Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Toned down TradeHill promotional material

Trimmed the TradeHill section. A new user had made it a bit too promotional. --John Nagle (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Is these apart sections on Tradehill and Mtgox necessary anyway? (OldCar (talk) 16:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC))

Is the 'Conversion to and from real currency' mentioned in the article actually offered by anybody?

The article implies TradeHill is still offering to convert Bitcoin to traditional currencies. This may be in error. From the TradeHill site conversion of Bitcoins to USD remains suspended. The TradeHill "Instant Sell" message reads "Instant Sell has been temporarily disabled for a few days. Apologies!". There is no indication on the site when or if the situation will change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussiejohn (talk • contribs) 04:38, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Forums indicate that you can place limit orders on Tradehill, but not "instant sell".[1] Apparently, the way "instant sell" worked was that the exchange quoted the seller a price and then, if the user accepted, sold at that price. This creates a timing window during which the exchange itself had an exposure to volatility, because other transactions might change the price while the user is deciding. --John Nagle (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Could someone just provide a standard exposition, in English, on what it is and how it actually works?

I've been looking into this for about an hour and normally that would be enough to understand the rudiments of how it works. This is supposed to turn into a widespread medium of exchange, right? That would suggest that you don't need an engineering Ph.D. to use it. However, the language with which the Bitcoin community defines and introduces the subject is impenetrable. There is a lot of talk about how it can't inflate, can't be controlled centrally, or can't be traced, but next to nothing about what it is. That is also true of this article. I'm certain that it's not just me being dense. Besides, even dense people should be able to understand this.

Fifth graders -- third graders! -- usually have no trouble understanding the rules of money as a medium of exchange ("how it works," if not where it comes from and what makes it money). That would seem to be necessary in any scheme that purports to also be money.

Therefore I urge prospective authors of this article to think like someone who has no idea about Bitcoin, get out some simple metaphors and primer language, and answer simple questions for the uninformed:

What is it? How is it money? Would it be correct to call it an electronic community currency? If so, how does it work without a central log of who owns a given "coin" in real time? How can I just open up unlimited numbers of accounts ("wallets," if I've understood it)? Does news of a bitcoin's transfer somehow travel through the full network, so that the spender can't use it again? Does the file representing a coin somehow get erased when I spend it? Since it's a file, why can't that be stored in multiple locations, like any other digital information? What is the issuing authority? If the answer is none, then how does that work? Is there a program running somewhere by some algorithm that just issues Bitcoins on a schedule? Who gets those? How can it be "mined"? What is this "puzzle" you solve while "mining" and what makes that a legitimate means of creating a currency? Who are these people who will exchange Bitcoins for other currencies. How is one supposed to know that what they're giving their dollars/euros for is a "real" Bitcoin? The article fails to answer most of these mostly-simple practical questions.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can communicate it in English.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.229.14 (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

To better understand how Bitcoin works, you need to know a bit about cryptography. I'll try to answer your questions without going into too much detail.

"What is it? How is it money?" The word "Bitcoin" means many things. The current consensus is that "Bitcoin" refers to the software and network which arises from using it, and "bitcoin" for the monetary units themselves. It's money because it's verifiable, divisible, and fungible. Unlike almost all other money, however, it's not fiat (decreed by some authority), but rather completely voluntary. In that sense you could correctly call it a community currency.

"How does it work without a central log?" That takes some detail to go into; I'll describe it later.

"How can I just open up unlimited accounts?" An account is just a public/private-key pair, and you can generate as many of those to you heart's content, and don't have to announce it to the network until you want to send or receive money with them.

"Does news of a bitcoin's transfer somehow travel through the full network?" Yes.

"Since it's a file, why can't that be stored in multiple locations." It can, but a wallet is not the bitcoins themselves, but rather the keys that let you reassign bitcoins to other people. Copying the wallet is good for backups, and in fact is highly recommended.

"What is the issuing authority?" None, really. Bitcoins are issued by the mining process.

"Is there a program running somewhere...that just issues bitcoins on a schedule?" Sort of. It's not a single, central program, but rather the result of the distributed mining process. More on that later.

"Who gets those?" Whoever is lucky enough to find the solution to a hard mathematical problem first.

"How can it be 'mined'? What is the puzzle you solve...?" Miners try to create a block (a set of transactions) whose cryptographic hash sum begins with a certain number of zeroes. Cryptographic hash functions have the property that the output is essentially random, so miners just run the hash function while increasing a "nonce" value each iteration, until they find a nonce that makes the hash sum meet the criterion. Once found, they announce it to the network, each node of which verifies that the new block is valid. If a node tries to submit an invalid block (such as one without the required number of zeroes, or which has an invalid transaction,) the rest of the network will reject it. Another important aspect is something called "difficulty." Basically, as more computational power enters the network, it self-adjusts so that even more zeroes are required for future blocks' hash sums, so that on average somewhere in the network someone will find a solution every ten minutes. Whoever finds the solution is rewarded by allowing them to have a special transaction at the beginning of the block in which 50 bitcoins are sent from nowhere into an account; this is how all bitcoins have and will be issued. Miners also get optional transaction fees that users can include to increase the priority of their transactions. Further, the reward is set to halve every four years, i.e. 25, 12.5, 6.25, etc. (If someone tries to mine a block with a higher-than-allowed reward, the rest of the network will reject it.)

"Who are these people on the exchange/how you can be sure you have a 'real' bitcoin?" The community is mostly geeks/nerds/techies/etc., though that's beginning to expand now. You can be sure you have "real" bitcoins because the client keeps the record of all transactions, and won't allow any that are invalid/impossible.

If you want me to go into more detail about how it works, I'd be happy to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.255.132.66 (talk) 04:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have the same first question as him. What is it? How is it currency? The article and your explanation didn't help. Is it just an arbitrary token of nothing with no value? If that's the case, then how/why would someone give you money for it? Just because they feel like it? I don't get it. Someone who understands what an ordinary person's knowledge is like needs to take a crack at this article. Xezlec (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. My two cents: It sounds like a self-generating currency (?). What does that mean (bitcoins just accumulate as a program chugs away?), and from where does a bitcoin derive any actual value. Basic points imo that need to be clearly dealt with right at the start, before we get into cryptography and anything else. I'm an adult of high intelligence (*cough*) but I'm not reading into all of that. Harshmustard (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Bitcoin is a virtual commodity that you can exchange privately through the equivalent of email. You exchange any fraction of this commodity you possess by deeding it to the next owner's public key, using your private key. The bitcoin network is basically the "title company". It is a commodity because it is assayable, divisible, and exchangeable, and cannot be forged or duplicated. And they are difficult to make/produce, thereby limiting the supply. It has value because people want it, mainly because of the features above. Why does another commodity, gold, have value? You can't eat it. It doesn't cure disease. Gold is also portable, exchangeable, and hard to produce. Unfortunately you can't email gold. As one media commenter quipped, "Would you rather carry $500,000 in gold past the TSA, or $500,000 in bitcoins?" Cloudswrest (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The basics of the crypto part are explained in the short and sweet Hashcash article: You spend some time to solve a puzzle. Checking your result is much faster than finding it, all cryptographic hash functions have this feature. For BitCoins the puzzles get harder over time, and the total number of puzzles is limited. –89.204.153.161 (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's difficult to understand the mechanics of Bitcoin. The problem is that it 'first' requires you to understand the basics of public-key crypto, which, by itself, is hard for the average person (certainly third graders!). And unfortunately, it's hard for people to learn public-key crypto from Wikipedia as well, since the articles thereon are highly technical. A blogger I read recetnly posted a link to this post, which tries to fill in that gap. It doesn't completely explain bitcoin, but it gives a layperson level intro to how the crypto works, leaving off some of the more complicated details. MrVoluntarist (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. I think 207.38 meant to say: update the article. Think this can leave the discussion page. (OldCar (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC))

I think everyone can agree on the fact that this is a geeky hype created by geeks for geeks, with no relevance for the real world. This clearly shows in the fact that some very basic and decisive questions about it have now been raised here three times, and every time, a cryptic, technical, and evasive answer has been supplied. If something is so complicated and incomprehensible that the most basic questions about it can't be answered by its advocates, then it's meaningless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.196.68 (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I just came here to post this exact same request. Knowing nothing about Bitcoin, I came here to find out what it is useful for and why it might interest me. This entire article talks about the mechanics of how it functions and why it may or may not be foolproof or secure or whatever. I might be interested in how it works after I understand what it does. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.56.244.225 (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

How can the general public be expected to buy into this concept if an understanding of cryptography is a prerequisite? QuentinUK (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC).

Okay, I'm 207.38 and back to comment on this sub-thread I started. A few people here seem to get what I'm talking about: for starters, having an introduction to the article that merits the name, and that does not sound like an advertisement for vaguely described advantages of the scheme. If a few sentences can give the gist of general relativity for the layperson, then that should also be possible for bitcoin.

Just for kicks, and because I hate not getting something, here's an attempt at a completely new intro. Maybe someone more knowledgeable wants to fill in the blanks and turn this into a new introduction.

BITCOIN

(Introduction)

Bitcoin is a project to establish a new, universal digital currency suitable for settling electronic transactions on a peer-to-peer basis, without need of financial service institutions as intermediaries. The currency is generated and supported by a decentralized software system running on a distributed network accessible to all Internet users. The currency, which is already in use, does not require the backing of a government or other formal institutions, and in fact is intended to be independent of states.

The Bitcoin software was created by (SN) and launched in 2009. The system is designed to gradually create X million units of the currency, known as "bitcoins," over a period of Y years, and issue these to users at random by a process known as "mining." Once issued bitcoins are spent and traded in the same way as other currencies, but only electronically, within the Bitcoin network.

Some Bitcoin advocates have gone as far as to claim that bitcoins will eventually become the new standard international currency. Some critics see the entire venture as an elaborate Ponzi scheme, while others view it as a limited diversion for a select class of the technologically savvy that cannot possibly catch on among most people because of its complexity. A US senator expressed alarm at the implications of Bitcoin as an unsupervised alternate system of payments and its potentials to facilitate illegal activities or tax evasion. (These views will be treated below.)

SYSTEM OF CURRENCY CREATION

Bitcoin currency creation or "mining" is based on an extremely complex cryptographic puzzle that allows up to Y solutions. Finding these solutions requires enormous computer processing power. Users who wish to "mine" for bitcoins can have their computer run a program that contributes processing power toward finding solutions to the puzzle. Although the total number of possible solutions is known, it is impossible to predict with certainty when a given solution will be found, or in which order, or by which of the participating computers.

The cryptographic puzzle is used as a means both to automate and to randomize the process of creating and issuing the currency to users. Each time a solution to the problem is found, a number of bitcoins (each consisting of a unique alphanumeric code?) are issued to the computer that found them. (Technical aspects of the cryptographic puzzle and the "mining" or currency creation process are explained in greater detail below.)

Once issued, bitcoins are used as currency and also traded for standard currencies. One need not "mine" to acquire bitcoins. One may also enter the bitcoin system by trading existing currencies, such as dollars or euros, for existing bitcoins. The value of bitcoins floats against other currenices as the market determines. Like any other money system, Bitcoin is based on the faith of the users in its status as a medium of exchange. Since users of the system move bitcoins among each other as though these were money, in exchange for goods and services, bitcoins therefore are money to those who use and accept them.

Bitcoins exist only in digital form. A bitcoin used to pay for a good or service is transferred from the account (known as a "wallet") of the payer to that of the recipient. Information about each transaction is distributed to the entire network, so that bitcoins cannot be counterfeited and so that the same bitcoin cannot be spent for more than one transaction at a time. (HOW DOES THIS WORK SO THAT TRANSACTIONS STILL REMAIN ANONYMOUS?!)

As of DATE 2011, the Bitcoin economy had grown to Z users with a total of XXX bitcoins issued so far. One bitcoin was trading in a range of (N-P) to the US dollar and (M-Q) to the euro.

Advocates of the system pointed to several claimed advantages: First, bitcoins do not require state backing and elude state supervision altogether. Second, bitcoins can only be issued by the mining process on an arbitrary schedule determined by the process of finding solutions to the cryptographic puzzle, and therefore no human authority can issue its own bitcoins. Furthermore, there is a limit to the ultimate total number of bitcoins in the world, which will reached when all solutions to the cryptographic puzzle have been found, a point expected around the year 20XX.

Theoretically, these features prevent manipulative monetary policy and means the currency cannot be artificially inflated. However, one bitcoin is divisible into smaller units, and so enough fractions of bitcoins will be generated via transactions to cover the possible future growth of the Bitcoin economy. Because of these features, advocates theorize that the value of a bitcoin will constantly rise.

==

After that there would be room for sections on 1) practical use (wallets, etc.), 2) theoretical goals, 3) the tech side of ths cryptographic stuff and 4) the various controversies. Yes, no?

Don't know when you wrote this, I agree the introduction was terrible, so I already tried to fix that. Hope you meant the introduction before I did that. I like your first two alineas, I think the rest is too technical/detailed to be in an introduction. I also see some small mistakes in the other alineas, but think it goes to far to discuss them at this point. (OldCar (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC))

OldCar: Just wrote it today (6/27) and it's merely my provisional summary for a general audience text on it, after attempting to decipher all the tech talk. (And I revised it just now.) I'm sure parts are off and if I thought I had it all right, I'd have posted it. Rather, I am suggesting it as a model for how to write about this subject in English. In fact, I am hoping someone who knows the subject well takes it as a cue, corrects and adapts it, and uses it as the new first part of this otherwise not very encyclopedic article. Thanks.

Mt. Gox exchange break-in, crash, theft, shutdown

The "flash crash" was apparently due to a break-in to the Mt. Gox exchange's server. All their account user names and passwords were compromised. Someone who broke into an account sold a huge number of Bitcoins, causing the flash crash. They moved some of those Bitcoins out of Mt. Gox. The Mt. Gox exchange is off line until further notice, stranding customer funds. Mt. Gox proposes to roll back transactions to before the theft, but since some funds were moved out of Mt. Gox, the exchange may have to make up losses. [2] So far, all the sources are blogs, but give the press a day to catch up. --John Nagle (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Just did a big revert. A well-intentioned editor added the Mt. Gox break-in story, but it was already in the article elsewhere. --John Nagle (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Related News Articles about the Bitcoin Crash:

Bitcoin Market Compromised, Currency Value Crashes http://technology.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979477786

Compromised system blamed for Bitcoin collapse and data breach http://www.thetechherald.com/article.php/201125/7290/Compromised-system-blamed-for-Bitcoin-collapse-and-data-breach

Bitcoin collapses on malicious trade; Mt Gox scrambling to raise the Titanic http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/06/19/bitcoin_values_collapse_again/

Bitcoin value plummets as main exchange is hacked http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/onepercent/2011/06/bitcoin-value-plummets-as-main.html

The Bitcoin Trials Continue: Mt. Gox Exchange Collapses Due To Compromised Account http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/the-bitcoin-trials-continue-mt-gox-exchange-collapses-due-to-compromised-account/2011/06/20/AGT5CVcH_story.html

Bitcoin value crashes after exchange compromised http://www.finextra.com/News/Fullstory.aspx?newsitemid=22676

So, That's the End of Bitcoin Then http://blogs.forbes.com/timworstall/2011/06/20/so-thats-the-end-of-bitcoin-then/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitacore (talk • contribs)

Removed item about current price. Right now, trading is so thin we don't know what the current price is. TradeHill is back up, but has only traded 14 Bitcoins today. Bitmarket has traded 54 coins. Mt. Gox, the big player, is still down, with traders' balances inaccessible. Trading last week was in the hundreds of thousands of coins per day. Right now you can't liquidate any significant number of Bitcoins at anywhere near the market price. It will probably be a day or two before we know how much a Bitcoin is worth. So we should avoid mentioning price for a while. This isn't Bloomberg. --John Nagle (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

(If you want to see the current trading situation, see TradeHill's market data. Right now, the last trade was at USD$8.00 / Bitcoin. The market is stalled because most of the bids are below 8 and most of the asks are above 14. This is a classic thin market - no clear price, few trades, very limited liquidity. ) --John Nagle (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Update:TradeHill now has enough volume that the price has settled down around $13. So there's now a functioning Bitcoin market with some liquidity. Mt. Gox is posting a price of $17.5, but that's several days old - they're still off line and not doing any transactions. (Bear in mind that this is all tiny by financial standards. Worldwide Bitcoin daily trading volume is about half the daily sales of one US supermarket.) --John Nagle (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Restored deleted section on crash. There are plenty of references available from reliable sources. This is getting considerable news coverage. --John Nagle (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Has anybody attempted to "liquidate any significant number" of Bitcoins at the very low price? I expect that it would be possible but people are holding out in the hope that they rise to their normal value. The way the price has crashed will still be an notable event even when/if things return to normal, so shouldn't be removed. QuentinUK (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Trading has resumed at Tradehill, and after a day or so, there's now enough volume to make a market. The price has been in the $13-$15 range for about a day, so that's the new normal value. The market right now is strong enough that you could probably liquidate 100 Bitcoins without moving the market, but not 1000.[3] Many traders still have funds trapped at Mt. Gox, which is being vague about when it will be possible to extract funds. (See E-gold for how that can work out badly.) There's a BBC story, "Bitcoin will recover from crash", but it's basically PR from Mt. Gox. Nothing good enough today to put in the article. --John Nagle (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Mt. Gox is supposed to re-open for withdrawals at 2011-06-24 0300 UT, and if that goes well, for trading an hour later.[4] After a day or two, the outcome of that will probably get some press reports. All we have so far is speculation and PR. --John Nagle (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Mt. Gox re-opening suddenly postponed a day. --John Nagle (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Mt. Gox re-opening postponed again. Customers getting suspicious. --John Nagle (talk) 04:50, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Mt. Gox back up. --John Nagle (talk) 22:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

which bitcoin address example to use?

Sorry if this has already been proposed, but as a bitcoin address given as example for the address format, I think it would be nice to use the first address that appears in the block chain:

1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa

--Grondilu (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should use an actual address. Ideally there would be an invalid address, similar to IP addresses, which have invalid address ranges reserved for documentation. Since there's no such thing for Bitcoin, I propose we use a random nothing up my sleeve number, such as the SHA256 hash of the string "Bitcoin" and convert it into the format of an address. — DataWraith (talk) 08:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I concur. I see no utility in using an actual address. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking into this, I've learned a bit more about bitcoin addresses. Basically, an address is a 160 bit hash with a checksum to prevent typos. While the change Casascius made to corrupt the address in the article results in an invalid address, that address is not well-formed anymore (http://blockexplorer.com/q/checkaddress complains). Since I'm a perfectionist, I'll be bold and change the address as follows:

• SHA1("Bitcoin") = 42bd6b9eeb1da01504fefe014e16415246c0f66f (160 bit)
• Convert that into an address via http://blockexplorer.com/q/hashtoaddress/42bd6b9eeb1da01504fefe014e16415246c0f66f
  • This yields the address 175tWpb8K1S7NmH4Zx6rewF9WQrcZv2456

At this point the address is valid, and someone could send money to it (although no one could receive it). While I doubt anyone would actually send any, the last character can be changed to 'W' (for Wikipedia), which invalidates the checksum. Trying to send money to the address will now result in an error message from the bitcoin client. — DataWraith (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That's fine.--Grondilu (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the previous address 1NS17iag9jJgTHD1VXjvLCEnZuQ3rJED9L is actually an invalid address that is given as the example address in the main Bitcoin client (hence its use). (The relevant code being m_staticTextInstructions = new wxStaticText( this, wxID_ANY, _("Enter a Bitcoin address (e.g. 1NS17iag9jJgTHD1VXjvLCEnZuQ3rJDE9L)"), wxDefaultPosition, wxDefaultSize, 0 ); in uibase.cpp of the client)Blue Matt (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Why not use a testnet address? These addresses are only valid on the special bitcoin test network with test coins and are invalid on the production network. There would be no chance to accidentally send coins to it. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 14:29, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Apparently someone managed to change the address again. The comment about it being SHA1("Bitcoin") is still there, though, so I'm changing it back to 175tWpb8K1S7NmH4Zx6rewF9WQrcZv245W. — DataWraith (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

List of trading sites

I'm a little disturbed about the list of trading sites listed on this page. IMHO (and perhaps a little too proudly) think that either these sites stand on their own merit for notability, or they should be removed. This page shouldn't be a link farm to various trading sites.

Mt. Gox clearly deserves a special note, but I think it very likely could meet the WP:NOTE guidelines to merit its own article as well, presuming that anybody would bother to write the thing. If any of the other sites also have that level of notability, I certainly think something akin to a navigation bar for Bitcoin-related pages might be useful.... but not as the link farm which currently exists. A sort of "see also" section is sometimes employed on some Wikipedia articles.

For myself, I think that the inclusion of these sites other than as a reference to how they have impacted the currency as a whole is inappropriate altogether. We've gone over this issue before including other businesses who use Bitcoins. The slippery slope if these are permitted is to cascade into listing literally everybody who has posted a Bitcoin address to receive the currency, including myself. I suggest drawing the line very strongly, and only if the business has had a major impact in the community as noted from reliable and verifiable sources unrelated to the trading site should it even be included in this article. TradeHill, perhaps, could be mentioned but only so far as they have been picking up slack from Mt. Gox. Otherwise, the details about that site ought to be in its own article... presuming it meets notability criteria. --Robert Horning (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I concur. The mere fact that a site trades bitcoins is insufficient, and to include them a bit spammy. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Inherent bias

Pro-bitcoin people are more likely to write about it than anti-bitcoin people, and more likely to give the attention to those writings necessary to get them published in a reliable source. Therefore, we should pay particular attention to including anti-bitcoin points. I'm not suggesting lowering the standards of RS, but just seeking out RS's which cogently put forth those anti-bitcoin arguments which can be easily found on non-RS such as blogs, Quora, etc. Currently, the only point in the "criticism" section is about deflation; we should find sources for the points which have been removed (initial allocation, lack of intrinsic value, lack of liquidity/convertibility, and lack of stabilizing authority). 187.143.153.84 (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

And bubble Bulwersator (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Since I started this section, the criticism section has been removed entirely, without integrating that information elsewhere. I understand the sourcing issues, but the article as it stands is extremely biased, and could even be considered touting. 187.143.153.84 (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think citing the Quora debate as evidence of criticism is fine, btw. I removed the quote from "an economist" saying Bitcoin is a scam because the quote came from a guy who seems to predict sport ticket prices rather than somebody who actually studies macro-economics. It's no more credible than somebody just saying Bitcoin will take over the world. The link to the debate was good supporting evidence for more general criticism or debate over the economic model. Why not make another attempt and perhaps include links to (for example) the legal analysis that was posted on the forums a while ago Mike Hearn (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The problems with this article reveal deep problems with wikipedia becoming the primary research tool in our society. Journalists get information from wikipedia, and then pro-bitcoin people remove all information that hasn't been echoed by a journalist. I think it is highly relevant that bitcoins have gone up 100x in price over the last five months, and I think it is highly relevant that the "author" "Satoshi Nakamoto" has absolutely no web footprint and is doubtless an alias. I think it is highly relevant that the exchanges for bitcoin have no proper method for shorting them. I think it is highly relevant that bitcoins have many of the marks of a pyramid scheme (no intrinsic value, relying on increasing the base to increase the value of earlier adopters). Further, it is highly relevant that many technies are long a couple hundred bitcoins, and have a clearly vested financial interest in scrubbing the wikipedia article of negative information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.106.138.11 (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

An issue with reliable sources has been a major issue with this article from the AfD debates and practically when this article was started in the first place. The reason this article exists at all is due to the fact that reliable sources now can be found that at least mention Bitcoins and some of the key features... features that are independently verified and can be described by somebody with some technical expertise in computing sciences. We can debate what amounts to be a reliable source, and that debate is certainly reasonable here on this talk page.

As to the lack of a web footprint for "Satoshi Nakamoto", that is a completely irrelevant fact. The lack of something is not proof. I responded to more about Satoshi in an earlier section, so please leave comments there if you want to hit this bit of trivia a bit harder. Find the source and then the debate can move on with that issue.

As far as Bitcoin being a pyramid scheme or not, it would be interesting to see if a relevant "expert" thinks about the topic. Again, get some sources that debate the issue and bring it up. To suggest here on Wikipedia that it might be a Ponzi scheme or something of a scam is pure speculation and violating WP:OR guidelines unless those sources can be found. Suggesting that some SEC lawyer or even a well known market analyst who has studied Bitcoin in some detail has declared it to be a pyramid scheme is completely different. I would even say for this particular allegation that even an otherwise "reliable source" which only mentions that "some people" think it might be a pyramid scheme is not sufficient unless they nail down who those "some people" really are... or at least mention that for at least that source they used an "anonymous source" for primary source information and the person writing the article seems to have some credibility on that kind of topic. Again, we can debate individual sources as to if they are reliable, but lets try to get to that point first.

If you are worried about "cleansing" the Wikipedia article from negative information, it goes both ways on that. If paragraphs that have been deleted which are factual, verifiable, and sourced are being deleted (along with the source information), that is something which is of concern. I don't see that happening (too much at least) and what is mostly going on with this article is mostly pure speculation being deleted. That is precisely as it should be. --Robert Horning (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, the fact that bitcoins have increased >100x (10000%) in value over the last eight months is a salient fact about bitcoins, which is continually scrubbed from the entry, always for very plausible reasons. It is also very relevant that betting on the future of the bitcoin economy (in mtgox) is the primary activity in the bitcoin economy itself (remember, bitcoins only register when they change wallets, so the transactions in mtgox only show up on the bitcoin servers when people leave mtgox). I have an emotional commitment to wikipedia, but no financial interest in Bitcoin, and it seems like a lot of work to get the details right, when people with financial interests are clouding the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.106.138.11 (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a separation from the technical description of what Bitcoins are and how they work and whether or not they are a good idea? I would like to see a neutral and accurate description of what Bitcoin is and then sections discussing the arguments for and against. 50.43.116.34 (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

This is really no different than just about any other subject in Wikipedia: Interested parties are more likely to pay attention. Also, the biases don't all align in one direction: people can currently make money by manipulating the bitcoin exchange rates in either direction. I agree with 116.34's above view that the technical and non-technical stuff should be handled separately. Bitcoin is an interesting, powerful, and useful technology independent of its use as a currency. The whole bound blockchain stuff (where other Nakamoto-chain distributed deed systems like namecoin are secured by sharing the same proof-of-work as bitcoin) means that bitcoin-the-technology may stay very important even when bitcoin the currency fad goes the way of the beanie baby. The Wikipedia article already gives a better coverage of the technology than most places. --Gmaxwell (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As such, I think we'll eventually have to split the Bitcoin article between at least two: one for bitcoin the currency and at least one for the Bitcoin network, its implementations, derivatives, and clients. Just something to think about for the future. KLP (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The assertion that people can make money by manipulating bitcoin exchange rates in either direction is totally unsupported. Since there is no way to be "short" on bitcoin, it would seem that this would be based on the idea that any dip in the value of a bitcoin is fundamentally temporary. When such an assumption is asserted as fact, it tells more about the one making the assertion than about bitcoin.

It is clear that this article suffers from a lack of critical viewpoints. (NPOV is about style and inclusiveness; critical viewpoints definitely belong here). But we cannot include them without reliable sources, and Quora (as high-quality as it often is) simply does not qualify. So, if you want to improve this article, search Google News for "bitcoin bubble" and find some reliable, citable sources. 187.143.153.84 (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

As 108.6 points out below, it's centrally possible to short bitcoin— just like any other commodity that people trade. I'm insulted that you characterized my view as being that declines in the rate being "fundamentally temporary". That isn't my view at all, nor is my view especially relevant to the article. If you attack the people that you're talking with like it makes having a civil discussion quite difficult.

Google news is not a good fountain of reliable citable sources. Mass media is generally highly contaminated with speculation, rumor, and exaggeration. Worse, they usually fail to disclose when their information is gleamed from random anonymous speakers on IRC vs being the product of careful research. There are basically no professional consequence for journalists who make errors, and even overt intentional lying is lawful (at least in the US). Ideally we want peer reviewed secondary sources. Obviously there is sometimes a shortage of this and we have to make do with media commentary, but I strongly object to the statement of the fodder on google news as an ultimate high quality source. --Gmaxwell (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

108.6 Is fundamentally wrong in his statement about goint short (please see my comment below). So your statement that 'people can currently make money by manipulating the bitcoin exchange rates in either direction' for the moment doesn't hold. Before commenting on your 'being insulted' by 187.143, I'd very much like to see you explain why 'people can currently make money by manipulating the bitcoin exchange rates in either direction'. Without any reference to 'going short', as it was obvious that this was not possible at the time you wrote this and 108.6 had not made his post about it yet when 187.143 'attacked' you. (OldCar (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC))

" I think it is highly relevant that the exchanges for bitcoin have no proper method for shorting them." - why is this relevant? cash markets are difficult to short because you need to find actual lenders of bitcoins, and given the volatility, the margin would need to be 10-1 and the interest rate to pay to borrow bitcoins would be astronomical. Also, if you are "long" USD then you are "short" bit coins and visa-vera. Furthermore, "shorts" in a market are the only natural buyers, so the assertion that not having shorts is somehow keeping prices high, is not correct. On a side note, I have been actively shorting Bitcoins, i do this by borrowing from "#bitcoin-otc" members. "#bitcoin-otc" is an over the counter exchange in IRC chat. Once a futures exchange is started, shorting will be common as each futures contract has a long and a short. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.29.190 (talk) 05:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Being 'long' in USD is nowhere near of going 'short' in bitcoins. Your side note doesn't contradict 38.106's statement either. Also 'the assertion that not having shorts is somehow keeping prices high' has not been made (by 38.106). It is a relevant statement, as it shows the motive of people adding criticism cannot be: go short -> add criticism -> close. So it doesn't really 'go both ways', as Robert Horning suggests. (OldCar (talk) 09:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC))

If you are going to quote me, get it right. Going "both ways" is that any particular point of view can be included or removed from the article based upon verifiable and reliable sources of information. Provided you can find a stable source of information that can be established by general consensus as reliable, you can put information from that source into this article... stylistic differences in terms of grammar usage not withstanding. Is there something specific here that you are looking at? Trying to promote some business concept that is not discussed in a reliable source or is self-published doesn't count here and is contrary to Wikipedia policies. Enough content is now available from reliable sources about Bitcoin that the concept itself is no longer stretching the one or two articles that used to be about the topic, but these sub-topics still may be lacking sources. Argue about the sources, not the concept. If you have a source of information that keeps being deleted from the article, bring it up here on this talk page and let's come to a conclusion as to if that source is reliable or not. If you want to argue philosophies of how to use Bitcoins, take that to the Bitcoin forums. I'd gladly join you there if you are interested. --Robert Horning (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

As a bitcoin developer, I have to agree that this article needs more negative points. Possible a criticism with responses section. A big problem with bitcoin is memetic inbreeding and groupthink. About the comment on shorting: bitcoinia offers shorting. Most exchanges don't it because they aren't very technical/complete pieces of software. Genjix (talk) 11:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, I added a criticisms section and some scandals. Genjix (talk) 11:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The second line in Critisism (about technoligies being inherently neutral) seems like a rebuttal to the first point, however it really isn't clear in what context the statement belongs or why it is there. I suggest that it is removed, unless a more defined structure, in which it stands, is found 188.174.46.88 (talk) 11:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Global Standard Bank

'Global Standard Bank' keeps getting added to the article as an exchange site. However, this site seems to have no traffic, is brand new, and is questionable in general. The market data on the site is static and a week old. I don't think anyone has heard of it other than the site owner. Please try to keep it off, since I have been warned about battling to remove it. The site owner also for some reason made an article on it, Global Standard Bank, which I've nominated for deletion. Imperi (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. If "Global Standard Bank" appears, it should be as a scam. It's not a "bank" under Canadian banking laws, is not registered with the appropriate authorities, and has other irregularities. --John Nagle (talk) 18:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of if it fits the definition of a scam, it simply is not notable nor is anything about it verifiable, therefore it deserves no place on Wikipedia until that happens, if ever. If it gets into the news because its "officers" are arrested for fraud and that involves Bitcoin, perhaps it could be mentioned.... somehow I doubt that is what these guys are seeking in terms of recognition.

Too many of these external non-sources/promotional links are creeping back into this article, and they all need to go. This isn't aimed explicitly at this one organization, but anything not really linked to the main community of Bitcoin users. --Robert Horning (talk) 19:14, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, keep removing them. Few if any are notable. Actually, it looks like Bitcoin had its 15 minutes of fame. The price hit $30 in June 2011, and has been dropping about $4 per month since. It's now below $5. News coverage is way down. --John Nagle (talk) 04:32, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion of new section on practical aspects

I suggest a section which is geared more toward non-technical readers which explains how bitcoins are bought and used in practice. A non-geek person, or maybe the owner of a web shop, looking up the article may have the following questions:

• What are bitcoins for? Who would want to use them and why?
• Is it legal to use bitcoins for normal internet commerce?
• What to I need to use them?
• What are the costs in practice?
• What are advantages and disadvantages compared to other means of payment?
• How can I buy them? How can I sell them?
• Why should I use multiple addresses for receiving payments?
• How can I recognize and avoid scams? How much is my risk if I behave prudently?
• What are the consequences (advantages / disadvantages) of non-reversible transactions?
• How much do I need to understand about cryptography?
• How big is the risk that my wallet is stolen? How can I minimize it?
• What if my computer breaks down without recovery?
• How can I lock money securely down?
• What are legal consequences of using bitcoins? Is it money, in legal terms? What about taxes?
• _Why_ do people promote that? Are these just criminals and weirdos?

Of course, many of these questions can be answered by the FAQ or by reading a few days in the forums. But I think it is legitimate to expect some answers in the Wikipedia article. --84.135.59.12 (talk) 09:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a primary source. Wikipedia may reference articles that answer these questions (or attempt to), but it's not Wikipedia's place to be a FAQ on how to get started with bitcoins. It's Wikipedia's place to explain such things as, "What are bitcoins?" "Why are they important?" "What's the history of these bitcoins?" "What are the technical underpinnings of bitcoin?" and of course "Where can I go to get more information?". In particular, since the legality of bitcoin usage has not yet (to my knowledge) been explored in the courts, any attempt to definitively answer that question would be original research. We can, of course, write about the controversy surrounding this, with proper citations. --bd_ (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

There is a proposed law in the U.S. Congress (HR 1098) which would completely legalize Bitcoin if passed, as that has been explicitly mentioned during congressional testimony as something which would be desired if this bill passes. Since it is only a bill rather than a law, that doesn't give much guidance as to its current legality. There may be some interesting sources of information like this bill that could be used to answer some of these questions.

BTW, if you can find a whole bunch more information, it might be advisable to create a Wikibook instead on Bitcoin if you want to create a non-encyclopedic "FAQ" or something more substantial than a Wikipedia article.

Links to that "book" can be made from this page once you have some content worth reading on that Wikipedia sister project as well. The standards of "original research" tend to be quite a bit more relaxes (but still are there) for Wikibooks compared to Wikipedia, and you can most certainly put in some "how-to" instructions in terms of how to use Bitcoins or configure the software to accomplish certain tasks that may be desired. If you want some help in getting a Wikibook like that started, please respond here or reply on my talk page. --Robert Horning (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

The idea was not a whole book but a short section which is less theoretical and more operational in style. If you were to explain somebody what a can opener is, you could start with material science and the law of the lever. But if you imagine a person which never had seen a can opener, it would be far more instructive to show a video clip on how a can is opened. It does not need to be in the style of a manual, only operational in style. This is fully conforming to modern ways of teaching mathematics, which teach operations and how to handle them. The theoretical sections are valuable of course - but for such a subject they are quite difficult to understand for the majority of Wikipedia users.--84.135.59.237 (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Have you considered Wikiversity instead? The whole point is that the content you are trying to add here really isn't encyclopedic, although it certainly can be linked into this article as something more than just another mere external link due to Wikiversity being a sister project. Supplemental material is always welcome on Wikipedia and there are many articles which have such material hosted on sister projects. A Wikiversity "course" on cryptographic monetary systems might be fun to write up, with a specific section on Bitcoin certainly being reasonable. BTW, consider what you might be doing on Wikibooks to be more of an instruction pamphlet rather than a comprehensive textbook. I'm just trying to give you some ideas for other approaches to what may be a good idea.... and I guess perhaps talking myself into the project as well. I'm sure that on the Bitcoin forums there would be some people who would be willing to volunteer in terms of contributing content for a project like this. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Article cleanup

As the tags it has earned suggest, this article is too long, and could really use a restructuring with a more summarizing introduction. History, attributes of the Bitcoin currency and client software, the P2P transaction network and public key cryptography addresses, and proof-of-work/blockchain/mining should all be separated out, with the technical far down and minutiae eliminated. Consider the person who would be looking up this article, someone who has just heard the term Bitcoin for the first time and is wondering how it can work, and is able to use references for further reading. 76.27.195.93 (talk) 07:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Network?

Why call it a network? That is misleading and confusing. Why not replace "peer-to-peer network" with "peer-to-peer financial system"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.175.173.29 (talk) 00:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the issue. Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer network. KLP (talk) 03:20, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If the article is too technical for most readers as suggested by the {{technical}} template message, then I think the subject should be described as a "digital currency with a supporting network and software" or similar. --Theodore Kloba (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Scholarly papers on Bitcoin

I know that when this article was originally being developed, there was some considerable discussion about notability and complaining that the concept was mostly being discussed on blogs and other non-conventional locations, thus the information presented couldn't be considered a reliable source. That is changing, and in addition to some of the hat tags on the article, I think there is room now to revise/replace at least some of the sources of information with something that certainly has a fair bit more meat to them. Some scholarly papers are now being written about Bitcoins, and I most especially want to somehow add this paper into the article:

http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/156072/bitcoin.pdf

This is about as reliable as it comes in terms of academic publications, even though at the moment it is technically a "self-published" white paper. There are other similar scholarly papers on the topic which are clearly 3rd party (aka not one of the main developers of the project) and there is some real credibility in terms of scholarship. Yes, I'm aware of WP:PRIMARY in terms of how policies on Wikipedia relate to content of this nature, so I'm not really sure what secondary sources can be relied upon yet, but I am saying that some progress is being made on at least an academic front of people taking the idea seriously. In some sense, Bitcoin is growing up, at least as a concept. --Robert Horning (talk) 13:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Covert mining

The idea of people using other people's computers to do work is not unique to Bitcoin. Also, a Bitcoin produced on someone else's computer "covertly" is no different than one produced on an authorized computer. May I suggest that this section be removed from the Reception and concerns section?

In my opinion the article deserves a narrative section where covert mining should be mentioned, but the subject seems not to be a legitimate "concern." Fotoguzzi (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

While it may not be unique to Bitcoin in terms of a virus or "trojan" lurking in the background, the idea of actually "minting money" in that fashion is unique and something that I think is worth a mention in the article. The issue here is mainly finding reliable sources for this tidbit of info, although I do know of some popular news articles that have mentioned the concept. It certainly is useful to note that if your CPU usage spikes in your computer, this might be one of the culprits. Discussing such "covert" applications of Bitcoin certainly is worth at least a sentence or two, even though it certainly isn't worth expanding into a whole article. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/bitcoin-botnet-mining (official blog of Symantec) - possible but unprofitable due to low value of bitcoins Bulwersator (talk) 13:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Proprietary software required for mining

It could possibly be included somewhere that while the client implementations are free software, one still needs to install proprietary drivers to take advantage of GPU power by utilizing CUDA or OpenCL. Sure one can mine with a CPU but then it will statistically take 170 years to create 1 block (50 bitcoins, worth some 300 euro at current rate) so it is completely useless. (Perhaps FPGAs could be run without proprietary software but it's not like people have such hardware laying around.) Palosirkka (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

While the specific code may be proprietary, the algorithm isn't and those extra CUDA and GPU pieces of software are merely add-ons. You may need specific drivers to take advantage of some features of something like a GPU, but that is true even if you install Linux on your computer (merely to use the GPU for computational purposes) and is not something specific to Bitcoin. This sounds more like a complaint that you don't have a powerful computer to compete with others who have tweaked and maxed the performance of their computers for this task.

More importantly, if there is a specific reliable source of information that can be used to verify this information as you've described, that might be worked into the article. If there has been some public commentary by a noted journal or report about Bitcoin describing this problem as you see it, then it can definitely be listed as an issue. Otherwise it would have to be considered original research. --Robert Horning (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

Hello everyone, I just spent a ton of time demystifying bitcoins to myself. There are a number of severe misconceptions that are floating around and although the wikipedia article I think does not include them there is a sort of undercurrent in the language used that I think is misleading people:

1. The article often talks about the "same bitcoin" etc. Bitcoins are not fungible so this gives the wrong impression. They are mere tally marks in the central distributed database. Indistinguishable from each other.
2. Are bitcoin addresses the same as the public keys used for the address? They are one and the same I think and this should be clarified because there are a lot of people who think they are different or there is some sort of directory server or something.
3. Bitcoin addresses are a bit like stacks of money. You cannot transfer money from one address to another without it being recorded in the database (since the act of recording it is the same as the act of transferring it basically). A lot of people think the wallet is the stack of money, or like a bucket, and the addresses are just the inputs and outputs of the bucket. So they think that you can recieve bitcoins from one address and then spend them from a different one if you see what I mean. This is not the case.
4. The warning about the lack of anonymity should be made more clear because the anonymity is arguably pretty poor but there are a lot of people who think it is strong, including for example some people within and donating to wikileaks apparently . Here is a paper that explains how easy it is to break the anonymity (which was on slashdot): http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.4524v1.pdf basically the distributed database/block chain records everything and it is trivial to views it. So you can analyse the traffic to determine which addresses belong to discrete users etc. quite easily and anyone can do this. There are even sites that you can browse the history on. Obviously this implies that if anyone ever does correlate your addresses with you as a person then they can see every transaction you have ever made, no matter how long ago. You could try to spend out all your addresses and then destroy your wallet file and start a new one. But using traffic analysis the old addresses may still be linked to you on a probability basis or through other means, and to anyone who knows that a given address once belonged to you... the entire history is visible to them..
5. When you communicate with the network is it possible that say an undercover cop could be the peer you are communicating directly with thereby getting you rIP address? There should be a section with methods taht are usually used in conjunction with bitcoins, in the anonymity section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.175.244 (talk) 08:39, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this may all be true. In fact, it is almost certainly true! But that doesn't mean anyone will heed what you said. Case in point: Bitcoin is now included in the Finance WikiProject. That should serve to further establish its credibility for those looking for information. But it isn't up to me to determine whether that is appropriate or not. Nice work here, unsigned user. --FeralOink (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

evocash

reminds me of 'evocash', but I can't find good information on "evocash". 66.243.212.138 (talk) 23:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Bitcoin: fastest distributed computing network

in answer to: 23:44, 13 February 2012‎ SudoGhost (talk | contribs)‎ (45,050 bytes) (Undid revision 476667976 by 92.228.60.82 (talk) Not in source given.) (undo)

it is right there, page 26 right paragraph.

also I think the top of the bitcoin page is the right place because it shows the significance of the project.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SrM8dAHedwcJ:www.milkeninstitute.org/publications/review/2012_1/22-31MR53.pdf+petaflops&cd=1&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=de

All told, the network constitutes the mostpowerful supercomputer in the world. Calcu-lating at 130 petaflops (a thousand trillionfloating-point operations per second), it is or-ders of magnitude faster than the world’s fast-est supercomputer, the K Computer in Kobe,Japan (eight petaflops), as well as other com-putational networks including SETI@Home(which searches radio telescope data for sig-nals from aliens at half a petaflop), and Fold-ing@Home (which simulates protein-foldingfor medical research at four petaflops). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.138.29 (talk) 08:52, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion about it here. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary references, and this pdf appears to be one of many wildly different numbers within a reasonable time period. This claim should not be restored until the reliability of this number can be established. - SudoGhost 09:55, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

not sure why that page would be relevant. Bitcoin has been removed from the list (why?) and they are not showing flops any more. I repeat: if you like to check or do the estimate yourself you can go here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=38064.0 it is quite simple actually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phelix77 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Did Bitcoin "guest star" on the TV show "The Good Wife"?

Wasn't there recently an episode of "The Good Wife" where the main character's law firm defended the creator of an online transaction system called Bitcoin? Was that episode about THIS Bitcoin, or a fictional company based on the real Bitcoin, or was the use of the same name a coincidence, or do i just incorrectly remember the name of the company in the show?

EDIT: The episode "Bitcoin for Dummies" is listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good_Wife_(season_3) so my other questions remain.

70.17.201.25 (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Wired magazine article on Bitcoin

A major article on Bitcoin appeared in Wired magazine in November 2011 http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/11/mf_bitcoin/all/1 The arguments there need referencing in this article but I do not have the competence to do this. --JeffreyBNewman (talk) 07:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Bring back the Advantages section --FrankAndProust (talk) 13:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A hefty revert has been performed recently. First of all, I would like to reach a consensus to bring back the Advantages section.

Before Bitcoin there was no way to avoid double spending without a trustworthy central authority. Bitcoin solved this limitation with a novel software solution, never implemented before, which combines a P2P system and a proof-of-work system. This has brought to the picture new features that were not possible ever before. Namely, there is no single central institution or bank in control of the money/commodity supply. This fact, combined with cryptography and the global scope of the internet makes the advantages below possible.

This is the content of the Advantages section before the revert. Could we please discuss what needs to be changed to make this section back to the main article?

Advantages

Even though Bitcoin is currently considered experimental software, it provides several advantages over traditional forms of money. Some of these characteristics are new concepts never encountered before in history.

• International: Bitcoin is truly global. It does not discriminate its users on citizenship or location.
• Always running: No bank holidays. The Bitcoin network works 24/7.
• Inexpensive to secure: Unlike precious metals, there is no custody charge in Bitcoin. The mining rewards are enough to cover the creation of Bitcoins and the protection of the network.
• Low fees: Miners record transactions in the block chain for very low fees. For small payments, such as donation to bloggers or in crowd funding, most of the bitcoins will make it to the recipient.
• No chargebacks: Person to person Bitcoin transfers are irreversible. On the other hand, chargebacks are possible when all parties involved in a transaction agree to use an escrow service.
• Non-manipulatable: Unlike fiat money, Bitcoin is decentralized and stable in supply, so quantitative easing is not possible.
• Non-confiscatable: Accounts can not be frozen by any government. In situations of political instability, bank runs, corralitos and wars, users can leave their country with no baggage at all and start a new life with their Bitcoin savings.
• New privacy model: Anonymity is possible. Total transparency is also possible. Several websites provide information of all transactions and the balance of all Bitcoin addresses.
• Zero counter-party risk: Each Bitcoin wallet holds the real assets, unlike the balance in a bank account, which is subject to fractional reserve banking.
• Value dense: A single Bitcoin address can store millions of USD.
• Divisible: Bitcoins are currently divisible to up to eight decimals.
• Recognizable: Unlike gold, which needs an acid test or even drilling the bullion to check for its purity, Bitcoins are immediately distinguishable thanks to state of the art cryptography.
• Multisignature transactions: For additional security, "2 signatures required" Bitcoin addresses can be generated. For example, one private key can be stored on a desktop computer and the other one on a mobile phone. Only the owner of both keys can perform the transaction.
• No need of banks: Bitcoins can be securely transferred person to person. They can also be stored in a file, so no banking system is necessary.

• Comment - A blog and two primary sources don't give it sufficient weight, nor does it present a WP:NPOV, especially as the advantages are completely unsourced. If there are reliable, independent third-party sources then that's another story completely, but as it stands the content I reverted reads a little too promotional. Wikipedia articles are not meant to sell the article's subject to the reader, but to present information reflected in reliable sources. If reliable sources mention these advantages (and disadvantages, if any), then the article should. But if there are no reliable sources to support the information, it makes that information undue. - SudoGhost 14:23, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

The "Real estate metaphor" section in particular is completely unsourced, and looks to be WP:OR, which doesn't belong in the article, especially without a single source of any kind supporting the information. Reverting the addition of such content is not considered vandalism by any means. - SudoGhost 14:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

There's a big banner on top of the article to wit: "It may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help make it understandable to non-experts. Tagged since September 2011." The "Real estate metaphor" is patently obvious to anybody who understands bitcoin. I assume this wiki article is for people who don't understand bitcoin and is simply an analogy to a very similar and familiar system in a different context.Cloudswrest (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

That means the technical aspects should be rewritten to remove the overly technical wording, while keeping the adherance to reliable sources. It doesn't mean that WP:OR can be introduced in the article to give an editor's interpretation of what they think it means. - SudoGhost 16:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. KLP (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:20, 5 April 2012 (UTC).

• New proposal for Advantages section - I have added a few more references. I have also remarked the novelty of the Bitcoin solution, which I have also backed with a reference from Reuters. Please let me know what you think. --FrankAndProust (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Advantages

Before Bitcoin there was no way to avoid double spending without a trustworthy central authority. Bitcoin solved this limitation with a novel software solution, never implemented before, which combines proof of work in a P2P network to reach consensus between peers. Bitcoin is currently considered experimental software. However, it provides several advantages over traditional forms of money. Some of these characteristics are new concepts never encountered before in history.

• International: Bitcoin is truly global. It does not discriminate its users on citizenship or location.
• Always running: No bank holidays. The Bitcoin network works 24/7.
• Inexpensive to secure: Unlike precious metals, there is no custody charge in Bitcoin. The mining rewards are enough to cover the creation of Bitcoins and the protection of the network.
• Low fees: Miners record transactions in the block chain for very low fees. For small payments, such as donation to bloggers or in crowd funding, most of the bitcoins will make it to the recipient.
• No chargebacks: Person to person Bitcoin transfers are irreversible. On the other hand, chargebacks are possible when all parties involved in a transaction agree to use an escrow service.
• Non-manipulatable: Unlike fiat money, Bitcoin is decentralized and stable in supply, so quantitative easing is not possible.
• Non-confiscatable: Accounts can not be frozen by any government. In situations of political instability, bank runs, corralitos and wars, users can leave their country with no baggage at all and start a new life with their Bitcoin savings.
• New privacy model: Anonymity is possible. Total transparency is also possible. Several websites provide information of all transactions and the balance of all Bitcoin addresses.
• Zero counter-party risk: Each Bitcoin wallet holds the real assets, unlike the balance in a bank account, which is subject to fractional reserve banking.
• Value dense: A single Bitcoin address can store millions of USD.
• Divisible: Bitcoins are currently divisible to up to eight decimals.
• Recognizable: Unlike gold, which needs an acid test or even drilling the bullion to check for its purity, Bitcoins are immediately distinguishable thanks to state of the art cryptography.
• Multisignature transactions: For additional security, "2 signatures required" Bitcoin addresses can be generated. For example, one private key can be stored on a desktop computer and the other one on a mobile phone. Only the owner of both keys can perform the transaction.
• No need of banks: Bitcoins can be securely transferred person to person. They can also be stored in a file, so no banking system is necessary.

So you added sources. Your proposal still reads like a brochure, in defiance of WP:NOTPROMOTION. The Bitcoin article should only explain what Bitcoin is, not why it's so great. I don't even understand why you think this article needs an Advantages section. The rest of the article already presents most if not all of the information you're trying to convey. And it does so in a much less promotional manner. Of course, that doesn't mean the rest of the article doesn't also suffer from such advocacy. KLP (talk) 03:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I have added more reliable sources as required by User:SudoGhost. I enclose his point of view about the Advantages section: Wikipedia articles are not meant to sell the article's subject to the reader, but to present information reflected in reliable sources. If reliable sources mention these advantages (and disadvantages, if any), then the article should. But if there are no reliable sources to support the information. If you think there is a need for more sources, please let me know and I will get them. I believe the Advantages section is necessary because it makes the article easier to understant to non-technical people, as it has been already required at the top of the page. Moreover, a new technical solution such as the one implemented by Bitcoin (i.e. consensus by proof of work in a P2P network) creates new features such as the ones I have related.

On the other hand, you have deleted my last post, which explains a well-known concept in the Bitcoin community: the "green address". Could you tell me why is this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitcoin&diff=485822570&oldid=485818619 --FrankAndProust (talk) 06:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

If nobody dissents, I am thinking of adding back to the main article the following paragraph:

Some third parties allow sending Bitcoins through a well-known address of their own, called green address. If the recipient trusts the originator, which he can identify through the green address, there is no need to wait for confirmations. In that case, as far as the sender and the receiver are concerned, the transaction is set nearly instantly.

It has been deleted by User:L3lackEyedAngels. I believe it has been an arbitrary deletion, which can not be justified on Wikipedia editing policy. --FrankAndProust (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

For now, I have no problem with that addition in and of itself. In the course of reverting your advocacy, which you justified with a blatant lie, it fell victim to collateral damage. Oh well.
You can add all the sources you want to your Advantages section, but if it still reads like a sales pitch, it doesn't belong here. Even if you really want to make "the article easier to understant to non-technical people" as your primary goal, which I doubt, a bulleted list of neat facts about Bitcoin, presented out of context, doesn't help. I recommend that all interested editors work on condensing the article and helping to make it flow better as a whole. KLP (talk) 15:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I have just fixed your collateral damage. On the other hand, there was no blatant lie on my part at all. I added trustworthy references as suggested by User:SudoGhost. I also posted the modified section on the Talk page for everyone to review and asked for input on editors. After 8 and a half hours with no feedback I decided to check it into the main article.

Please, can anybody please tell me how to improve the Advantages section to make it back to the main article? At the moment, I believe only User:L3lackEyedAngels is against keeping the Advantages section in the main article. Any other feedback? --FrankAndProust (talk) 16:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not simply against keeping your Advantages section. I am against it for the reasons that I have stated and you have yet to even challenge my arguments with some of your own.
Eight and a half hours without feedback does not count as consensus and it is disingenuous of you to try and construe it as such. KLP (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Here are my latest actions to try and bring back the Advantages section to the main article.

1) I have added trustworthy references.

2) I have brought to light the fact that "consensus through proof of work in a P2P network", in this particular case to avoid double-spending, was not implemented before in history, and I have added a trustworthy reference from Reuters that backs this claim.

From what I see in the Talk page for the last 10 hours about this particular issue, the Advantages section can not make it to the main article yet, because the reverter itself User:L3lackEyedAngels a.k.a. KLP is still refusing to do so. From what I have read in this Talk page, he has no other backing.

I am convinced that, precisely, because the Bitcoin software solution is novel and innovative, it brings to the table new features/advantages that must be explained in the article. So, I propose dividing the section in three different classifications, so that it gets clearer and the flow is more natural.

a) Explain the possibility of classifying Bitcoin as a currency or commodity, providing trustworthy references, since it shares a part of each. From here, I would go to the point that it shares characteristics of money: i)being recognizable, ii)divisible, iii)fungible, iv) value dense

b) Explain the fact that "consensus through proof of work in a P2P network" gives the following advantages: i)non-confiscatable, ii)non-manipulatable, iii)no need of banks, iv)always running, because to reach consensus miners are rewarded in a timely manner 24/7

c) Explain the fact that cryptography and the internet gives the following advantages: i)new privacy model, ii)multisignature transactions

Can anybody tell me if this line of thought can make the Advantages section back to the main article? --FrankAndProust (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

User:L3lackEyedAngels a.k.a. KLP, because you are the reverter of several editors contributions on the Bitcoin article, and your current stance has no other support but yours, I reframe the question: Would the line of thought stated above have any chance of making it to the main article or will it fall victim of your reverts once again? --FrankAndProust (talk) 11:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if it takes the form of an advertisement that exacerbates the bloat and redundancy that this article currently suffers from.
I do not understand why, at this point, you'd call into question the number of people who share my view or parts of it especially when, by my count, they outnumber those who share yours. That said, please see WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. KLP (talk) 06:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I am not in favor of the Advantages section. Although I agree with the content, I believe a bullet-point advantage section sounds unduly promotional on its face, which goes against the style of a typical article and unfortunately trips people's "garbage" radar. A section comparing it with something else, in neutral fashion, would be far better. Casascius♠ (talk) 23:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)