|Cryptocurrency has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Society. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cryptocurrency article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS
|This article was nominated for deletion on 4 June 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.|
|This article was nominated for deletion on 14 March 2011. The result of the discussion was DELETE.|
|Daily page views for this article over the last 2.5 years|
Detailed traffic statistics
Very subjective section
"As the popularity of and demand for online currencies has increased since the inception of bitcoin in 2009, so have concerns that such an unregulated person to person global economy that cryptocurrencies offer may become a threat to society."
"Concerns" about what should be considered as a threat to society is different from different positions. Objectively everything can be interpreted as a threat to society. For example an anarchist, or an anarcho capitalist considers a government as a threat to society. A facist considers immigrants as a threat to society. A dogmatic idealist considers freedom of speech as a thread and so on. You can easily verify this by just watching mainstream news from different countries. USA media has a completely different threat model, then Russian, or Nigerian media and so on. And as no society is superior there is no way to decide.
My point is that statements like the one above are essentially void and only appears as to have meaning, while in fact they are just an additional layer of political manipulation. They constiute a certain point of view as objectiv truth. For that matter everyone who prefers an unregulated society would not consider cryptocurrencies as a threat but as a solution to the threat of regulations.
So at least one has to specify to whom exactly this is a threat. Certainly not to all of society. A great article would write something like: "cryptocurrencies might be considered as a threat to those parties, who prefer a centrally organized and regulated society, while libertarian people see them more as a possible solution to the currently existing hierachical, non democratic monetary system" ... Something like that
Semi-protected edit request on 2 October 2019
|This edit request has been answered. Set the |
- Not done - This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".- MrX 🖋 11:41, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Ctrl-F "bitcoin", 99 results
It seems this article was written at a time when Bitcoin was the only cryptocurrency. This article needs an overhaul to generalize the language. The fact that there are 99 mentions of Bitcoin in this article is ridiculous. Bitcoin should only be mentioned in the Origin/History section, probably once in the intro, and maybe one or two other places if it's absolutely necessary. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 03:23, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
- Good point, i removed a few. Many cant be removed easily as the citations anchor the text. I think more than half of your search results are in the citations FYI. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2019
|This edit request has been answered. Set the |
"change Cryptocurrencies are a potential tool to evade economic sanctions for example against Russia, Iran, or Venezuela. Russia also secretly supported Venezuela with the creation of the petro (El Petro), a national cryptocurrency initiated by the Maduro government to obtain valuable oil revenues by circumventing US sanctions. to change Cryptocurrencies are a potential tool to evade economic sanctions for example against Russia, Iran, or Venezuela. Russia also secretly supported Venezuela with the creation of the petro (El Petro), a national cryptocurrency initiated by the Maduro government to obtain valuable oil revenues by circumventing US sanctions."
Added links to sources related to the launch of El Petro with links to oil and bypassing US sanctions. There were no links before. Please add to back up the facts. Thank! 7ilver (talk) 15:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
- Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. NiciVampireHeart 04:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
There are many instances where Bitcoin isn't capitalized. For example, in the overview:
Since the release of bitcoin, over 6,000 altcoins (alternative variants of bitcoin, or other cryptocurrencies) have been created.
Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2019
|This edit request has been answered. Set the |
A cryptocurrency wallet stores the public and private "keys" or "addresses" which can be used to receive or spend the cryptocurrency. With the private key, it is possible to write in the public ledger, effectively spending the associated cryptocurrency. With the public key, it is possible for others to send currency to the wallet.
A cryptocurrency wallet, comparable to a bank account, enables you to send and receive cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum. The various types include hardware, paper, desktop, mobile and web-based wallets. Each cryptocurrency wallet contains a pair of public and private cryptographic "keys" or "addresses". A public key allows for other wallets to make payments to the wallet's address. A private key is a long hexadecimal code needed to access funds and make transactions from within the wallet. Mstephenw5 (talk) 02:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
How can a cryptocurrency be backed by anything ? How would that work ? For example, i find in Petro (cryptocurrency) that it "is supposed to be backed by the country's mineral reserves" (Venezuela), and in its Petro gold section, that that one is "a gold-backed cryptocurrency". In this article i find nothing about a resource "backing" (in addition, a term to be defined, seems to me) a cryptocurrency. —Jerome Potts (talk) 21:10, 5 January 2020 (UTC) Edit: I guess that i am thinking of blockchain-based cryptocurrencies, perhaps that's why i'm having diffculty reconciling the two concepts. —Jerome Potts (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
Cryptocurrency tokens are not Digital Assets
@Ladislav Mecir: In response to the Article's existing claim that “A cryptocurrency (or crypto currency) is a digital asset designed to work as a medium of exchange that uses strong cryptography to secure financial transactions…” this is a proposal to remove links to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_asset as a reference. The Digital Assets Article clearly states that Digital Assets are data that comes with a right to use. Data that do not possess the right to use are not considered Digital Assets. Digital Assets are typically sold as goods for revenue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finding_Nemo is an example where a legitimate reference to a Digital Asset can be made, since the film was produced with an expectation to be sold as goods, the film comes with a right to use. For example, Facebook Libra's source code is a Digital Asset with a right to use, but the Libra token is merely a binary data medium. Not all binary data are Digital Assets. The standard of care for WP:OR in this case must reference a source that claims that cryptocurrency tokens come with a right to use - such source does not exist, which makes the current statement not attributable. The proposal is to change the current statement to read: “A cryptocurrency (or crypto currency) is binary data designed to work as a medium of exchange that uses strong cryptography to secure financial transactions…” Litesand (talk) 18:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Disagree This source cited in the article confirms the claim that a cryptocurrency is a digital asset. In contrast to that, your proposal applies your own WP:OR interpretation of the definition you read in the Digital asset article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Ladislav Mecir: The referenced definition by Chohan, Usman W states: "At its simplest, a cryptocurrency can be thought of as a digital asset that is constructed to function as a medium of exchange, premised on the technology of cryptography, to secure the transactional flow, as well as to control the creation of additional units of the currency." While the terms "digital asset" may seem interchangeable, this is not the case. Digital assets, as defined by the article, can undergo management with use of Digital rights management (DRM) tools, unlike cryptocurrency. Digital Assets, as defined by the referenced wiki article must posses a right to use. The definition in the source you reference assumes that digital asset is any binary data, uniquely identifiable, and has a perceived value, with or without the distinction of rights to use. These terms cannot coexist. Either Cryptocurrency article must be modified to exclude Digital Assets as a reference, or Digital Assets article must clearly include all binary data, with or without a right to use, as a definition for a digital asset. As I stated before, the standard of care is not simply the term, but the function. The right to use of the movie Finding Nemo, as it stands, does not fall under the same category as rights to use ofBitcoin token reference - a medium of exchange. To combine these two terms, be that as it may referenced by the same name, into a single experience degrades quality of both definitions. In effect, the use of the term digital asset must be treated a homonym https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonym, where these two terms are spelled the same and sound the same but have different meanings and uses. Litesand (talk) 23:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- @Ladislav Mecir: Please take a look at Digital_asset#The_use_of_the_term_with_cryptocurrencies Litesand (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
My understanding is that libra could be both a digital asset and a cryptocurrency right? Or the maker token on ethereum could be both a digital asset and cryptocurrency. @David Gerard: comments? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Litesand - the trouble is that all these words are used as euphemisms for each other in various ways, so the "definitions" are retrospective. Nobody invented separate things called "cryptocurrency" and "digital asset" that had their own definitions - what actually happened was that there was Bitcoin, then there were people who wanted to make Bitcoin, things derived from Bitcoin and things inspired by Bitcoin sound a bit more respectable to various different listeners. A lot of retrospectively made-up taxonomies were created, particularly in academia - and these are what are being quoted here - but these taxonomies are inconsistent and blurred at the edges, hence this argument. So the process of deciding what one feels is the right taxonomy, then finding someone who agreed, is going to lead to arguments like this - David Gerard (talk) 08:39, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi all. I used the above citation of a paper by Usman W. Chohan deeming that it is scholarly. There are many other citations of SSRN papers in the Bitcoin article, e.g. Retimuko tagged the cited paper as self-published, though, so my question is, whether the papers published by SSRN are self-published. Thank you in advance. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- SSRN is basically just hosting, so just putting a paper up would make it an WP:SPS. Is the paper peer-reviewed in a journal that isn't otherwise disreputable? It'll probably be up to RS then - David Gerard (talk) 15:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agree, these so called academic sources seem dubious. There is another attempt to get IOTA listed and being somewhat discussed Draft_talk:IOTA_(technology)#Non-RS and there have been at times 20+ 'academic' sources. For the average editor that doesn't follow it everyday, it is impossible for me to figure out what is an RS and what is not. Better to just err on the not RS side if we dont know. I recognize a few years ago when I was quite excited about all the 'cool' stuff that might be built on ethereum I was on the other side of this argument, but today I see the other sides point (and now I am on the other side) that is just too hard to edit and police the poor sources without quite strict rules. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2020
|This edit request has been answered. Set the |
- Interesting subject. Please note that we have very strict sourcing standards relating to WP:RS on crypto articles. We require the sources be mainstream, such as FT.com, bloomberg, wsj, nyt, etc. We do not use WP:primary sources or sites such as coindesk. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
- Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:42, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
IOTA & NANO
@MrOllie: you reverted Qwahzi (talk · contribs)'s edit  saying it was promotional. My read is that it is no promotional and reflects a real difference in these two cryptos, in that they have a different type of proof of work, that each sender does, instead of the miner. Worth including in my book, as the nuance between these two coins and say bitcoin is significant and encyclopedic. IEEE is probably a reliable source as well, @David Gerard: comments? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- There is a couple of questionable aspects to the above:
- Every cryptocurrency has some special aspect to it, and this article is not a list of cryptocurrencies.
- If I understand it correctly, the system used by IOTA should not be called a "proof of work", so I do not consider it encyclopedic to use such a term in relation to it.
- That is why I support MrOllie's edit. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- Ladislav, how do you suggest to edit the content so that it can be included. The difference between Bitcoin and these small tokens is interesting (at least to me). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- @MrOllie, @Ladislav Mecir - Not having a transaction fee is a major difference that should be mentioned. Without that mention, this Wiki page currently reads as if all cryptocurrencies have or must have a transaction fee in order to prioritize transactions. There is a difference between PoW as a consensus mechanism (e.g. in Bitcoin) and PoW as a transaction priortization/anti-spam mechanism (e.g. in Nano and Iota). Iota does use client-side Proof of Work for their transactions, see the linked sources: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1905.10925.pdf, https://docs.iota.org/docs/getting-started/0.1/transactions/proof-of-work. There are also other peer-reviewed sources that mention this feature of Nano as well: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1804.10013.pdf, http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1229650/FULLTEXT02.pdf --Qwahzi (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- As to the issue at hand, I would have no issue with mentioning that some cryptocurrencies avoid the transaction fee in general terms, without mentioning paritcular coins. - MrOllie (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- I might be wrong, but I think both IOTA and NANO are Directed acyclic graph in setup or similar. It would be interesting to state how this might allow for no fee transactions. I think that is the concept at least. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- I have no association with the Nano project, I'm just a cryptocurrency enthusiast. My interests started with Bitcoin, but I began diving into the technical details over time and found other projects that are more interesting to me. There are only two cryptocurrencies with zero fees (not all DAG-based cryptocurrencies have 0 fees - see Obyte), so to me they warrant the explicit mention, but I would be ok with not mentioning them in this article and leaving the statement more abstract. E.g.: Some cryptocurrencies have no transaction fees, and instead rely on client-side proof-of-work as the transaction prioritization and anti-spam mechanism. --Qwahzi (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Cryptocurrency in the future
can we please add a new section called Cryptocurrency in the future Cryptocurrency will disrupt the norms of commerce More investors will buy in — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinitasimhan (talk • contribs) 17:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
@Ladislav Mecir: I am concerned that this section Cryptocurrency#Initial_coin_offerings_and_US_Securities_and_Exchange_Commission_filing is not encyclopedic. It appears to be some WP:OR gleaned from US law. Wikipedia doesnt provide legal advice. Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- Hi, Jtbobwaysf, and thank you for the information. I just made a couple of edits to the text to make it compatible with the WP:MOS. Other than that, I did not check thoroughly the contents or the sources it uses, so it may well be WP:OR as you mention. Also, it may not be neutral in that it discusses just the US regulations. Feel free to handle the text as you consider best for the Wikipedia. Thanks. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Initial coin offerings and US Securities and Exchange Commission filing
The majority of the issued cryptocurrencies types have been funded through an initial coin offering (ICO) or through a security token offering (STO), wherein a future promise is made on a speculative investment interest in an asset or a financial instrument including the coin tokens, the crypto tokens, or in the coin business. In the US per notification on 19 April 2017, for offerings that are not SEC filing registered, issuers must comply with each independent state securities laws and regulations in the state in which securities are offered or sold. To guarantee investor protections, all fundraising of a business or investment through intrastate offerings must comply with Securities Act Section 3(a)(11), Rule 147, and Rule 147A.
When the ICO or the STO has a future promise of value and is not SEC filing registered, there is a mixed subset of requirements that must be satisfied. The issuer must be organized in-state, the officers, partners, or managers of the issuer primarily direct, control and coordinate the issuer’s activities ("principal place of business") in-state. The issuer must satisfy at least one of the "doing business" in-state requirements: issuer had at least 80% of its consolidated assets located in-state, offers and sales are limited to in-state residents or persons who the issuer reasonably believes are in-state residents, and a written representation from each purchaser as to residency. The issuer must derive at least 80% of its consolidated gross revenues from the operation of a business or of real property located in-state or from the rendering of services in-state; the issuer intends to use and uses at least 80% of the net proceeds from the offering towards the operation of a business or of real property in-state, the purchase of real property located in-state, or the rendering of services in-state; or a majority of the issuer’s employees are based in-state.
Future securities purchased in an STO can only be resold to persons residing in-state for a period of six months from the date of the sale by the issuer to the purchaser. Issuers must disclose these limitations on resale when making sale offers and to purchasers and include appropriate legends on the certificate or document evidencing the security. Persons reselling the securities will need to register the transaction with SEC or have an exemption from registration under federal law.
Securities Act rules 147 and 147A require that any sale will not be integrated with prior offers or sales of securities or subsequent offers or sales of securities that are: registered under the Securities Act, except as provided in Rule 147(h) or Rule 147A(h); exempt from registration under Regulation A or Rule 701; made pursuant to an employee benefit plan; exempt from registration under Regulation S or under Regulation Crowdfunding; or made more than six months after completion of the Rule 147 or Rule 147A offering.