Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Is This An Elaborate Put-On

This whole thing reads like "'Twas Brillig & the slithy toves did . . . ." (EnochBethany (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC))

It's for real, just really badly written. The contributors are too bogged down in fights over POV to perform an encyclopedia's first task: explain "what it is" for people who don't already know. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Stossel: Digital Currency - The Libertarian Future?

John Stossel on Fox Business News featured Bitcoins (and Silkroad) on a recent (first week of January, 2013) episode. It would be useful to add this link to the "Also See" or "External Links" sections. See the web page at: http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/stossel/blog/2011/06/02/digital-currency-libertarian-future-0 184.179.76.109 (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin Creator Name

The Bicoin creator name of Satoshi Nakamoto was derived from the Japanese characters:

Ash Ketchum, known as Satoshi (サトシ) for all appearances in Japan, a fictional character in the Pokémon franchise.

and

Takashi Nakamoto, a character appearing in the Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's Tag Force games.

The composite name was chosen by Donal O’Mahony, Professor of Computer Science, Trinity College, Dublin, who's 1st job was in Japan. Affiliated with Michael Clear, Michael Peirce, and Hitesh Tewari, all of Trinity College.

Gathering documentation for article edit.

Appreciate any assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nvestigator (talk • contribs) 01:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

What possible sources are you using for this? Shy of somebody using Satoshi's Bitcoin forum account (his original one that he was using when he was active in developing the software) and simply announcing that is just a pseudonym and then disclosing his real name and contact information, I don't see how you could possibly ascribe any other speculative information by anybody else claiming to be the "real Satoshi". --Robert Horning (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It will not be speculative information by someone claiming to be the "real Satoshi". Nvestigator (talk) 03:11, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Because of "WP:NOR" it appears that the correct sequence is to have the evidence published in a periodical, after giving Mr. O’Mahony a chance to comment. Nvestigator (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Material and sources for expansion of article: German version might be worth a look

Just as a note, the German version of the article has quite some information and sources about usage of Bitcoin, notable events, and legal aspects.

Here is a link to the google-translated page:

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FBitcoin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.20.35 (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I hate to say it but the German article really needs work as well. I don't know German policy but forums and wikis aren't reliable sources. --Neoconfederate (talk) 07:48, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination

Just to see how this article can be improved. --Neoconfederate (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I'd say this would be a good starting point, to take the article to B-class before trying for GA. - SudoGhost 16:11, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!--Neoconfederate (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Electrum client page

The new home for Electrum resides at http://Electrum.org and should be reflected on the client table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JulianTosh (talk • contribs) 18:18, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Done --Neoconfederate (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Banknotes and coins section/images

Why are these contested? The coin was covered by the British Museum and the press and investors use these frequently. --Neoconfederate (talk) 18:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

"Investors use these frequently" needs a citation. And that's basically all there is to it. Unless there's evidence that this is more than a minor whimsy, it shouldn't be treated as a major aspect of the subject. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Subsections in "See also"

Do these violate the MOS? I find them necessary to keep it organized and readable? Thanks. --Neoconfederate (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The majority of these links are (or should be) accessible from digital money: it is suboptimal to have to list every example of a digital currency in every related "see also" section. That would obviate the need for sections. The reason to avoid sections is because it hides (or worse, encourages) the problem of the see also section being an ever-expanding dumping ground of links to vaguely-related subjects. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I concede your point in regards to the external links. I removed the majority of the list and merged the relevant digital currency with the upper list. --Neoconfederate (talk) 13:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Rather than too many subsection, the article actually needs more content.

Some of these subsections are necessary markers and starting points for growth. That's why I switched out the tags. --Neoconfederate (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

The article body has ~30 section headings. That is excessive for any article. Rather than expanding each of the current anaemic sub-sections with more content, each should be split to a sub-article and summarised here per WP:SUMMARY as it grows. For now, having a heading on an almost per-paragraph basis for some of the article content is unnecessary. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I will reduce this then. My apologies. --Neoconfederate (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I added back the tag. --Neoconfederate (talk) 16:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding a Check Concept image.

Anywhere we can add this concept of a check (like a checkbook check) to the page? Image here HaifischR (talk) 04:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

You'll have to get it featured in major publications and make the concept mainstream before adding it. WP:FRINGE. Sorry. :( --Neoconfederate (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Help with Monetary Sovereignty?

Hello,

I have been editing the monetary sovereignty page for a while now. I recently added a section on Bitcoin, but it keeps getting deleted ( see talk here).

Obviously, I think Bitcoin is relevant to monetary sovereignty. Am I wrong? Can anyone here help me with these edits somehow?

Thanks, Chetrasho (talk) 15:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I recommend saving your changes and adding them at a later time when bitcoin is more readily accepted into the mainstream. Right now a lot of people on Wikipedia aren't taking to the concept of bitcoin. --Neoconfederate (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Neo. I'm don't share your view. As a matter of fact, I think that there is interest, at least among those who have come across bitcoin-related content. Unfortunately however, this bitcoin article does not yet give a full and clear exposition of this scheme (either definitional or operational.) With respect to its role in the "monetary sovereignty" article, I think the problem is that the reference to bitcoin remains undefined, obscure, or incorrect -- I can't tell which. So I would welcome more participation if it is directed toward the improvement of an encyclopedic treatment of the subject. SPECIFICO talk 18:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I concede your point. I will see what I can do. --Neoconfederate (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this. In researching material related to Monetary Sovereignty, I find legal and economic material that is broad and complex. As to bicoin, it's tough because the most complete information is primary source at this point. Regards. SPECIFICO talk 21:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Missing: Bitcoin Wallet

I think one of the most used wallets, Bitcoin Wallet for Android, is missing in the list of clients.

It's open source and GPL licensed.

https://github.com/schildbach/bitcoin-wallet https://market.android.com/details?id=de.schildbach.wallet — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goonie (talk • contribs) 21:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Screenshot Electrum client

I think the article is a good technical description, but maybe a bit too abstract for the average reader.

I've added a screenshot of the Electrum Client to creative commons, which might be included in the article:

A screenshot of the Electrum Bitcoin client showing a history of transactions and the resulting balance

--84.135.36.100 (talk) 07:13, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Added image. Thanks for your feedback. --☥NEO (talk) 12:51, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to remove that COI tag.

It may have been targeted at me. I am not sure. I've looked at the article and it includes all points of view in a balanced manner. --☥NEO (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Your_Lord_and_Master added it. I assumed that it was directed at you. Not that I agree, but I don't see whom else it could have been referring to. Wikidsoup _[talk] 01:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I see. I thought he might have been pointing at certain content he didn't agree with. It will be resolved in good time. --☥NEO (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I will ask over on his/her user talk :) Wikidsoup _[talk] 17:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Update - COI tag has been removed by User:‎Casascius with reasoning "Talk page doesn't state who the COI is regarding. Bitcoin isn't an organization to begin with, so it's hard to imagine who (besides perhaps its devs) a COI is even reasonably possible." I agree with this reasoning. No response from Your_Lord_and_Master at user's talk page. Wikidsoup _[talk] 19:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Re Casascius' point "it's hard to imagine who (besides perhaps its devs) a COI is even reasonably possible" I would like to add that people who have a lot of bitcoin currency would be the most likely to have COI. Wikidsoup _[talk] 19:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I missed that bus. :( I have a family to feed. --☥NEO (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 March 2013

Grammar - Third paragraph first line ... solely relies on a internet-based peer-to... should be ...solely relies on an internet-based peer-to... Cecilbadlands (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for catching that. - SudoGhost 15:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Satoshi

The concept of a .0000001 bitcoin called "Satoshi" does not seem to be supported by the referenced link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjcorliss (talk • contribs) 02:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It is supported in section IV of the citation: "Another advantage of Bitcoins is that they can be divided down to fractions 1e-8 -- one hundred millionth of a Bitcoin. That fraction is called a "Satoshi", in honor of the "father" of Bitcoins. By allowing currency to be divided to finer fractions, buyers and sellers have greater flexibility in sales and bartering." --☥NEO (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Is the 'Ponzi Scheme' insinuation misleading?

This is my first time doing a wiki 'talk', so forgive any mistakes in protocol, but I wanted to argue to remove the line about how bitcoins have been referred to as a Ponzi Scheme. It is clear that the accusers either do not know what a Ponzi Scheme is, or they do not understand how Bitcoins work. Either way, it is a false statement. And while it is still technically and objectively true to say the statement "some have claimed it is a ponzi scheme", I believe that it has no rightful place in this article (especially not in the opening paragraph). 99.101.95.95 (talk) 04:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Steve R.3/12/13

I am sorry you believe it is factually incorrect. I do agree it is incorrect as well but it has been a significant criticism. --☥NEO (talk) 05:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed wikidsoup _[talk] 17:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

On a related note, I've been wondering about the way this wiki article articulates the Ponzi scheme concern. This statement is:

• "Some have claimed that the currency is a Ponzi scheme since early users and investors can profit from bitcoin's limited inflation."

Neither of the two references makes this connection exactly. The reuters article states "there are no internal inflationary pressures to devalue it" ... but there are external forces that can (and will) cause inflation. I can't agree with the statement the way it is. Note that the previous version of the statement was:

• "Some have claimed that the currency is a Ponzi scheme since early users and investors can profit from the slowing growth rate of the bitcoin supply."

While this isn't perfect, I think it is more accurate than the new version. Could use improving though. Thoughts? wikidsoup _[talk] 17:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you on both counts. The current version is incorrect. The previous version did reflect what is said in the cited source. You should go ahead and reinsert the text about slowing growth rate, if you wish. The use of "ponzi" is unfortunate, particularly with the link to the WP article which does not relate to the bitcoin issue. SPECIFICO talk 19:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Does it work now with "declining supply"? The reason I keep changing it is because the language is often very convoluted although I see the intention in keeping with the citations. Wikipedia should be factual but also readable to most readers. --☥NEO (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Changed it again to something that is more or less identical to the prior revision. Thank you for your time and patience. --☥NEO (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

All good, we're getting there :) So now it is "the slow and limited growth of bitcoin's supply." I like the "limited growth" wording, as it captures the fact that growth will stop (which the "slowing growth rate" version didn't quite capture). But I'm not sure about saying "slow" regarding the growth. Who's to say that it's slow? The references don't say that. It's a pretty subjective description, and it doesn't convey that the growth rate is slowing (though we don't necessarily have to convey that at this point). In fact, I would say that an increase in money supply of over $1,000 every 10min isn't slow. But it depends how big the user base of the economy is ... So yeah, I guess I just think we need to say something other than "slow" wikidsoup _[talk] 20:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

As per your original edit: Slowing? --☥NEO (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm into that :) wikidsoup _[talk] 21:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO just removed the Ponzi line.

I think that's for the best. It's stupid. I only added it for balance but the line before it is sufficient. --☥NEO (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Nah, it was just moved up a bit (which I like BTW SPECIFICO, makes sense with that paragraph you added it to). Although I would definitely support either removing it from the lead, or adding some of the part from later in the article that says, "a report by the European Central Bank, using the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's definition of a Ponzi scheme, found that the use of bitcoins shares some characteristics with Ponzi schemes, but also has characteristics of its own which contradict several common aspects of Ponzi schemes." wikidsoup _[talk] 23:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

If you have no problems with doing so, let's just get rid of it then. Now that I think about it, it's only going to cause controversy. --☥NEO (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Ponzi

Hello Neocon. If you are unhappy with the "ponzi" wording, I suggest you write text which better represents the cited source, but I would not remove it entirely. The source appears to state significant concerns and relates them to facts about Bitcoin structure which are described elsewhere in the WP article. Lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Please consider alternate text. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

But do you think it needs to be in the lead? It's already in the 'Implications' > 'As an investment' section. wikidsoup _[talk] 16:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Seems fine where it is, thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Pimpin Wiki to Give credit to Bit Coin

This article is being pimped to give credit to bit coin.

Where are the criticism of it, or any of the debates about it.

There are a lot of people, well known, quotable and notable sources calling it more like a Ponzi scheme, then a currency.

It's not a currency because no one is obligated to accept it. It's 90% speculation pumped up by people promoting it (And being verified by this Wiki page).

This Wiki page is going to cost a lot of people to get hurt. The negatives about BitCoin Deserve to be in the First Paragraph.

I'm going to revert the version stating: "some have claimed it is a ponzi scheme" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.36.3 (talk) 08:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You are free, in fact you are encouraged, to find well-sourced statements concerning criticisms, debates, or other facts and opinions that you feel will make the article more balanced and informative. That is how these articles improve over time. SPECIFICO talk 14:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Silk Road Section Edit Request

The current text of the Silk Road text is misleading:

"Silk Road, a black market e-commerce website that sells and distributes illegal drugs such as DMT, LSD and Marijuana, exclusively accepts bitcoins."

This is misleading because:

1) Silk Road does not sell or distribute illegal drugs, it is a peer-to-peer marketplace
2) Marijuana is not an illegal drug in many states and countries

I would suggest updating the description of Silk Road to that used by the Silk Road wikipedia entry, with the qualification that it accepts bitcoins exclusively.

Silk Road is an online black market operated as a Tor hidden service, that exclusively accepts bitcoins.

Dcpar (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe the current revision reflects the citation and the website more clearly, as you have suggested. Thanks for your feedback. --☥NEO (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

An image should illustrate the subject. An abstract logo does not do this.

We already have the most prominent logo below the currency infobox. To add another one is purely cosmetic as what was recently done (since reverted). The current picture of the simple bitcoin client illustrates very clearly what bitcoin is and how it functions. I do not recommend putting another cosmetic, abstract image in its place. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform readers on the subject. Not represent it nor advertise for it as what was intended with the logo placement. --☥NEO (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Policy speaks against this as well:

"Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Wikipedia:Images with missing articles or Wikipedia:Public domain image resources." - WP:NOTIMAGE

--☥NEO (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 March 2013

Section to edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin#Consumer-to-consumer_trade Suggested section content:

Bitmit, an online Ebay-like service, allows users to trade goods and services for bitcoin. Bitcoinrunner allows anyone to pay with Bitcoins at any online retailer by acting as an intermediary, Bitcoinrunner get paid using bitcoins and buy the required product using dollars.

Joecoldo (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Not an established website. If you get third-party coverage, feel free to add it. --☥NEO (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed the section entirely because it wasn't reliably cited. Wikipedia is not a directory nor a place to advertise. --☥NEO (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Good work team

Electronics Weekly says here that, "Wkipedia [sic] has an informed, in-depth analysis of the currency." The spelling error only slightly detracts from the compliment :p wikidsoup _[talk] 22:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Found a complimenting comment in a Bloomberg comment section as well:

"Please read the full wikipedia article on it. I'm big on software development, web development, and networking. The technological concept of Bitcoin is actually ridiculously solid..." --☥NEO (talk) 09:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Another compliment:

"Gvvhg is right. All bitcoins and transactions are on a public record, and their distribution is regulated by the method of mining. Please read in on the system if you have any doubts :D Wikipedia is great." --☥NEO (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Under Economy -> Internet Services. Namecheap now accept bitcoins for domain registrations and web hosting Namecheap — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.139.5 (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:PROMOTION. This is an encyclopedia, not a phonebook. --☥NEO (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 March 2013

Article says an image is "The price for BTC/USD on the Mt.Gox exchange" but really what is pictured is USD/BTC. This can be confirmed by noting current Mt.Gox price is $80-90 USD per BTC. Zalfrin (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Your understanding of currency pairs is incorrect. Please read the Currency pair article for reference. --☥NEO (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 March 2013

Article says an image is "The price for BTC/USD on the Mt.Gox exchange" but really what is pictured is USD/BTC. This can be confirmed by noting current Mt.Gox price is $80-90 USD per BTC. Zalfrin (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Your understanding of currency pairs is incorrect. Please read the Currency pair article for reference. --☥NEO (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

List of Bitcoin wallets is missing "Bitcoin Wallet"

• Website: https://market.android.com/details?id=de.schildbach.wallet (users) or http://code.google.com/p/bitcoin-wallet/ (developers)
• Software License: GPLv3
• Type: Mobile application for Android and BlackBerry OS

Goonie (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: Stop encouraging people to fall for scams

The "List of Bitcoin Wallets" section absolutely needs to go; including it without proper warnings is serious negligence, because "online wallet services" are an invitation to theft and fraud. I wrote this all the way back in July 2011 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=26260.0), before MyBitcoin ran off with everyone's money, and it's just as true then as it is today. This article came to my attention today, and I'm submitting this edit request, because one of the services on that list (Instawallet) was hacked today. The money might or might not all be gone, but seriously: telling people to use an online wallet service is Not Okay.

Jimrandomh (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I will remove Instawallet since it has been hacked. --☥NEO (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

There are no other online services on there with the exception of Coinbase. Everything else listed is a application, javascript or otherwise. Every piece of software requires trust in its source, even Satoshi's original bitcoin client. --☥NEO (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Terminology?

What the article calls wallets are actually clients, and they don't "interface" with bitcoins, they "interface" with wallets (which could more appropriatly be called keychains since they hold keys and not money). The actual bitcoins are stored everywhere a copy of the longest valid blockchain is present. --TiagoTiago (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The keys or "wallets" that authenticate bitcoin balances might as well represent bitcoins, right? What else makes a bitcoin balance besides the key that authorizes a shift of balances in the ledger? Anyways, thanks for the heads up. The terminology as it stood wasn't clear. I made it simpler. --☥NEO (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

1 Billion USD ?

The 1 Billion USD valuation of a bitcoin is dubious at best and should be marked as such if not removed entirely. 96.253.92.14 (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I have at least two major financial publications to cite in regards to this. Right now it is cited by the two main financial statistics sites for bitcoin. The pricing doesn't lie and neither does the network. --☥NEO (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, it's not for "a bitcoin" but all bitcoins or the entire monetary base of bitcoin.--☥NEO (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Article is Highly Technical, Lacks Sufficient Parallel Plain English Explanations

Wikipedia policy requires that its scientific and technical articles include parallel writing, wherever possible, in everyday common English that non-science / non-technical readers can easily understand. Inconsistent effort has been made to do that here. The result is a very self-absorbed and snobby overall article feel. Please remember that Wikipedia has a public service mission that goes beyond the technical elite.

Another issue: The article opening doesn't even bother to offer concrete examples of where bitcoins are actually used. This should be at the very beggining of the article, in line with standard good writing practices. 76.89.69.224 (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

April Fools! What this person actually meant to write is ... "Hey, great job on the detailed explanation of bitcoin! Could one of you dedicated contributors *please* help make the article a little more friendly to the less tech-savvy public? Thanks SOOOO much!!"

snacks _[talk] 18:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been attempting this ever so gradually. It is very hard to do make things easier to read when others add writing that is just as technical as it stands today. As much as I hate reverting edits, the writing on this page has to be carefully watched or it will degrade back to where it was in 2012. Yes, it's not anywhere near perfect right now but the art of taking something very technical and making understandable to everyone is very difficult. If you have any suggestions on places that need to be simplified, please tell me.

Additionally, adding services is difficult because everyone wants to be included. It turns into a big slap in the face of WP:PROMOTION. The fact is bitcoin is accepted where it is accepted. This article can't be a merchant directory. --☥NEO (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

NOT APRIL FOOLS. I wrote exactly what I meant-- the article is lacking in clear everyday common English descriptions and that is out of line with Wikipedia's stated mission. Also concrete examples in the opening of the article, of where bitcoin is actually used on a daily basis, are needed in order to make the article meet the most basic encyclopedic standards.

Sorry, but the following is also not true-- "the art of taking something very technical and making understandable to everyone is very difficult."

It's only difficult if you believe that it is. There is, however, a lot of good work here on the technical level. I'm sure it was a lot of hard as well. But the article needs the lay-writing dimension added more consistently and the lack of concrete examples in the opening weakens all the effort put forth later in the article. 76.89.69.224 (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

It's only difficult if you believe that it is - lovely slogan for a self-help blog, but wildly inaccurate. It's *very* difficult to explain complex subjects simply and clearly and accurately and completely, very difficult indeed. That's why Wikipedia has so many badly done articles about technical topics. The fact that Wikipedia has so many well done articles about technical topics is a testimony to a googol personhours of effort and the wide skillsets that have edited here, but it's no reason to downplay the complexity of the task. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I've mentioned that bitcoin is accepted by merchants and services. I can't make examples because everyone will want to be one. Wikipedia can't be an advertising platform. Besides, do you see Wikipedia mentioning specific merchants that accept the US dollar? --☥NEO (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, bitcoin is not a simple technology. Even if it was explained using only simple English and non-technical terms, it would be hard to understand by most people. --☥NEO (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy you actually can pick a couple of major commercial examples and use them. As a Wikiepdia editor you have no obligation to please everyone commercially (or personally) associated with the technology. If you have a personal stake in the technology that makes it hard for you to do so, then you shouldn't be writing here, due to conflict of interest (I'm not saying that you do, I'm just noting this, just in case that's why you are concerned about keeping everybody commercially or personally involved happy/keeping all feathers unruffled).

I'm not going to expend a lot of effort trying to prove to you that the highly technical writing here can be better translated, in order for the average reader to more easily understand it. Some people are better at doing this than others, which is not meant as a personal comment, just a general one. Also, the easiest thing in the world is to explain why something can't be done. Someone with the time and the ability will eventually come along who will be able / willing to do it. 76.89.69.224 (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your time and I agree with you. I concede your point on the writing. It can be done to a certain extent. As for your point on commercial examples, I point you to this: WP:SPAMBAIT. We've had examples and it will turn into cancer. Everybody will want to add their service and I have to keep wasting time telling them "No" and removing the advertising. It's inefficient and requires too much maintenance. --☥NEO (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I see what you are saying about the "Spambait" issue. Although I don't think that always happens as there are many technical articles on Wikipedia that do mention a few major commercial providers as examples. Perhaps an alternative is to provide a concrete description (without mentioning a specific provider or customer) of what happens between online merchants, or merchant and customer, when a transaction occurs (that doesn't delve too deeply into the coding aspects of what is happening). This should occur early in the article. A deeper, more technical expansion could be left for later. I wish I had more time, but I don't.

I should also concede that you are right that there is a lot of good, hard work here in the article. Best of luck. 76.89.69.224 (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I just rewrote my last post, more points clarified/added. Thanks! 76.89.69.224 (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit/Source Request: "major vulnerability" in the protocol or just the implementation?

No sources are given. https://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2010-5139 seems to imply a mere implementation specific vulnerability. Please change "On 6 August, a major vulnerability in the bitcoin protocol was found." to include a source or to "On 6 August, a major vulnerability in one bitcoin implementation was found." otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.179.46.23 (talk • contribs) 06:43 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The protocol and implementation are the same. There are sources. --☥NEO (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Need better sources for much of this article

I just happened to look at the citation for the beginning of the lede. "Arbitrage Magazine" is not a WP:RS for the cited statement. There are many other questionable sources throughout the article. Any editor who is comfortable with the current content would do well to find better sources for the statements here. Otherwise much of this content will not survive. Also, I don't see the justification for calling the dollar value of a bitcoin its "exchange rate." It's too soon to know whether bitcoin becomes a true currency or whether it's merely an asset that is sometimes used in barter and more widely used for speculation. The graph of its value fluctuating widely suggests more the latter. SPECIFICO talk 21:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is "Arbitrage Magazine" not a reliable source? Also, the sources will have to decide what terminology we use. It will be hard to go by the varying terms and expertise different individuals use. The majority of the sources will determine if bitcoin is a currency or not. --☥NEO (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Additonally, if you find statements that may not be properly sourced, please tag them with while retaining the questionable source next to it. I will promptly source them. I will be stuck in my home for some time. Time is of little cost to me. --☥NEO (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Look at Arbitrage magazine. It's a student publication. Are you calling that RS? It is not an expert authority to call bitcoin a currency. The position you state is not WP policy please review the policies on RS and RS in economics. We do not just take the majority of what may be published on a subject, willy-nilly. SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

There are not many authorities on the bitcoin subject considering it's without authority. However, I will remove the student-based source. My point is if the majority of people with reasonable "authority" on the subject use the term, it's the most objective term we can use.--☥NEO (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You need to find a credible authority for the assertions in the article. If the subject is notable there will be RS citations to be found. We do have instances of credible authorities saying that bitcoin is not a currency. This really needs to get sorted out. The same is true of much of the current material and sourcing in the article. SPECIFICO talk 00:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The two citations you inserted to replace Arbitrage are likewise not RS as to the statement that bitcoin is a currency. The Guardian writer says "best performing currency" -- which demonstrates she's using the term very loosely. The other citation is to a blog. SPECIFICO talk 01:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Wired is an authority on technology and software trends. They are one of the most popular and mainstream publishers in this genre. I can't think of a better authority on the subject of digital currencies. --☥NEO (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I could probably source the majority of the content on this page with that magazine article. It's the most volumnous piece on bitcoin in existence. --☥NEO (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Look, there's no point you trying one citation after another and waiting for me to comment. Now it's Wired? I doubt that holds up as an RS as to whether bitcoin is a currency. The issues about whether it's a currency or a speculative asset like Pet Rocks is a matter of economics, finance and law, not consumer technology. You've put in a lot of effort here, so I think you'd do well to give a careful look at the policies and guidance about RS and RS in economics, then form a considered judgment as to the kinds of references you need. Good luck. SPECIFICO talk 01:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I must agree with SPECIFICO. Wired is not an authority on economic and legal issues. I would ideally look for a peer reviewed and credible journal. If not that, then at least a mainstream financial/economics newspaper. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I have since cited The Wall Street Journal and Fox Business for the currency claim.--☥NEO (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

NEO, I don't think the Wall St. Journal piece supports the currency claim. With a US Dollar price increase of around 1100% since the beginning of 2013, Bitcoin has been behaving like a speculative asset rather than a currency. At this point, it's fair to be very concerned that this WP article might give undue support to the currency claim, possibly to the detriment of casual researchers who accept the currency claim and buy in at unsustainable price levels. SPECIFICO talk 21:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Most sources are calling it an "online currency", "digital currency" or "virtual currency". Even the FinCEN documents from the Department of Treasury call it a "virtual currency." Is it really within Wikipedia policy to change the accepted definition of a term as a public service? Is Wikipedia responsible for how people interpret and act on information even in an objective, rudimentary form? --☥NEO (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100609853 Look how CNBC plainly spells it out. The current way it's described is in the mainstream. Until it's widely reported that bitcoin is something other than a currency, we can't change the definition without violating WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE. --☥NEO (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

NEO, that's not really what's meant by WP:FRINGE. Until merchants price their goods in bitcoins rather than accepting bitcoins at the current dollar exchange price, it is not functioning as a currency any more than gold is a currency or for that matter US Dollars in Paris, even though Merchants will take them and dispose of them for Euros. SPECIFICO talk 00:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't contest that fact. In fact, I encourage you to report on such arguments in the proper place on the page. However, this discussion isn't about whether or not bitcoin is a currency but if Wikipedia should use common terminology from most mainstream, significant publications or from smaller, argumentative sources. I would happily change the definition of a bitcoin to "a speculative asset" if the great majority of secondary sources claimed it was only that and not a currency. Currently, that is not the case. --☥NEO

(talk) 00:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that quite addresses the problem either. I have no opinion as to what it is. It may be a digital game of some kind. However for our purposes it is an set of accounts which is being promoted as a currency. That's what it is, although I'm not familiar enough with it or the secondary sources to find properly sourced content. Personally I find its complexity exceeds my level of interest, so I am not the one to make edits here. How did you first happen to find out about this and learn so much about it? I presume you've made a bundle being in on the early days. Congratulations. SPECIFICO talk 00:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I found it on Slashdot years ago. I emailed the creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, about its security. Very formal guy, unfortunately, so I never really got to know him. After figuring it out, I thought about implementing bitcoin as an anti-spam system in email systems, in digital games among other things. Through that, my knowledge on bitcoin became pretty comprehensive. As for my ownership in bitcoins, I currently own less than $10 of the stuff. Most of my capital is in other places, mainly my business.

Anyways, I see that our styles are a little different when it comes to sources. I tend to look through Google News for bitcoin material and what I am seeing is pretty consistent. I've tried finding more academic material but it's pretty sparse. --☥NEO (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Not many sources? Perfectly understandable. Like "synthetic CDO's" before 2008. SPECIFICO talk 01:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Instawallet halts service

• http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/03/bitcoin-instawallet/
• http://venturebeat.com/2013/04/03/bitcoin-wallet-instawallet-hacked/
• http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/04/in-wake-of-bitcoin-spike-mt-gox-under-ddos-instawallet-shuts-down/

Conrad T. Pino (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It also made the front page of CNN today: "Major Bitcoin exchanges hit with cyberattacks|". - SudoGhost 19:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The service itself isn't particulary notable. DDOS attacks aren't too notable either. However, if there were any major losses through the break-in of the site, it can go in the theft section. --☥NEO (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep, not seeing anything worth mentioning here. Again, if there are any significant monetary losses, they can go into the thefts section along with the rest of them. The loss of this service is not notable unto itself. It's not clear if many people used it. --☥NEO (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Mt.Gox

There's an unsourced stub at this title. I've found it while stub-sorting, and don't know whether it merits expansion or deletion, so here's a heads-up for editors in the area. Have redirected the existing Mt Gox from this article to that stub; the editor creating it over-wrote the other redirect from Mtgox. It gets a mention several places in the Bitcoin article but without much description - I've linked it from 2010 history, first occurrence, and in the image caption. PamD 09:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Great response, whether from this message or elsewhere - it was a stub of 416 bytes when I wrote the above, and is now at 5772 bytes with input from four people and two bots! Thanks, all. PamD 13:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The Criticism Section has been removed

In July, 2011, there was a section of the article listing criticisms. Based in the principle of CITOKATE, it was a rather important feature. Its removal smacks of boosterism or some other self-interested scouring of bad publicity. It should be restored and updated. Mhuben (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It's been replaced by "Reception" that contains positive and negative reviews on bitcoin. "Implications" contains an objective view on its affect on the world as well, good or bad. --☥NEO (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The current "reception" section is largely vacuous and includes casual statements by self-interested, non-expert, and ill-informed individuals. A serious reception or criticism section should be a high priority for this article. For starters, let's get some of this content out of the article. SPECIFICO talk 20:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Serious criticism can be added to Reception. I removed the Alex Jones blurb. However, financial analysis by all accredited parties should be welcome. --☥NEO (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 March 2013

Please correct the "not only/but also" grammer in the protocol summary... "longest chain of records (called blocks) not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but ALSO proof that it came from the largest pool of computing power." Mariettaguy (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think your grammar is correct either. I used "as proof" in the same fashion as the former part of the sentence. --☥NEO (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

There's a less awkward way to word that sentence though. What about:

The longest chain of records (called blocks) serves not only as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but also as proof that it came from the largest pool of computing power.

E123 (talk) 03:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

"Digital 'bitcoin' currency surpasses 20 national currencies in value."

I thought about adding this content to the lead for context within the general currency market but I have a feeling it's going to be controversial for some, especially for those who do not believe bitcoin is a true currency. The source is significant being Fox News but I bet some others will want more coverage.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/03/29/digital-currency-bitcoin-surpasses-20-national-currencies-in-value/

Thoughts? --☥NEO (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

While I can see where this is coming from, I don't think Bitcoin's current state is an appropriate description of it as a whole. Just because its passed some currencies up now in some ephemeral metric doesn't really have much to do with the article or what we should focus on. (Though I believe some current context to be useful, such as its monetary base or value in USD. Just not the main focus) --E123 (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

claims of Bubble

Bitcoin's value has been repeatedly labeled a "bubble" by various members of the financial press at different times. Examples:[1][2][3] Should this be pointed out somewhere? Shawnc (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It's pointed out in the Reception section but it's speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Until it actually "pops", I think it shouldn't be a featured topic in the article. When and if it "pops", these claims and the event will go into the History section.--☥NEO (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I get the cautious reasoning to avoid hyperbole here but a currency where 80% of the transactions are proudly boasted by Mt Gox is transparently nothing more than a *centralized* currency. This is clearly capitalist-style money being digitalized and put online, then claimed falsely to be decentralized despite overt collusion and centralization of transactions by its participants. This is enough proof to constitute a bubble that *must* burst because this upward curve is quite naturally unsustainable. This is thus a matter of *when* not *if* it will burst. Naivety is no substitution for apt critical skepticism using these real facts. 50.72.139.25 (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Despite Wikipedia not being in the business of financial forecasting, I think the readers should have the facts regarding mainstream media analysis of the currency's stability. Nonetheless, I'm not sure how substantive the mainstream media claims are. In addition to Shawnc's cites, NPR called it a bubble on the Planet Money show. They blame the price rise on the Cyprus bank account restrictions. But the reporter's main research was by "talking to my little brother" and posting an unanswered question on reddit. May not be factual or accurate, but the claims are indeed noteworthy and come from credible sources. It's a relevant and interesting historical fact that news media currently labels Bitcoin a fad or bubble. Hobsonlane (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The "reception" section, where things like this seem to have ended up, needs a lot of love overall. Maybe a rename too? I'm having trouble coming up with a better name for it ATM, but I don't think "receptions" accurately describes what we want to put there. (Concerns like this and speculation on long-term viability from different parties, from what I'm seeing) E123 (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

acceptance, brand, popularity, reliability, reputation, public image ? Hobsonlane (talk) 06:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

There was already a BTC bubble and crash in 2011. But of course the article is locked for editing by the common folk so no one can put that in there.129.2.129.235 (talk) 19:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, here we witness both a "decentralized" currency that monopolizes transactions through Mt Gox simultaneously being explained by a "decentralized" encyclopedia that monopolizes transactions. Coincidence? A pattern? Say it isn't so! Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to perceive! 50.72.139.25 (talk) 23:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. The only requirement for editing semi-protected pages (the ones with silver locks) is having created a free account and own it for at least four days, and in that time making at least 10 edits to other, non-protected, Wikipedia pages. Everybody who does not meet these requirements is free to make an edit request on this talk page, as you can see many other people doing here. You can read more about edit requests at Wikipedia:Edit_request and more about page locking at Wikipedia:Protection_policy. With that in mind, are there any specific edits you would like us to make? E123 (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I added the 2011 crash he was referring to in the History section. --☥NEO (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I added commentary on talk of a bubble under the new "2013 boom" section. Equilibrium007 (talk) 06:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Permanence

As far as I can make out from this article, Bitcoins only 'exist' as computer records of some kind in a decentralised P2P network. The question therefore arises whether they can have any permanent (or even very lasting) existence, since computer records are inherently ephemeral. Of course, much of our 'money' now exists primarily in the form of bank balances which themselves exist mainly in the form of computer records. I have seen it claimed somewhere that Bitcoins are actually 'safer' than bank balances because the Bitcoin records are held on thousands of different computers, while a bank will have only a few centralised data stores. This may be true, but it is only part of the story. A bank is a legally established entity with responsibilities to keep adequate records. There will probably be several backup records in different locations. When the bank's computers or data stores are replaced by new models, care will be taken to transfer all current data. Key records will also be backed up on paper. Moreover, bank customers will themselves usually have paper records in the form of statements, etc. (I certainly keep all my own bank statements for several years.) And if anything goes wrong, you know who to sue. In the case of Bitcoin, in contrast, you are entrusting your 'money' to a group of largely anonymous individuals, many of whom are probably criminals, and none of whom have any legal obligation whatever to maintain records for your benefit. And even if there are thousands of computers holding the records of your Bitcoins, it is unlikely that any of those computers will still be working in 10 years time. So what, if anything, is built into the Bitcoin system to give Bitcoins any permanence?109.158.45.112 (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Reddit is a good place for you to take your question. This talk page is for topics directly related to the Bitcoin page, not a discussion forum on Bitcoin itself. Sanpitch (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. So to put my point in conformity with Wikipedia theology, I suggest that the Bitcoin page should include a section on the subject of 'permanence', addressing the doubts I have raised.109.158.45.112 (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

We don't work that way here. Wikipedia isn't an OP-ed column. We work from mainstream, reliable sources. We report the news. We don't create it. --☥NEO (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

See the policy on original research: WP:ORIGINAL.--☥NEO (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

His question can be addressed in the article without being original research. It sounds like he just wants more clarity on how the protocol and P2P works...which would be good for the article. Equilibrium007 (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin is "decentralized"???

I know that this is the claim that Bitcoin enthusiasists wish to believe and they are sincere about it but... how can this statement make any sense if Mt Gox handles 80% of transactions? Mt Gox even brags about this in big bold letters on the main page of their website by ironically quoting Wikipedia: "As of July 2011, Mt Gox handles 80% of all Bitcoin trade." To say it is decentralized then is an outright contradiction! Could someone please be lovely enough to attempt to weasel their way out of this logical paradox with some contrived counterargument for the benefit of my wry amusement, please? Thanks. 50.72.139.25 (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

The currency system along with its transactions and money supply is decentralized. When it comes to how it's traded for US dollars or goods, anything goes. The real world tends to be centralized. --☥NEO (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin is decentralized. Mt gox handles exchanges between BTC and other currencies (e.g. USD)

Unlike fiat currency, Bitcoin has no centralized issuing authority?

The first sentence under "Distribution" says:

Unlike fiat currency, Bitcoin has no centralized issuing authority...

This is misleading because it implies Bitcoin is not a fiat currency. It needs to be changed to

Unlike other fiat currencies, Bitcoin has no centralized issuing authority...

Or something like that correcting the error.

108.7.170.220 (talk) 14:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

But it's not a fiat currency... snacks _[talk] 15:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Have a citation for that claim? I guess this is why this article is protected. --☥NEO (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This Globe & Mail article says that there is buzz around bitcoin because of failing faith in fiat currency. snacks _[talk] 21:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Pardon me, my friend. I was referring to the OP.--☥NEO (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

:) Thought that might have been the case, but thought I'd give a link anyway snacks _[talk] 23:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Have a citation for that claim? Why, yes! :-) I cite other Wikipedia articles describing commodity currency, convertible currency, and fiat money. One of the definitions in the fiat money article is "money without intrinsic value". Fiat money can only have value when there are reliable marketplace(s) where it can be traded for useful things (such as commodities or other kinds of money). It cannot have any value otherwise regardless of a government declaring so. Bitcoin fits many of the acceptable definitions of "fiat currency" pretty well I think. We shouldn't imply so strongly that it isn't.

For convertible currency, the "reliable marketplace" is a government (or other entity?) guaranteeing a price -- as if it was a trader in it's own marketplace. I think if a large stable non-government entity declared and demonstrated that it would always give say 1/50 oz. of gold for each bitcoin, that would make it a "convertible currency". The nation status of the backing entity is really not pertinent, but merely traditional.

If it's not commodity currency and it's not convertible currency and it's not fiat currency, then is it even money? Of course it is -- for now at least. Somehow the idea is pervaded here that: It isn't issued by a government, so it can't be called "fiat money". There needs to be an authority declaring (by fiat!) "let it be so" to be called "fiat". I think that mixes together two ideas that are actually distinct. The way it is backed up (marketplace / convertibility / commodity) is an independent thing from the nature of the entity that backs it up (marketplace / non-governmental entity / government). The way it is backed up is more essential in the idea of "fiat money" than the nature of the backing entity.

Maybe in the long term these terms will sort themselves out and government-less money will be considered something other than "fiat money". For now however, I'm thinking it's WP:OR to declare (or imply) definitively that it isn't fiat. Are there reliable refs making good arguments that it shouldn't be called "fiat"?

Yours, 108.7.170.220 (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The fiat money article says:

The term fiat money has been defined variously as:

• any money declared by a government to be legal tender.
• state-issued money which is neither convertible by law to any other thing, nor fixed in value in terms of any objective standard.
• money without intrinsic value.

The phrasing is not clear, so it's hard to tell if it is meant that fiat money can be any one of those things, or if it has to be all of those things. However, if you look at the second reference on the third bullet point, the source specifically states that, "Fiat money is a creation of both the state and society."

Also, investopedia says fiat money is, "Currency that a government has declared to be legal tender, despite the fact that it has no intrinsic value and is not backed by reserves. Historically, most currencies were based on physical commodities such as gold or silver, but fiat money is based solely on faith."

Bitcoin is not legal tender as declared by a government. It is not a creation of both the state and society (just a creation of society). Therefore not fiat money. --snacks _[talk] 17:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It's against policy to cite wikipedia articles and other encyclopedia articles. We need secondary sources. We don't need to prove negatives here. Mainstream news sources do not refer to bitcoin as a fiat currency. --☥NEO (talk) 18:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Alrighty then. I expect Bitcoin (and other digital currencies) will ultimately shake up the definitions more obviously. Until then, so be it. 108.7.170.220 (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Article is confusing/misleading to those who are unfamiliar with bitcoin

Is this article about Bitcoin the currency? Or is it about Bitcoin as a new & novel concept to store value in a non-depreciating virtual asset? The article currently reads like the latter which makes it very confusing when we are talking about a currency here, not a virtual financial asset. I would like to see a more basic explanation of bitcoin as a currency rather than something which you can mine & hoard to become rich by stockpiling them. Can somebody highly knowledgeable about bitcoin take a look at the lede of this article & help improve the direction which this article should take? (i.e. introducing bitcoin as a digital currency with the basic properties of a digital currency: it is a medium of exchange between transactional parties engaging in interpersonal trade) As it stands now, the article seems to be stepping on its toes trying to lean more towards it being a virtual asset rather than a virtual currency (which may be the norm among bitcoin users, in which case this article doesn't explain both tales of bitcoin). Thanks, Tomato expert1 (talk) 22:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

There are no differences between bitcoin the currency and bitcoin the technology nor are there any reliable secondary sources that support these purported differences. This separation of terminology is entirely subjective. To divide or reduce the article in the way you desire would not be efficient nor working towards Wikipedia's goal of being a complete encyclopedia. --☥NEO (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, there are economic sections that are in progress. It's just the information in this regard is limited. --☥NEO (talk) 22:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Justin Fox

Regarding Justin Fox, the Harvard Business Review isn't chopped liver. People are still trying to get a handle on this thing --there are no "experts." kencf0618 (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not the point. First follow WP process, second we'll discuss whatever concerns you may raise including the one you state here but not if you are holding the article hostage. Please revert your reinsertion and let's discuss the Fox article. SPECIFICO talk 02:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Neoconfederate had already edited my contribution, so I'm waiting for him to weigh in. Can't discuss it if it's not extant. kencf0618 (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, Justin but both Neo and I have asked you to remove the Fox text you reinserted. Then we can discuss whatever concerns you. Please review WP:BRD. SPECIFICO talk 02:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Done. kencf0618 (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Fox is a journalist, not an expert in any of the areas that will ultimately determine the character and success of bitcoin. A blog post would have to be written by an author whose opinion or analysis is notable in its own right. Moreover the blog piece is rambling all over the place on the one hand this on the other hand that and so and so says maybe this or that and so forth. There's no substance and no authority to the cited source. SPECIFICO talk 03:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Justin Fox makes the very salient point that people have to get used to innovative financial instruments. Once upon a time people did not know how to act around publicly held corporations (such as the South Sea Company), and now they do (mostly). Furthermore a lot of experimentation is required. These are all germane points. kencf0618 (talk) 20:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion regarding capitalization

I'm not sure if there is a standard on this; but i would like to suggest that when referring to the currency, or the protocol, or the network etc, Bitcoin be written with capital B, and when writing it as a unit (such as when mentioning a quantity of bitcoins), bitcoin be written with lowercase b. Any arguments against it? --TiagoTiago (talk) 19:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The standard so far has been to keep it always lowercase like most currencies. Even the protocol and network itself makes the currency. The easiest and cleanest standard is to just make it lowercase all the time. Otherwise, we have a mess with people using it as capitalized when it's not supposed to be. --☥NEO (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed snacks _[talk] 19:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hm, i thought people usually talk about the Dollar, and how many dollars so and so has... --TiagoTiago (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Even dollars is generally lowercase. Check your dictionary. --☥NEO (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

intrinsive is a word?

I have scoured the internet and it, at least, does not have a definition for the word "intrinsive", nor a source listing it as a synonym, so i believe the word should say "intrinsic". "Bitcoins, as an investment, have been described as lacking intrinsive value because..." 70.44.62.187 (talk) 03:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The typo has been fixed. --☥NEO (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Winklevoss twins currently own 1% of all bitcoins

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/04/11/as-big-investors-emerge-bitcoin-gets-ready-for-its-close-up/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/11/winklevoss-bitcoin_n_3063831.html

I don't know if this is notable enough for the article. I'll just leave this here for comment. --☥NEO (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd already put it in. Some heavy hitters have gotten into the game. kencf0618 (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

zerocoin

I was thinking of adding something about Zerocoin, but the page is protected.

• Paper (IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy 2013, to appear)
• Blog post

Basically it is an additional anonymity layer over Bitcoin using fancier cryptography methods. Co-author Avi Rubin is also well-known for work on electronic voting security. I think the article would benefit from a brief mention towards the end of the "timeline" section, and/or the "privacy" section since they make substantial criticisms of Bitcoin's privacy (which is overstated in the article and the mass media) (Edited). 50.0.136.106 (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing this out! Do you have any reliable sources that show the notability of Zerocoin (third-party, objective source)? I'm just not sure we should add anything about it since it hasn't yet been adopted. Perhaps it could eventually be added to the Privacy section, but only once their is a source showing that Zerocoin is notable. Cheers snacks _[talk] 18:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The paper was accepted by an IEEE conference (mentioned above) which is third-party recognition, and I'd say the blog post is reliable per WP:SPS by recognized experts (it is basically a non-technical summary of the paper, written by one of the authors). Green and Rubin are well-known professors working in the field (the other two authors are graduate students). I think it should be mentioned in the privacy section since criticism there is currently missing, and that is a real shortcoming. I've heard similar criticisms before but unfortunately don't have any links. I don't know that I'd still bother putting it in the timeline. As the blog posts indicates, Zerocoin is not all that deployable in its current form. I'd say it is still relevant as a proof of concept. All of this said, I wouldn't assingn a lot of space in the article to Zerocoin. A sentence or two seems about right. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Added: Web search on "zerocoin" shows Forbes and Reason have picked it up. There will probably be more press mentions, I leave it to you to decide which are worth citing. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Zerocoin should be mentioned in the context of a cryptographic application, not least because it demonstrates that Bitcoin is getting serious attention from cryptographers as well as economists and pundits. kencf0618 (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Neutral point of view?

Hello.

This article does notr at all express a neutral pov as per wikipedia policy. There is no criticism of Bitcoin listed.

Also, this article seems tos be all uriginal content. This is against WP policy too.

KylieBrooks (talk) 17:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see the Implications and Reception sections and help flesh them out with further content. snacks _[talk] 18:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello KylieBrooks. The article has many defects, some of which I have mentioned on talk here or attempted to repair with various edits. As it now stands, it still needs plenty of work , but I don't think its entirely unsourced and biased. If you're inclined to help out, please review the last few months on talk and lend a hand removing nonWP:RS material, unsourced material, and non-NPOV statements. A quick review of the citations in the reference list shows sevveral problematic sources, for example. Also, consider what you think of my talk page suggestion to remove the definition of bitcoin as a "currency" in the lede. Thanks for your participation here. SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed.

Request: Please put this tag at the top of the article:

"Bitcoin (sign: BTC) is an online digital commodity"

The very start of the article needs a reliable objective citation. Most news sites call it a digital currency not a digital commodity. --KyleLandas (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The citation is footnote 6 at the end of the first sentence. See also the citations for the second sentence. By the way "most" is tough to measure, isn't it? I'm not sure whether that is the relevant criterion. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The Atlantic is a biased source, isn't it? --KyleLandas (talk) 23:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

In...what way? Biased to what? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:26, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a article by one writer that has exclusively worked in journalism. I don't think he's qualified to redefine bitcoin when everyone else calls it a virtual currency. --KyleLandas (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not bias. If anything, that's questioning his credibility. Bias would be, say, if the guy was looking to short sell or had some other vested interest in keeping BTC down. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

The lead is absolutely incorrect.

"Users authenticate the bitcoin log through hashed ECDSA digital signatures (similar to a username and password) by using dedicated servers called bitcoin miners to perform calculations of varying difficulty."

Regular users aren't bitcoin miners neither do they authenticate their transactions in the log through bitcoin mining. This article is bad and it got really bad just recently when SPECIFICO revised the whole lead. This article needs an expert who isn't a biased Keynesian economist. --KyleLandas (talk) 04:33, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I removed the ECDSA part. No idea about the "Keynsian economics" part though. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. It's somewhat more accurate now. --KyleLandas (talk) 04:58, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

CNBC ticker symbol

• http://data.cnbc.com/quotes/MTGOXUSD

Wow. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Dubious statement and irrelevant reference

The statement that starts with "However, transaction fees may not cover the cost" should be removed as it just looks like an excuse for someone and the reference only points to a page with a nondescript graph showing some cost spiking down to $1 million dollars. The editor seems to be alluding to something the reader is supposed to fill-in the blanks about... it's not clear. --Al Johnson (talk) 08:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Bogus reference and unsubstantiated claim

The statement that starts, "Once a predetermined number of coins have entered...", comes to a conclusion that is not explained at all and the reference does NOT make the claim and in fact talks about organic inflation, which is inflation. The whole statement should be removed. --Al Johnson (talk) 09:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed; removed it. Thanks :) snacks _[talk] 17:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request: Grammatical Errors (4/14/2013)

After reading through some of the article, I found a ton of spelling errors that absolutely need to be fixed. Not just spelling, but grammar. There are a few sentences in there that are just hard to read because they have not been written properly.

There are a lot of these errors, and they need to be found and fixed.

If you see a grammatical or especially if you see a spelling error please correct it - as long as it doesn't change the content of the article. If you are uncertain, quote the section you wish to improve on this page first - so people can discuss it. Jonpatterns (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

There is way too much recent news in this article.

• WP:RECENT
• WP:NOTNEWS

"the crash" ??? What are you going to say when it's $300 next week? Let's wait till the body is cold to write the obituary. SPECIFICO talk 23:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you suggest I remove it? The crash will remain notable even if the value returns. The crash news will be added by transient users regardless. I rather add it now so it can be well-cited and accurate. I prefer not to deal with a poorly-cited addition on "how bitcoin died on April 10th because it got hacked." --☥NEO (talk) 23:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

What crash? You mean the intraday volatility? SPECIFICO talk 23:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The sources, unfortunately, call it a crash. CNN and friends don't use terminology that is any better. Should I just rollback my edits then and spare you a revert? --☥NEO (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Actually, I don't have any strong reactions to this article. It's 90% wrong, but I have no idea which 90%. I do know that today's volatility is not statistically inconsistent with the recent price patterns. It's not like, for example the 1987 stock market crash which was many many sigma in one day. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a new high soon. Check out the price histories of "dotcom stocks" around the turn of the milennium. That's the only institutionally relevant precedent we have for the recent bitcoin activity. Revert? If you wish. Thanks for the courtesy. SPECIFICO talk 23:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I've reworded to use neutral terms and describe the facts - does this seem okay? It's reasonable to describe the sudden changes today, without needing to declare it a name. (The price has jumped up $20 whilst I've been typing this - if it goes back down, does that make it the boom and bust of 12.45am? It seems premature to draw conclusions at this stage. Some media articles I've seen are way out of date by the time they are published, even on the web.) Mdwh (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is an acceptable compromise. Thank you. And you are correct about the dating. --☥NEO (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe timeline could be split to separate page? Jonpatterns (talk) 20:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Mr, Guzman

Mr. Guzman. You just pre-empted the source citations, the text of the article which the lede must summarize, and the talk thread in which you previously participated without generating consensus for your view. Your re-insertion of "currency" is edit-warring contrary to WP policy. As has previously been explained to you, the fact that bitcoin was promoted as a currency, cash, or virtual money -- all noted in the article -- does not mean that it is functioning that way, that it has been successful in that mission, or that reliable sources currently believe it to be true. Quite the contrary is the case. The text prior to your re-insertion of your view was a balanced reflection of the article text and the available reliable sources. Please undo your edit and pursue your views further on talk if you feel strongly about this. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC) I see that another editor has taken care of this. Let's concentrate on all the unclear and confusing text that still needs cleanup in the body of the article, e.g. the Distribution and Protocol sections. SPECIFICO talk 19:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Image axes: File:BitcoinEuroFebMarch2013.jpg

Hi, it's great to see that people put work into getting good figures. Conventionally though, the abscissa (x-axis) is used for time and the y-axis for values. Therefore, for more intuitive understanding, it would be better to turn the image around in order to have the image correspond to this convention. Ben ^T/_C 06:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin Not a Currency

There are now increasing numbers of sources that say bitcoin is not a currency. See Search results. I propose changing "currency" in the opening sentence to "system of accounts" or "asset" which are more neutral and don't entail peoples assumptions and associations concerning the word "currency." Please comment. SPECIFICO talk 14:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• I will do you one better. Most references to Bitcoin call it a currency. See Google Fights to see which should win. I'd suggest you move your opinion to a controversies section, and document Bitcoin in the introduction consistent with how it is described by the majority of references.. Paulsnx2 (talk) 22:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• well you can just refer to wiki's own page on currency to know that bitcoin does qualify as one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.141.164 (talk) 19:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That is not helpful. If you believe that it should be described as a currency please state your reasons. The WP "currency" article is full of problems and contradictions. Are deer pelts currency? I'll sell you my coffee mug for 7 deer pelts. SPECIFICO talk 19:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose: Can you list the sources we would use for this claim and why they should be given more weight over the neutral definitions listed in most sources? Additionally, what neutral source calls bitcoin an asset or system of accounts? --☥NEO (talk) 20:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Heck... a writer for Forbes even called it a "belief system". In all seriousness, Nakamoto, S. (2009) did call it an "electronic cash system".1, which in my opinion, is somewhat akin to the term "electronic currency" or "currency". -- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  20:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

On the Satoshi Nakamoto paper, he did design it as "cash" or money. To say it isn't money or currency even though it's intended to be and is used as such in some capacity is like calling a ugly cat that may bark a dog. --☥NEO (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Well said. /thread. -- Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  20:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The Titanic was designed to be unsinkable. SPECIFICO talk 23:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That doesn't mean we define the Titanic as a hunk of metal. --☥NEO (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That is not at all analogous to calling bitcoin an asset, which is obviously true, or a system of accounts, which is also undeniably true. I suggest you put the hunk of metal back wherever you got it. It's a straw man argument at best. SPECIFICO talk 23:21, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Until news sources introduce bitcoin as "an asset" or "system of accounts" then we can call it that in the article without it being original research. Some may claim it is not money but even then they don't define it as something totally removed from its design as a currency. Even if your preferred sources came up with their own definition for bitcoin, Wikipedia should not be basing core definitions off editorials and blogs. WP:UNDUE --☥NEO (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Neo, I gave you a simple search that provides sources that support my concern. I'm curious about your last remark. You have added numerous dubious sources to this article. Maybe it's time to start tightening things up in all respects. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 01:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You gave links to editorials and opinion pieces that claim bitcoin is not money. That is one subjective point-of-view out of many. I have cited many significant financial sources such as The Wall Street Journal and Fox Business that refer to bitcoin as currency as its definition and intended design.

That is the prevalent and mainstream point-of-view and has precedence over editorial pieces and opinions according to WP:UNDUE. To say bitcoin is anything other than its design at the start of the article would be giving a view an undue weight.

I can cite CNBC and Bloomberg television broadcasts (even post-crash) to further cite the prevalent definition of bitcoin. Additionally, your choice of terms isn't cited anywhere in your links.--☥NEO (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6SLPy89gPE0 --☥NEO (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

In general, CNBC, Fox Business, Bloomberg and the like are not WP:RS. I think it's time to start removing those citations and the associated content, except as it presents opinion of notable or expert commentators. I have voiced my concerns about this article long ago, but the questionable content is increasing rather than decreasing here. SPECIFICO talk 02:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You can have the article. I quit. --☥NEO (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you are getting too close to this. Nobody "has" the article. Maybe take a week off and come back to it with fresh eyes? SPECIFICO talk 02:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

NOOOOOO! NEO!! This is a sad day. snacks _[talk] 03:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Compromise: I added this to the first paragraph of the lead. I think this should address your core concerns:

"However, due to its experimental nature, volatile markets and allegedly limited use in trade, bitcoin has been criticized as not being a functional currency.[14]" --☥NEO (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Definition arguments are silly and sometimes lead to stupid outcomes "A system of accounts" wouldn't be technically accurate in terms of how the system works. My lawyer would tell you that "Bitcoin is a digital commodity intended for use as a money-good and valued as such". The primary source of arguments has nothing to do with "functional" its that one common definition of "currency" is that it must be issued by a government.--Gmaxwell (talk) 03:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

This argument should be relegated to a "Controversies" section. Since bitcoin developers, miners, supporters, investors, and many observers regard Bitcoin as a "Digital Currency," it should be described as such, and arguments to the contrary discussed elsewhere. It isn't the role of Wikipedia to decide which side of a controversy is right and which is wrong. You are just supposed to document. Paulsnx2 (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I only see one person strongly arguing for not including that Bitcoin is a currency. Saying it's not a currency seems a bit fringe. Should we exclude an important descriptive word and instead relegate it to a "controversy" in a separate section because a few believe Bitcoin is not a currency? --C S (talk) 18:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Specifico has reverted my edit of "commodity" --> "digital currency", but since his/her sources are far less reliable in this domain than the Wall Street Journal and The Economist, I've reverted and also updated the references. --C S (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I've also looked over four sources that are used to justify the last statement in the lede: "Although bitcoin was initially promoted as a digital currency, many commentators currently reject that claim due to bitcoin's volatile market value, relatively inflexible supply, and minimal use in trade."

the four references are: [4] [5] [6] [7]

Interestingly, although the first does deny bitcoin is a currency, the 2nd-4th sources all explicitly describe bitcoin as a currency. For example, the Washington blog post states: 'Then there are the Winklevoss twins, made famous by that Facebook movie, who turn out to have amassed “one of the single largest portfolios” of bitcoins around—some $11 million, or 1 percent of the $1.3 billion currency.' Krugman's article states: "And because of that, there has been an incentive to hoard the virtual currency rather than spending it." The Bloomberg article says: "According to Mt. Gox, the largest Bitcoin exchange, the currency started out at $230, spiked to $266, touched a low of $105 and then settled at just above $170 (it’s now $123). ""

Yes, these articles/blog post are criticizing bitcoin, but only one is actually expressing an opinion about whether bitcoin can be labeled a "currency". It's utility, that's another issue and one they all do suspect is minimal. Hence I've chanted the lede accordingly. --C S (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The lede should express the content in the article. You may develop your views in talk but you may not continue to re-insert text that was validly reverted per WP:BRD. We are now at D, discussion. Furthermore it is not appropriate to delete RS references which are consistent wit the article text. Please self-revert your last edit and continue to develop your views on talk to advance the development of consensus. SPECIFICO talk 21:15, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I see CS has analyzed the sources himself, but I'll put my own analysis here.

Let's look at those four sources. Krugman calls it a "cybercurrency"[8]; Zeitlin specifically refers to Bitcoin as a currency but states, "Bitcoin is being treated like a commodity"[9]; Plumer refers to Bitcoin as an online currency and then spends the whole blog criticizing it, but never challenging that definition[10]; and then you have one op-ed, from Woodhill, claiming it is a collectible rather than money.[11].

Taking those four sources and using it to cite that many commentators reject that it is a digital currency is poor sourcing at best, and dishonest at worst. If you have more sources in line with your opinion, Specifico, present them. And not search results like you did above. You want a change, you find the sources - we're not doing your work for you. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

References