (talk) 02:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

After writing this note, I reread the article here and it looks good to me. In the lede, "In 2014 the US IRS ruled that the bitcoin should be treated as property rather than currency" and throughout the article it uses 'virtual currency', 'digital currency' not valid in China, etc. And there are 52 times the word 'currency' is properly, truthfully, and verifiably used. Continue on. It's a good article. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The term "currency" is generally (not in this article) used in the context of being the same as money. In this article the term currency is used to be the same as medium of exchange and store of value. An item can only be "money" or "currency" when it has all three of the features of money or currency: 1. Medium of exchange 2. Store of value and 3. Unit of account. This article uses the term currency to simply mean medium of exchange and unstable store of real value. Yes, I fully agree that bitcoin is a medium of exchange and unstable store of real value. Bitcoin is not a widely accepted unit of account. This article´s use of the term "currency" when describing bitcoin is falsely implying that bitcoin is a unit of account like any other currency. Bitcoin is not a generally accepted unit of account that would qualify it as a currency. I agree that verifiable sources use the term "currency" for bitcoin in order to correctly state that it is a medium of exchangen and unstable store of value. There is no problem with the verifiable fact that bitcoin is verifiably a medium of exchange. There is no problem with the verifiable fact that bitcoin is verifiably an unstable store of value. There is a verifiable problem with the verifiable fact that it cannot be verified that bitcoin is a widely accepted unit of account. This article very strongly promotes a very false impression of bitcoin being a currency TwoEscarf (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Currency - That which is in circulation, or is given and taken as having or representing value; as, the currency of a country; a specie currency; esp., government or bank notes circulating as a substitute for metallic money. 1913 Webster. Also see currency. If not a currency then what term to better describe what Bitcoin is? Jonpatterns (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

A better term would be medium of exchange and unstable store of value or simply virtual medium of exchange since any medium of exchange has to have value at the time exchange.TwoEscarf (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Virtual medium of exchange or VME. TwoEscarf (talk) 14:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Virtual currency may be sufficient, from the article The US Department of Treasury in 2013 defined it more tersely as "a medium of exchange that operates like a currency in some environments, but does not have all the attributes of real currency" Jonpatterns (talk) 15:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The US Department of Treasury statement "Medium of exchange that operates LIKE a currency in some environments, but does NOT have ALL the attributes of real currency" does NOT verify that bitcoin is a currency. The US Department of Treasury clearly verifies that bitcoin is NOT a currency. TwoEscarf (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It verifies that it is a virtual currency- Jonpatterns (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

In contrast to real currency, "virtual" currency is a medium of exchange that operates like a currency in some environments, but does not have all the attributes of real currency. In particular, virtual currency does not have legal tender status in any jurisdiction. This guidance addresses "convertible" virtual currency. This type of virtual currency either has an equivalent value in real currency, or acts as a substitute for real currency. ref

The US Treasury Department clearly verifies that bitcoin is NOT real currency. It states: IN CONTRAST TO real currency. Bitcoin is thus NOT real currency: it is IN CONTRAST TO real currency. The US Treasury Department then states "virtual" currency is a medium of exchange LIKE a currency in some environments. It now verifies - for the second time - that is NOT a currency, but, LIKE a currency. It qualified its statement about bitcoin IN THE BEGINNING. No matter how many times it then uses the term "currency" after that, it is always a QUALIFIED term, namely, it is (1) IN CONTRAST TO real currency and (2) LIKE a currency. It can use the term "currency" as many times it wants, it will always be in terms of its qualification in the beginning: it is IN CONTRAST TO real currency and (2) it is LIKE a currency.TwoEscarf (talk) 16:25, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

TwoEscarf, the article does not say Bitcoin is "real", official, or fiat currency, and explains the sense in which it is a currency. What specific change(s) are you proposing? ––Agyle (talk)

Make it clear that bitcoins only have two of the three generally accepted attributes of a currency, ie medium of exchange and store of value. Make it clear that bitcoin is (1) not legal tender and is (2) not a generally accepted unit of account like the Dollar as most people know all currencies have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwoEscarf (talk • contribs) 17:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

TwoEscarf (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The article misleads people to think bitcoins is a currency. This is to the detriment of Wikipedia. Wikipedia suffers from widely being regarded as not a very reliable source of information. TwoEscarf (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion, TwoEscarf. I do hear you. Bitcoin definitely has security/commodity-like features, so I included SEC and CFTC prelim statements in the econ section, waiting to see what they will do. I am familiar with your argument, as Fleetham has more or less said same to my edits. Bitcoin is a new, morphing and developing medium, so its not black and white money or not. My response: careful sourcing of relevant high quality references, and careful wording, as is used in those sources like "not real", "not fully fledged" etc. Alas, I am interested in evidence for what seems like your impression, the article being "misleading" and being "unreliable". I invite you to join the project, help mine sources and see first-hand (=my experience) how people argue every sentence, term, and capitalizations -:) ! FYI please see talk page March 2014. But I have to say, you are the first to capitalize /yell on this page as far as I know, even though we have bad disagreements. please dont. that said, I will start a new section so we dont have to look at the section title "BITCOIN IS NOT A CURRENCY, i.e., IT IS NOT A GENERALLY ACCEPTED VERIFIABLE UNIT OF ACCOUNT." --Wuerzele (talk) 18:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Wuerzele ([[User talk:Wuerzele|talk], it is totally misleading (in reverence to your sensitivies I do not use capital letters) to have "money supply" appearing in the bitcoin badge at the top right-hand corner of the article page. You are really (no capitals) fooling people with that. TwoEscarf (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC) Thanks for pointing this out, although I dont know why you are directing this to me. I never even noticed, maybe a template? @Fleetham: do you know ? you ve hung around here the longest time to my knowledge. I find it not "totally misleading", because it informs me about the cap. And thanks for not shouting, I appreciate it.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:29, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

TwoEscarf, while virtually everyone agrees Bitcoin isn't legal tender, stating this seems unnecessary to me, given that the opening paragraph already seems to make its status quite clear. Just focusing on that one paragraph, do you really think it's misleading people into thinking it's legal tender? If so, are there any specific wording changes you'd suggest to reduce the confusion?

Opinions vary on whether Bitcoin is a unit of account; for example, Germany legally declared it a unit of account last year (1 2). Opinions of whether bitcoins are money and units of account are addressed head-on in the Economy section. If you wish to contribute to the section, you're free to edit it yourself, or suggest improvements or published reliable references in a section on this Talk page. ––Agyle (talk) 20:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Agyle (talk), Bitcoin is not a currency or money as described in these two Wikipedia articles. However, the second last word in the first paragraph in the bitcoin article is a currency link. In the first sentence in currency is a money link that takes me to money where I read that unit of account is an attribute of money/currency which is linked from bitcoin. I get false information from Wikipedia. TwoEscarf (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

TwoEscarf, this article is not citing other Wikipedia articles as sources. If you think the money and currency articles have errors, correct them or discuss the issues in those talk forums. If you want to criticize Wikipedia in general, other websites may be a better place to do so. This page is for discussing this article. Agyle (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Last evening was interesting. Tom Brokaw has a new radio show [12] and talked about Bitcoin and how someone said it will be 'history'. He said he couldn't understand Bitcoin. Maybe he should read here in Wikipedia. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as this article and the use of terms, I would say, "Just wait a while" and remember that "Victors write the History." If Bitcoin goes down, 'currency' can be reworded at that time in the future. Also, I'll reread the article here and see if the politics of Bitcoin has been given proper emphasis. Some want the US dollar to diminish and something like this to rise in the world. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with those editors that want TRUTH reflected in Wikipedia, since some look to Wikipedia for facts and the TRUTH. At the same time, I find it interesting that when some of us put in TRUTH that is counter to biased media, we are accused of 'original research' when we cannot fInd TRUTH in biased media. So which way does Liberal Media (most of America) talk about Bitcoin? They call it a currency! Still, I vote for TRUTH. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Fleetham reverts

• Please do not wholesale revert or delete stuff, unless its vandalism. Instead put template messages up that signal to evryone whats up. Often lot of mindfulness has gone into only few words.
• Dont delete just any unsourced sentence you find in a fly-by-night edit frenzy.
• Point in case : [Deletion with your comment "ce lede, removed unsourced bit about IRS... is this lede worthy material?"] first it is bizarre to ask teh question when you kill teh sentence. this is fait-accomplis and nobody will answer it . its a rhethorical question. you want no discussion. Fleetham, I know this article almost by heart and I know the IRS decision is sourced, where its supposed to be sourced: in teh respective regulation section. you forgot. whoever wrote it in the lede, TwoEscarf I think, didnt know, but was still ok. everyone of us buy you was obviously ok with this. we dont have to cite everything in teh lede onlty to do it again in teh subsection nobody. but you feels its not lede worthy.
• And: Please stop the repeated reverts = biting the new newbies to the site!--Wuerzele (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Fleetham continues to revert wholesale: Kgrad put a section of miningpools in the article. Ok, pretty raw and unsourced, he/she has to learn. But this is no reason to delete it without any valid reason barely 4 h after creation. you have been warned. stop the uncivil behavior and aggressive gestures towards newbies to the page. I will reinsert.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)