Talk:Cryptocurrency

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Daily page views for this article over the last 2.5 years

Detailed traffic statistics

Mining profitability as a requirement[edit]

The following is a discussion to implement a seemingly simple adjustment into an existing statement within the article. To clarify, this applies only to the validity of the statement alone. My goal is to amend the existing statement in order to clarify limitations of the system.

The existing statement reads: "Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger."

The new proposed statement, in accordance with the proof below to read: "Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger while mining is profitable.[1]"

Reason for the adjustment: the existing statement implies that the miners may have an infinite financial incentive to maintain the ledger. Any infinite call to action is false by default. In addition, the existing statement is grossly inaccurate, because it allows for a possibility that miners will continue to provide mining in the event mining process delivers a consistent financial loss. Economic principles do not accommodate for loss as an incentive. The existing statement must therefore be amended to include the limitation of profitability as a requirement for miners’ participation in the maintenance of the ledger.

Facts: miners are required to expense hard costs of mining; mining revenue is the sole financial incentive to miners; mining is the only revenue source engaged as a financial incentive to maintain the ledger.

Evidence: an independent article that shows hard costs are mandatory to mining.

Assumptions: all economic principles are expressed in long term.

Proof: lets begin with an established equation - revenue less expenses equal to profit (EBIT) or loss as a relationship to the financial incentive to maintain the ledger. This equation now combined with hard costs expense requirement, presented as evidence, in turn, allows to include hard costs as a mandatory value in the expense variable. In turn, revenue and a profit must also become mandatory variables of said equation, in order for the equation to balance. In turn, mining must be profitable in order to comply with mandatory variables and assumed long term economic sense. Therefore, when the system requires miners to acquire mandatory costs, miners have a financial incentive to maintain the ledger only while mining is profitable. Hence, no further proof is required.

Let me know your thoughts, support and/or counter-arguments on this issue with specific references, thanks. @Ladislav Mecir: @C.Fred:

References

  1. ^ MarketWatch (18 December 2017). "In one chart, here's how much it costs to mine bitcoin in your state". MarketWatch. Retrieved 12 January 2018.

Litesand (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  • Disagree:
"the existing statement implies that the miners may have an infinite financial incentive to maintain the ledger." - the statement does not say that, it is only you who claims it does.
Ladislav, thanks for the reply. The existing statement allows for infinite financial incentive as an option and thus I am mitigating this issue. I am not adding above-mentioned statement into the article, this is only my reasoning for changing the statement. I am allowed to state my reasons when proposing a change. --Litesand (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
This supports the current wording as is: "why bother to be part of it at all? Because the third thing the puzzle-solving step adds is an incentive.[1]" There is no need to "correct" the wording in a way you deem "correct" - see WP:OR, in particular: "Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Ladislav, this is why I added proof of my reasoning that is based on verifiable facts and evidence. I'd like to see an alternative proof that topples mine, this would help me evaluate this objection. In the meantime, I am going to add the following as evidence that shows that current statement is insufficient at the very least.
Source[2] says “This mining equilibrium leads us to an interesting conclusion about Bitcoin: because mining resources must currently be purchased with currencies other than Bitcoin, the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange price of Bitcoin. Thus, if the Bitcoin price falls substantially, so too does the incentive to mine. This leads to the possibility of a death spiral in which loss of confidence in Bitcoin could cause the Bitcoin price to go down, a falling price lowers the incentive to mine and the equilibrium mining rate, lower mining rate leads to the currency being easier to subvert, and this leads to a further loss of confidence in the currency.”
Thanks.--Litesand (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
A "proof of your reasoning" is just WP:OR. The relativized claim that "Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger while mining is profitable." assumes that at any given time (e.g. at present), mining either is profitable or it is not profitable. The reality is more complicated. Your own sources prove that different miners have different expenses, depending on costs of electricity and other factors. Therefore, different miners have different profitabilities, and even if some miners are not profitable, it still does not mean that mining is not profitable in general. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Ladislav, thanks for another reply. WP:OR only applies to the article itself, I am not bound by WP:OR rules in the Talk section, or at least I shouldn't be. My assumptions clearly state that all economic principles are expressed in long term. This means that, as part of my proof, I am not obligated to determine if the mining is profitable at any specific time, because profitability issue is in the long run. Profitability, nonetheless, can also fluctuate rapidly, "leading to the possibility of a death spiral." Its an important distinction, so if it resolves your objection, the "Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger while mining is profitable in the long run" wording may be easily used.--Litesand (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Ladislav, provided WP:OR is your main concern, this change in statement may work for you: "Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger.[1] However, because mining resources must currently be purchased with real currencies, the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange price. Thus, if the price falls substantially, so too does the incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. This leads to the possibility of a death spiral in which loss of confidence could lower the incentive to mine and the equilibrium mining rate, lower mining rate leads to the ledger being easier to subvert, and this leads to a further loss of confidence and security of the ledger.[2]" This statement is WP:OR compliant and it also accomplishes my goal to clarify long-term profitability as a system's requirement. Thanks. --Litesand (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Indeed, such a change could improve things. However, there is also WP:CRYSTALBALL. To respect that, a wording not predicting future events that are not very likely to happen should be preferable:

Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger.[1] However because as of 2013, mining resources must be purchased with fiat currencies, the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange rate of the cryptocurrency. If the exchange rate decreases significantly, so too does the incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger.[2]

Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Ladislav, this makes sense. Nobody is an a position to predict when or if the long-term profitability will fall below required threshold to maintain the ledger, especially in an environment that operates high-risk activities that generally are able to sustain an incredibly high rate of loss and continue to remain viable (tax avoidance, money laundering etc.) I would like to use your proposed version, but also add one more sentence to clarify that the security of the ledger is also vulnerable to a possibility of future change in consensus among miners:

Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger.[1] However because as of 2013, mining resources must be purchased with fiat currencies, the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange rate of the cryptocurrency. If the exchange rate decreases significantly, so too does the incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. Although miners currently follow the original rules to maintain the security of the ledger, this behavior is stable only by consensus and the rules could be changed at any time.[2]

Thanks. --Litesand (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Your edit was premature. There was no consensus with your latest sentence, since you did not allow us to discuss it. The problems with the sentence are:
  • It is not clear what the sentence is supposed to say:
    • The source mentions three types of consensus, and you did not communicate which one do you mean.
    • It is not clear what does "follow the original rules" mean (What are "original rules" in the general context of cryptocurrencies?) I do not even think that such a claim makes sense.
  • The use of the word currently violates the WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper priciple.
  • The sentence seems to forecast change(s) of rules of cryptocurrencies. Changes of rules occurred in various cryptocurrencies. Some of them resulted in chain splits, some did not. Nevertheless, it is not clear how is that related to the previous two sentences. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Ladislav, the statement can be re-worded, but the main objective is to state a possibility of a change in mining incentives with a change in rules (such as payout incentives), not specific to any one cryptocurrency. The reason is that the rules that govern the mining incentive can be overridden by the mining community with a potential to favor of miners first and security of the ledger second, specifically in case if the ledger is about to collapse and the future of mining profits is no longer an option. This version may work better for you:

Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger.[1] However because as of 2013, mining resources must be purchased with fiat currencies, the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange rate of the cryptocurrency. If the exchange rate decreases significantly, so too does the incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. Rules that govern financial incentives to maintain the security of the ledger are not fixed.[2]

Thanks. --Litesand (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Now it looks more understandable, indeed. I think, though, that it may make sense to simplify the text to be easier to understand:

Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger.[1] However because as of 2013, mining resources must be purchased with fiat currencies, the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange rate of the cryptocurrency. If the exchange rate decreases significantly, so too does the incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. Rules that govern financial incentives to maintain the security of the ledger can also be changed.[2]

Ladislav, ok, however "can be changed" brings us back to miner "consensus" discussion, and it is prohibitive to go into further detail in an overview section, meaning the question comes "who can change them?" etc. Perhaps the alternative is to use "subject to change" wording that is both easier to read and focuses on the passive nature of the rules themselves.

Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger.[1] However because as of 2013, mining resources must be purchased with fiat currencies, the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange rate of the cryptocurrency. If the exchange rate decreases significantly, so too does the incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. Rules that govern financial incentives to maintain the security of the ledger are subject to change.[2]

Thanks.--Litesand (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
The "subject to change" formulation means that the change is likely. I know that the change is possible, but the claim that it is likely does not reflect the known facts or sources, in my opinion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Ladislav, yes, "subject to change" implies a more likely possibility than "something can change." The source clearly references a very real possibility formation of a mining cartel as well as general trend towards pool mining by larger entities. Currently, mining pools own the majority of mining capacity and are based primarily in China. Having to build a 51% consensus to modify incentive rules of the system in this environment is a substantial possibility and the source clearly addresses it as a fact. As barriers to entry increase, so as do odds of a mining monopoly that can easily act to modify any of the rules it wants. "Subject to change" is a neutral statement among these facts.
Thanks.--Litesand (talk) 05:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
No, Litesand, taking into account that the strongest claim in the cited source is that "the rules could be changed" (see the Conclusion section), it is not true that the source claims that the rules are likely to change. Moreover, the source relativizes the claim further by saying "Even if a regulator forces the developers to incorporate changes into the Bitcoin rules and reference software, the rest of the Bitcoin community will be able to fork the rules and carry on under the ruleset of its choice.", demonstrating that there is a possibility to resist any effort even if a poverful actor seems to be able to enforce a rule change otherwise. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Ladislav, the claim you mentioning is related to a much weaker option - government or third-party interference. The stronger reasoning to support the change in statement is that the network is built with an inherit flaw of having no self-regulations or government controls against monopolizing itself. Powerful pools of miners have a real ability to change the rules of the ledger, this is not a future prediction. Mining monopoly behavior is already changing the rules that, in turn, directly affect the security of the ledger. I am including this article (http://fortune.com/2017/08/25/bitcoin-mining/) as additional evidence to support "subject to change" statement.
Thanks.--Litesand (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Not really. "Subject to change" looks like your own opinion. It is not present in the source you refer to which discusses a specific case unrelated to mining reward, mentions the influence of a miner as only a possibility, and explains that any accusations may turn out to be unfounded. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Ladislav, here is another alternative: "Collusion trends among some of the miners also systematically undermine the ability for mutually distrustful miners to maintain the security of the ledger." I think adding a simple statement that the ledger is a "subject to change" is more neutral, however, this alternative statement is directly supported by the evidence and is in line with WP:OR and WP:BALL. An example of a personal opinion is: without anti-trust regulations, mining is a dead-end technology that runs a lot of expensive heaters.
Thanks.--Litesand (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Re "subject to change is more neutral" - that is where I disagree all the time. I am sure it is not neutral. It would be neutral to mention that change is possible as the sources do, but "subject to change" is not a neutral representation of that. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Ladislav, “can be changed” version is ok, I don’t see that much difference between that and “subject to change.” I’d like to expand on the reason why the ability to change the rules of the ledger is critical due to lack of regulations within the system to discourage collusion. Currently, there are about five mining pool that control 60-80% of the ledger; these five cartels can agree or change anything at any time, mainly for their own benefit. The idea of a “mutually distrustful miners” is great, but its inaccurate since miners best option is always to collude and pool resources, instead of pure completion. The only thing that stops collusion is either inherit system built-in protections (there are none,) or securities regulations, (also none.) This is the great flaw of the system – without any built-in alternative, the system assumes that protections offered by the centralized entities such as pyramid and anti-trust laws are benign, and they are in actuality the only tools that hold real currencies and securities in check. Once miners were able to effectively collude in small groups, blockchain process has lost all of its inherit advantages and the ledger can no longer be considered independent or secure. Hence, this would be my proposed statement:

Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger.[1] However, because as of 2013, mining resources must be purchased with fiat currencies, the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange rate of the cryptocurrency. If the exchange rate decreases significantly, so too does the incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. Rules that govern financial incentives to maintain the security of the ledger can also be changed. Further, collusion strategies (pool mining) among some of the miners systematically undermine the ability for mutually distrustful miners to maintain the security of the ledger. [2][3]

Quotes from the publication I used as reference:
“Mining is now generally organized into pools of coordinating miners who partition the search for proof-of-work puzzle solutions and who share in the mining rewards ... Furthermore, as mining becomes increasingly specialized (with specialized hardware such as application-specific integrated circuits (ASICs) for efficient hashing and the need for powerful computers to validate transaction blocks, the barriers to entry increase, effectively concentrating the mining power among a few powerful players who are less accountable to the (much larger) set of all Bitcoin holders.” … “We observe that a cartel can change any rules which are enforced by consensus and players who are not in the cartel will likely be obliged to follow. For example, a cartel can choose any strategy in the mining game. Players who continue to use the old strategy risk having their newly-mined blocks ignored as forks of the consensus branch and thereby risk losing the mining reward payments associated to those blocks. Thus, if the cartel announces its mining strategy, it can shift the equilibrium chosen by the non-cartel players.” … “An interesting facet of mining cartels is that they can censor certain transactions. The cartel can choose to ignore any transaction it does not want appended to the log. Further, the cartel can choose to treat any blocks appended by others to the log as forks which it will not attempt to extend. Thus, other players will naturally also abandon these transactions, possibly even consciously if the cartel announces that certain transactions (or transactors) are disfavored.”
Quotes from the article (my ease-of-use changes are in brackets):
(a blockchain expert), who recently wrote an editorial for Fortune questioning the viability of (a hard fork) … believes (a mining pool) is engaging in shenanigans to secretly undermine the integrity of (the blockchain ledger). “(A mining pool) does have a lot of control for now, and much of that is simply due to mining centralization. (A mining pool) is so vertically integrated, from selling ASICs, to operating mining farms, to running mining pools, he can prevent network upgrade and attempt to hijack the (the blockchain ledger) brand with things like (a hard fork),” (a blockchain expert) said by email … the real world market implications may also give pause for ordinary (cryptocurrency) buyers—many of whom are likely unaware of the emergence of mining cabals that are able to sway the future of (cryptocurrency).
Thanks.--Litesand (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Litesand: The last sentence you propose ignores this part of the cited source: "We naturally ask, therefore, what a mining cartel could do if one ever comes to exist." In other words, the last sentence using terms like "systematically undermines", etc. violates WP:CRYSTALBALL. You seem to want to synthesize the claims from the articles to obtain these strong formulations, but that is not allowed by WP:NOR. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Ladislav, agreed, "systematically undermines" does somewhat combine both sources and is a recent development that needs more research. Hence, a proposed revision:

Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger.[1] However, because as of 2013, mining resources must be purchased with fiat currencies, the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange rate of the cryptocurrency. If the exchange rate decreases significantly, so too does the incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. Rules that govern financial incentives to maintain the security of the ledger can also be changed. Further, collusion strategies (pool mining) among group of miners and companies with a joint hash rate in excess of 50% can undermine the ability for mutually distrustful miners to maintain the security of the ledger.[2][4]

Thanks.--Litesand (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Re "collusion strategies (pool mining) among group of miners and companies with a joint hash rate in excess of 50%" - I cannot help but think that this formulation suggests that such colluding groups already exist. Such a claim is controversial, at best. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Ladislav, if the statement implied that such group already exists, then it would state it as a fact and reference that group. The revised statement warns of a strong possibility of collusion and its affect on the security of the system, exactly as does the source, hence its in line with WP:OR rules. The recent article also states expert's opinion that it is already happening, but I already agree that "systematically undermines" is pushing the line of combining the two sources, hence my revision. Having almost 80% of a joint hash rate in hands of only five pools (https://blockchain.info/pools) is also a fact. However, to address your concern, we can add "potentially" to that sentence. Also, going back, I can't find anywhere a reference to year 2013 in the statement "However, because as of 2013, mining resources must be purchased with fiat currencies." Where did you find the 2013 year reference?

Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger.[1] However, because as of 2013, mining resources must be purchased with fiat currencies, the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange rate of the cryptocurrency. If the exchange rate decreases significantly, so too does the incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. Rules that govern financial incentives to maintain the security of the ledger can also be changed. Further, collusion strategies (pool mining) among group of miners and companies with a joint hash rate in excess of 50% can potentially undermine the ability for mutually distrustful miners to maintain the security of the ledger.[2][5] As of 2018, almost 80% of a joint hash rate is estimated to be in control of only five mining pools.[6]

Thanks.--Litesand (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
"Where did you find the 2013 year reference?" - that is a "translation" of the word "currently" taking into account that the source is dated to 2013. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:30, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Ladislav, I think the solution with the 2013 reference is to neither mention "2013" nor use the "currently" reference. The 2013 reference implies that this date has significance outside the date of the publication. Hence, revised version:

Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger.[1] However, because mining resources must be purchased with fiat currencies, the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange rate of the cryptocurrency. If the exchange rate decreases significantly, so too does the incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. Rules that govern financial incentives to maintain the security of the ledger can also be changed. Further, collusion strategies (pool mining) among group of miners and companies with a joint hash rate in excess of 50% can potentially undermine the ability for mutually distrustful miners to maintain the security of the ledger.[2][7] As of 2018, almost 80% of a joint hash rate is estimated to be in control of only five mining pools.[8]

Thanks. --Litesand (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
No, Litesand, since a 2013 source mentions "currently", and due to WP:NOTNP, it is a standard practice in Wikipedia to use the {{as of}} template to mark the statement which, per its source is potentially dated. The generalization you propose is not allowed, since it is not confirmed by the source.
Re "Further, collusion strategies (pool mining) among group of miners and companies with a joint hash rate in excess of 50% can potentially undermine the ability for mutually distrustful miners to maintain the security of the ledger." - this is a complicated sentence, not really related to the previous two. It also does not really make sense, since pooled mining refers to pooling resources among individual miners, while the "collusion" term you use is probably meant to refer to collusion between several mining pools. The fact that you use two sources to confirm it suggests that it is a synthesis, which is also not allowed per WP:NOR. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Ladislav, the 2013 reference is odd, but since wiki has WP:NOTNP rule, its very rarely enforced with the date of the publication like that, however, I wont object to it; in fact, lets do that to every reference on wiki and see how fast it confuses everyone. The source clearly draws the parallel between mining pool and collusion: "cartel... that is, no coordinating group of miners (or a single player) can hold more than 50% of the network’s mining (puzzle-solving) capacity. However, this assumption is questionable: mining is now generally organized into pools of coordinating miners who partition the search for proof-of-work puzzle solutions and who share in the mining rewards." There is no synthesis in the statement, however I can revise it state "pool mining strategies" "instead collusion strategies (pool mining)." The sentence is necessary because it further brackets an unlimited proposition that "mutually distrustful miners" have the power to maintain the security of the ledger, the statement clarifies that there is "unchecked collusion possibility" within the system that makes any healthy competition among miners - futile.

Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger.[1] However, as of 2013, because mining resources must be purchased with fiat currencies, the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange rate of the cryptocurrency. If the exchange rate decreases significantly, so too does the incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. Rules that govern financial incentives to maintain the security of the ledger can also be changed. Further, pool mining strategies among groups of miners and companies with a joint hash rate in excess of 50% can potentially undermine the ability for mutually distrustful miners to maintain the security of the ledger.[2][9] As of 2018, almost 80% of a joint hash rate is estimated to be in control of only five mining pools.[10]

Thanks. --Litesand (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Oppose The last two sentences are just a synthesis. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Ladislav, how exactly do you explain the synthesis for last two sentences? Last sentence "As of 2018, almost 80% of a joint hash rate is estimated to be in control of only five mining pools." is taking data from a reliable source and summarizing it as a fact, nothing more nothing less. What part of the sentence is synthesized here? The sentence beforehand addresses "51% cartel constraint" of the system on the same terms as described by a completely separate source. If you oppose anything, do the wiki community a favor and explain what exactly the objection is - on actionable terms. Words "just a synthesis" means nothing to anyone here.
Thanks. --2601:646:4101:4740:B4B9:D746:5B88:BE5C (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
The claim that "As of 2018, almost 80% of a joint hash rate is estimated to be in control of only five mining pools." is indeed confirmed by an independent source. On the other hand:
  • The claim is not related to the decentralized nature of the cryptocurrency—even if the joint hash rate of the five mining pools was 100%, it would still not mean that the currency is centralized.
  • The claim is related only to bitcoin, i.e. not to cryptocurrency in general. In this sense, the claim is unconfirmed as far as the subject of this article is concerned.
  • The overwhelming majority of the sources claim that bitcoin is decentralized. This is pushing a particular point of view, for which only one or two sources can be found. Moreover, such sources are bitcoin-specific, i.e. they do not discuss other cryptocurrencies.
  • The "51% cartel constraint" really holds for bitcoin and cryptocurrencies copying its design, the rest of that sentence is questionable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)


Ladislav,
  • The claim is not related to the decentralized nature of the cryptocurrency—even if the joint hash rate of the five mining pools was 100%, it would still not mean that the currency is centralized.
      • The claim does not imply that the currency suddenly becomes “centralized”, it only states the current mining equilibrium: five pools control 80%. A completely separate claim states that the security of the ledger could be compromised if a cartel is formed, as does a separate source. If a cartel is formed, the currency will still remain “decentralized”, but the ledger itself could no longer be maintained by “mutually distrustful miners.” I added clarification that the currency remains decentralized by design.
  • The claim is related only to bitcoin, i.e. not to cryptocurrency in general. In this sense, the claim is unconfirmed as far as the subject of this article is concerned.
      • Well, the entire Overview section does the same thing, bitcoin is really difficult to separate from this issue. However, I modified the claim to reference bitcoin only, since the source only provides bitcoin statistics.
  • The overwhelming majority of the sources claim that bitcoin is decentralized. This is pushing a particular point of view, for which only one or two sources can be found. Moreover, such sources are bitcoin-specific, i.e. they do not discuss other cryptocurrencies.
      • The claim does not weight on the decentralization issue, only issue of mining pools. I added clarification that the currency remains decentralized.
  • The "51% cartel constraint" really holds for bitcoin and cryptocurrencies copying its design, the rest of that sentence is questionable.
      • OK, yes, however my goal is to only address limitations of the ledger control provided by mutually distrustful miners. I added the proof-of-work clarification to address this point.

As of September 2017, over a thousand cryptocurrency specifications exist; most are similar to and derive from the first fully implemented decentralized cryptocurrency, bitcoin. Within cryptocurrency systems the safety, integrity and balance of ledgers is maintained by a community of mutually distrustful parties referred to as miners: members of the general public using their computers to help validate and timestamp transactions, adding them to the ledger in accordance with a particular timestamping scheme.[11] However, decentralized proof-of-work cryptocurrencies, such as bitcoin, are not subject to financial regulations, and pool mining strategies among groups of miners and companies with a joint hash rate in excess of 50% can potentially undermine the ability for mutually distrustful miners to maintain the security of the ledger.[2] Even though cryptocurrency remains decentralized by design, as of 2018, almost 80% of a joint hash rate for bitcoin, is estimated to be in control of only five mining pools.[12] Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger.[1] Because, as of 2013, mining resources must be purchased with fiat currency, the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange rate of the cryptocurrency. If the exchange rate decreases significantly, so too does the incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. Rules that govern financial incentives to maintain the security of the ledger can also be changed.[2]

Hopefully, this resolves your objections. Thanks.--Litesand (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
"Hopefully, this resolves your objections." - unfortunately, it does not. As I said, the majority of sources claim the bitcoin is decentralized. The text you propose this time contains a huge blob of minority-sourced (at best) text trying to suggest otherwise. For example, "decentralized proof-of-work cryptocurrencies, such as bitcoin, are not subject to financial regulations" is unsourced, known to be incorrect and, in fact, unrelated. The claim that "five pools control 80%" is also unrelated, and smells as a synthesis attempt. Also, the claim that miners have an incentive to maintain the security of the ledger confirmed by huge majority of the sources is now buried into the huge blob of synthesis attempts. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:45, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Ladislav, as I said, neither the source, nor proposed statements claim the currency becomes "magically" centralized; this is a very odd objection you yourself invented and keep pressing, even after I added clarifications that the currency is decentralized by design. My main goal is to limit erroneous statements with regards to "community of mutually distrustful miners," that without any limitations, have full control of the ledger and have an unlimited incentive to mine. There are very specific pitfalls of the system that the source addresses independently, without me having to synthesize anything. Currently, I am only aware of US-IRS regulations with regards to status of the speculation proceeds from crytocurrency, these are not financial regulations. Nonetheless, I don't much care if there are regulations somewhere trying to somehow regulate unregulated systems, this is irrelevant to my goal, so Im removing this reference to clarify the statement. The claim that "five pools control 80%" is a fact, it is not synthesis, and is allowed under WP:OR, even if it smells like something to you, it remains true and is directly related because it addresses the state of the "community of mutually distrustful miners" as it stands today. "Community of mutually distrustful miners" does not readily translate into five mining pools to a reasonable person and this is why this clarification is needed. The claim that miners have an incentive to maintain the security of the ledger is generally correct, but ONLY up to a defining point, this is exactly why a separate clarification is also needed. Unless you have specific WP: policy objection, unfortunately, your personal opinion is not something I am able to resolve. My goal is not to blob or blurry anything, it is to clarify how existing statements are broad and over-ambitious: the system has inherit limitations when it comes to security of the ledger, exactly as described by the source to directly address your past WP:OR policy objections.

As of September 2017, over a thousand cryptocurrency specifications exist; most are similar to and derive from the first fully implemented decentralized cryptocurrency, bitcoin. Within cryptocurrency systems the safety, integrity and balance of ledgers is maintained by a community of mutually distrustful parties referred to as miners: members of the general public using their computers to help validate and timestamp transactions, adding them to the ledger in accordance with a particular timestamping scheme.[11] However, pool mining strategies among groups of miners and companies with a joint hash rate in excess of 50% can potentially undermine the ability for mutually distrustful miners to maintain the security of the ledger of decentralized proof-of-work cryptocurrencies.[2] Even though cryptocurrency remains decentralized by design, as of 2018, almost 80% of a joint hash rate for bitcoin, is estimated to be in control of only five mining pools.[13] Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger.[1] Because, as of 2013, mining resources must be purchased with fiat currency, the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange rate of the cryptocurrency. If the exchange rate decreases significantly, so too does the incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. Rules that govern financial incentives to maintain the security of the ledger can also be changed.[2]

Thanks. --Litesand (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

"have full control of the ledger" - Let me inform you that this is a formulation that is in no source nor is it contained in the article.
"have an unlimited incentive to mine" - This is also a formulation that is in no source nor is it contained in the article.
"There are very specific pitfalls of the system that the source addresses independently, without me having to synthesize anything." - the majority of sources, even the academic ones, claim otherwise. One source claiming there may be some possibilities in one specific case do not suffice - per WP:NPOV we should not give the same or greater weight to a source that considers just some distant possibilities of some consensus failure as we give to the majority of sources that mention different facts.
Re '"five pools control 80%" is a fact' of course it is a fact. But it is a fact unrelated to the fact that miners have an incentive to maintain the cryptocurrency ledger. Your claim that these two facts are related makes the whole a synthesis.
"Currently, I am only aware of US-IRS regulations with regards to status of the speculation proceeds from crytocurrency, these are not financial regulations." - Consult WP:OR, please.
"The idea of a “mutually distrustful miners” is great, but its inaccurate since miners best option is always to collude and pool resources, instead of pure completion." - I do not understand why you think that "pure completion" is required in this case. This is also unrelated to the fact that miners have an incentive to maintain the ledger, unless you want to make a synthesis somehow. The claim that "miners best option is to always collude" is a WP:OR, and it is also unrelated to the fact that miners have an incentive to maintain the ledger.
'Community of mutually distrustful miners" does not readily translate into five mining pools' - Why should it, unless you want to base some synthesis on the requirement for it to "readily translate"?
"Even though cryptocurrency remains decentralized by design" - It not just remains decentralized by design. It remains decentralized. I know that you are trying to claim otherwise, but that is a claim contradicting the majority of available sources. Rest assured that there is no consensus to give undue weight to such minority opinions. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Ladislav Mecir I think some of your prior recommendations were excellent, especially having to do with WP:OR and WP:BALL policy, and have been noted and contributed to the revised version. Nonetheless, this subject was brought up here with a single goal to archive user consensus on proposed edits in accordance with wiki rules and the research done by others, this is not to debate. You had adequately voiced your opinion and its time to demonopolize this discussion by seeking input from other users. Hence, Im going to start a new subheading to seek further input. For you to effectively step back from participation, in my opinion, is a constructive solution to help gain consensus and receive independent suggestions from others.
Thanks. --Litesand (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Litesand. The fact is that your "Mining profitability as a requirement" suggestion did not achieve consensus per WP:NOR. Your request for me "to effectively step back from participation" is not a constructive solution to help gain consensus - quite the opposite is true. All your attempts at slipping your "Mining profitability as a requirement" in were found problematic, and you trying to continue with them is now WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Ladislav Mecir, you misunderstood, I will keep looking for constructive feedback and keep this issue open until WP:CONS is reached. Disruptive editing is at all not applicable here, your accusation is false, specifically after I had addressed your WP:OR recommendations. You seem to want to WP:OWN this discussion by turning a simple edit proposal into a debate. My request for you to "step back" from this discussion is an effort to hear from other users with regards to their take on the WP:SYNTH and WP:OR constructively. It you find it problematic, it only further proves my point.--Litesand (talk) 08:26, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Theoretical profitability[edit]

  • What you are saying is quite clearly correct and should be included. If miners do not gain anything from mining then they have no incentive to mine (this is the point of fees and block rewards). The current form of the statement gives the impression that there is always an incentive to mine, even if a cryptocurrency is worthless, which is not the case. It is not too hard to find sources showing this: [1][2]. Laurencedeclan (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
No, the current wording says that there "is an incentive", and, in this sense, it reflects what The Economist says. It is not a claim that there "will always be an incentive". Also note that the relativization of the claim proposed by Litesand does not reflect (misrepresents) what The Economist says. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 02:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
That is where we disagree. The current statement makes a bold assertion that miners have financial incentives. It does not include the (factually correct) qualifier that mining must be profitable and does not detail any exceptions, therefore implying that miners are always incentivised. Laurencedeclan (talk) 05:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
It is not factually correct that mining must be profitable. The fact is that mining is unprofitable with inadequate equipment and in places with high prices of electricity. That does not mean, though, that the same miner could not acquire a more efficient equipment and move to a place where electricity or other facilities are more affordable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
If miners cannot make money from mining, then they will not mine. This is not a difficult concept to understand. When I say "mining must be profitable", I am not saying "mining must be profitable anywhere with any equipment". I am saying that it must be theoretically profitable. If the market value of a cryptocurrency is $0 and miners are reimbursed in that currency then there is no incentive to mine, contrary to the current statement in this article. Laurencedeclan (talk) 10:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
As said above, your claim is just a WP:OR, actually contradicting The Economist saying "why bother to be part of it at all? Because the third thing the puzzle-solving step adds is an incentive.[1]" without the additional part saying anything about your "theoretical profitability". What your "theoretical profitability" even is? Any miner can be either profitable or not, the general knowledge is that mining is generally unprofitable unless the miner acquires very efficient equipment and moves to a place where electricity and other facilities are cheap. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:27, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Revised proposal (January 30, 2018)[edit]

The following is a continued discussion to implement a seemingly simple adjustment into an existing statement within the article. My goal is to amend the existing statement in order to clarify limitations of the system.

The existing statement reads:

As of September 2017, over a thousand cryptocurrency specifications exist; most are similar to and derive from the first fully implemented decentralized cryptocurrency, bitcoin. Within cryptocurrency systems the safety, integrity and balance of ledgers is maintained by a community of mutually distrustful parties referred to as miners: members of the general public using their computers to help validate and timestamp transactions, adding them to the ledger in accordance with a particular timestamping scheme.[11] Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger.[1]

The new proposed statement, in accordance with sources:

As of September 2017, over a thousand cryptocurrency specifications exist; most are similar to and derive from the first fully implemented decentralized cryptocurrency, bitcoin. Within cryptocurrency systems the safety, integrity and balance of ledgers is maintained by a community of mutually distrustful parties referred to as miners: members of the general public using their computers to help validate and timestamp transactions, adding them to the ledger in accordance with a particular timestamping scheme.[11] However, pool mining strategies among groups of miners and companies with a joint hash rate in excess of 50% can potentially undermine the ability for mutually distrustful miners to maintain the security of the ledger of decentralized proof-of-work cryptocurrencies.[2] Even though cryptocurrency remains decentralized, As of January 2018, almost 80% of a joint hash rate for bitcoin, is estimated to be in control of only five mining pools.[14] Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger.[1] Because, As of 2013, mining resources must be purchased with fiat currency, the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange rate of the cryptocurrency. If the exchange rate decreases significantly, so too does the incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. Rules that govern financial incentives to maintain the security of the ledger can also be changed.[2]

Reason for the adjustment: the existing paragraph implies that the miners may have an infinite financial incentive to maintain the ledger and miners have an infinite ability to maintain the ledger in a form of a “mutually distrustful” group. The existing paragraph is grossly inaccurate due to omission of a number of limiting factors built into the system. First, it allows for a possibility that miners will continue to provide mining in the event mining the value of the mining reward delivers a consistent financial loss. Economic principles do not accommodate for loss as an incentive. Second, it also refers to a “community of mutually distrustful parties” that maintain “safety, integrity and balance of ledgers” without mentioning a possibility of collusion (pool mining) by miners that can effectively seize control and remove “mutually distrustful” relationships within the group.

Evidence: an independent research paper, current statistics on the bitcoin pool mining.

Assumptions: all economic principles are expressed in long term.

Let me know your thoughts, support and/or counter-arguments on this issue with specific references, thanks. @C.Fred: @Laurencedeclan: @NeilN:

Thanks. --Litesand (talk) 21:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


Revised proposal (June 29, 2018)[edit]

The following is a continued discussion to implement a seemingly simple adjustment into an existing statement within the article. My goal is to amend the existing statement in order to clarify limitations of the system.
The existing statement reads:

As of May 2018, over 1,800 cryptocurrency specifications existed.[15] Within a cryptocurrency system, the safety, integrity and balance of ledgers is maintained by a community of mutually distrustful parties referred to as miners: who use their computers to help validate and timestamp transactions, adding them to the ledger in accordance with a particular timestamping scheme.[11]

The new proposed statement, in accordance with sources:

As of June 2018, over 1,800 cryptocurrency specifications exist; some are similar to and derive from the first fully implemented decentralized cryptocurrency, bitcoin. Within proof-of-work cryptocurrency systems the safety, integrity and balance of ledgers is maintained by a community of mutually distrustful parties referred to as miners: members of the general public using their computers to help validate and timestamp transactions, adding them to the ledger in accordance with a particular timestamping scheme.[11] However, pool mining strategies among groups of miners and companies with a joint hash rate in excess of 50 percent can potentially undermine the ability for mutually distrustful miners to maintain the security of the ledger of decentralized proof-of-work cryptocurrencies.[2] Collusion among minders increases the risk that a few miners could band together to execute a so-called 51-percent attack where miners would control enough of the transactions to dictate changes in the development of the blockchain to suit their preferences.[16] Even though cryptocurrency remains decentralized, As of January 2018, almost 80 percent of a joint hash rate for bitcoin, is estimated to be in control of only five mining pools.[17] Miners have a financial incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger.[1] Because, As of 2013, mining resources must be purchased with fiat currency, the value of the mining reward fluctuates with the exchange rate of the cryptocurrency. If the exchange rate decreases significantly, so too does the incentive to maintain the security of a cryptocurrency ledger. Rules that govern financial incentives to maintain the security of the ledger can also be changed.[2]

Reason for the adjustment: the existing paragraph implies that the miners may have an infinite financial incentive to maintain the ledger and miners have an infinite ability to maintain the ledger in a form of a “mutually distrustful” group. The existing paragraph is grossly inaccurate due to omission of a number of limiting factors built into the system. First, it allows for a possibility that miners will continue to provide mining in the event mining the value of the mining reward delivers a consistent financial loss. Economic principles do not accommodate for loss as an incentive. Second, it also refers to a “community of mutually distrustful parties” that maintain “safety, integrity and balance of ledgers” without mentioning a possibility of collusion (pool mining) by miners that can effectively seize control and remove “mutually distrustful” relationships within the group.
Let me know your thoughts, support and/or counter-arguments on this issue with specific references, thanks. @C.Fred: @Laurencedeclan: @NeilN:
Thanks.--Litesand (talk) 03:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
@Litesand: I assume you pinged me because I warned you about edit warring. I won't be acting as an editor in this area so will not comment on content. --NeilN talk to me 04:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
First blockchain luxembourg is not an RS. This is just a blockexplorer and if you are seeking to write some position based upon it, your conclusion based on what you see in the blockexplorer is WP:OR. To me this reads like an effort to push some kind of WP:POV, and while I am not sure what the POV is, but it doesn't look neutral. Suggest trying to make changes more incrementally. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r Economist Staff (31 October 2015). "Blockchains: The great chain of being sure about things". The Economist. Retrieved 18 June 2016.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t Joshua A. Kroll; Ian C. Davey; Edward W. Felten (11–12 June 2013). "The Economics of Bitcoin Mining, or Bitcoin in the Presence of Adversaries" (PDF). The Twelfth Workshop on the Economics of Information Security (WEIS 2013). Retrieved 14 January 2018.
  3. ^ Jeff Roberts (25 August 2017). "Does Bitcoin Have a Mining Monopoly Problem?". FORTUNE. Retrieved 18 January 2018.
  4. ^ Jeff Roberts (25 August 2017). "Does Bitcoin Have a Mining Monopoly Problem?". FORTUNE. Retrieved 18 January 2018.
  5. ^ Jeff Roberts (25 August 2017). "Does Bitcoin Have a Mining Monopoly Problem?". FORTUNE. Retrieved 18 January 2018.
  6. ^ "Hashrate Distribution", BLOCKCHAIN LUXEMBOURG S.A, Retrieved on 22 January 2018.
  7. ^ Jeff Roberts (25 August 2017). "Does Bitcoin Have a Mining Monopoly Problem?". FORTUNE. Retrieved 18 January 2018.
  8. ^ "Hashrate Distribution", BLOCKCHAIN LUXEMBOURG S.A, Retrieved on 22 January 2018.
  9. ^ Jeff Roberts (25 August 2017). "Does Bitcoin Have a Mining Monopoly Problem?". FORTUNE. Retrieved 18 January 2018.
  10. ^ "Hashrate Distribution", BLOCKCHAIN LUXEMBOURG S.A, Retrieved on 22 January 2018.
  11. ^ a b c d e f Jerry Brito and Andrea Castillo (2013). "Bitcoin: A Primer for Policymakers" (PDF). Mercatus Center. George Mason University. Archived (PDF) from the original on 21 September 2013. Retrieved 22 October 2013. Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "primer" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page). Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "primer" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  12. ^ "Hashrate Distribution", BLOCKCHAIN LUXEMBOURG S.A, Retrieved on 22 January 2018.
  13. ^ "Hashrate Distribution", BLOCKCHAIN LUXEMBOURG S.A, Retrieved on 22 January 2018.
  14. ^ "Hashrate Distribution", BLOCKCHAIN LUXEMBOURG S.A, Retrieved on 22 January 2018.
  15. ^ Badkar, Mamta (May 14, 2018). "Fed's Bullard: Cryptocurrencies creating 'non-uniform' currency in US". Financial Times. Retrieved May 14, 2018.
  16. ^ "Many Bitcoin Miners Are at Risk of Turning Unprofitable", Bloomberg LP, Retrieved on 28 June 2018.
  17. ^ "Hashrate Distribution", BLOCKCHAIN LUXEMBOURG S.A, Retrieved on 22 January 2018.

Adding a "Crypto Sign" to represent cryptocurrency[edit]

crypto sign
This design proposed by artist Johnson Rice is a symmetrical generic "crypto sign" for representing cryptocurrencies in a generalized fashion. This design was specifically created to be released into the public domain. It has been used by several organizations including the controversial investment ratings company Weiss Ratings[1][2], the first nationally syndicated radio talk show to ever accept cryptocurrencies[3] "Free Talk Live", and a smaller regional organization promoting localized crypto usage, the "Monadnock Decentralized Currency Network[4]"

There is a stark lack of visual representation of crypto when referred to in a general or generic way. A logo design has been created to represent it which was released into the commons as CC0 and been used by the first podcast and major globally syndicated radio talk show named Free Talk Live, and the design was also used by the controversial financial ratings agency Weiss Ratings which recently launched their cryptocurrency ratings. (These have been very controversial amongst crypto investors)


There are signs for other major currencies e.g., $£€¥, there should be an accepted symbol for cryptocurrencies. I believe this should be added to the page.

TempusInfernus (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

What matters is what is stated in the words of a reliable source. None of the provided refs actually state this symbol is representative of cryptocurrency. Since Wikipedia does not accept original research, just linking to various company logos is not a valid source to support the use of the symbol here. Also, even if reliable sources can be found that state this symbol is representative of cryptocurrency, the puffery of who created it and why is non-encyclopedic, it's irrelevant to the article so doesn't belong in the caption. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 22:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with your comments about the puffery, and stated it because this blurb is that it is about a PROPOSED design / logo for CryptoCurrency, as there is not an accepted universal crypto sign yet, and the Free Talk Live reference actually does state that it is a design for cryptocurrency, but in audio format as it is a podcast / radio show. All of these sources ARE in fact fairly clearly using this logo to represent and discuss cryptocurrency, but I take it the authors here will only accept someone who has written an article about the symbol itself? I'm sure I could talk to some people at Bitcoin Magazine and Bitcoin Talk and see if they want to cover it. :: TempusInfernus (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Non-existent symbols as of February 2018 per WP:OR; Talk Page content only.
Its an interesting direction, however, I doubt it will make it into the main article due to WP:OR rule. You will need to have this symbol accepted and published elsewhere first. The overall design you propose is difficult to replicate: currency design must be simple and easy to write. If you had asked me to come up with a symbol for cryptocurrency, I would say that it can’t be done. At least two separate symbols must be utilized: one is for proof-of-work and another ia for proof-of-stake. At this point, I would refer to the Columnarios for twin worlds inspiration, as does the USD. The double column design “support” is quite brilliant. My best guess from there is an “upside down” pyramid for proof-of-work designation and the “upside” pyramid for proof-of-stake designation. The “upside down” pyramid is relevant due to decentralized nature of the system and the fact that support is required to exist in the world of the real currency. The “upside” pyramid is self-explanatory. Again, if ONLY to break all WP:OR can you actually add anything right now. I do like your efforts to resolve this, keep at it.--Litesand (talk) 00:34, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Controversial[edit]

Note that this section was never a Request for Comment, and it has not been closed per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. It has not been closed by an admin and it would be better for people to see the discussion at WP:AN than to deny the obvious - that cryptocurrencies are controversial. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I have noted this content is back in the article. I will delete it. I think if you wish to dispute the RfC there must be some sort of venue for that. I will assume the RfC is valid. Feel free to file at AN if you think this is wrong. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Consensus not to address this content in the lead. Out of six discussion participants, four presented a reasonable case that the topic was best addressed in the body of the article. The remaining two participants suggested significantly different text, further supporting the case that the topic is best addressed in the body.


Consensus evaluated and discussion closed per request at Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Alsee (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

One editor does not think that cryptocurrency is controversial and has removed the word and supporting text twice. I'd responded to his templating me on my talk page with the following.

controversial
adjective /ˌkɑn·trəˈvɜr·ʃəl, -ˈvɜr·si·əl/
causing or likely to cause disagreement
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/controversial
If you don't think cryptocurrencies are controversial, you haven't been following the many disagreements that they are causing. see e.g. [3], [4], [5], [6], [7].

Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

  • Disagree
    • The dictionary definition of controversial does not confirm your claim that "cryptocurrency is a controversial digital asset".
    • The Facebook is not an independent reliable source and does not confirm your claim that "cryptocurrency is a controversial digital asset".
    • The Fortune article does not confirm your claim that "cryptocurrency is a controversial digital asset".
    • The NY Times article does not confirm your claim that "cryptocurrency is a controversial digital asset".
    • The CNBC article does not confirm your claim that "cryptocurrency is a controversial digital asset".
    • The American Banker article does not confirm your claim that "cryptocurrency is a controversial digital asset". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Also note that per WP:LEAD 'The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. It is not a news-style lead or "lede" paragraph.' That is why I disagree with your edit adding

    On January 30, 2018 Facebook banned advertisements for cryptocurrencies as well as for initial coin offering and binary options.[1][2]

    to the lead section. It is not a summary, nor it introduces cryptocurrency as the subject of the article. That is why it does not belong to the lead section, which should be reverted to WP:STATUSQUO. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Frier, Sarah; Verhage, Jules (January 30, 2018). "Facebook Bans Ads Associated With Cryptocurrencies". Bloomberg. Retrieved February 7, 2018.
  2. ^ Cornish, Chloe (January 30, 2018). "Facebook and regulators move to halt cryptocurrency scams". Financial Times. Retrieved February 7, 2018.
Let us not try to pick this apart with Wikilawyering. Cryptocurrencies are obviously controversial in that they are causing many controversies. Facebook was not cited as as a source, but obviously they know what they are writing about when they explain their own policies. Roughly, that policy is that ads for cryptocurrencies, ICOs and binary options won't be accepted because many of these advertisers are not acting in good faith. The cited sources are the Financial Times and Bloomberg - you can't get better sources than that in business and financial areas. They were asked to do this by the FBI and Canadian regulators and I can source that as well.
Somehow, I think you are asking for a direct quote from such a source saying "cryptocurrencies are controversial". Quotes like that are *not* required by our policies, only that the the sources support the wording. Nobody reading the sources I provided can come away thinking that cryptocurrencies they are anything other than controversial. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:10, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Cryptocurrency itself cannot be described as controversial. This is like saying automobiles are controversial because they facilitate armed robberies. I suggest removing this word and elaborating elsewhere in the article. Fanta206 (talk) 16:12, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Nonsense, please read the definition above. What you are saying is that the Chevrolet Corvair (Unsafe at Any Speed) or the exploding Ford Pinto cannot be described as "controversial cars" because of some grammatical rule that you just invented from whole cloth. Smallbones(smalltalk) 17:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely not. You are describing Cryptocurrency as controversial which as you quite rightly point out is defined as "causing or likely to cause disagreement". Yet, I can only assume you're alluding to either the Bitcoin protocol scaling debate, or the legislation debate. In any case, this is merely two areas of the whole ecosystem. You cannot describe it as controversial as a result of the scaling debate as it applies only to Bitcoin, not cryptocurrency as a whole, and you cannot describe it as controversial as a result of legislators concerns, as there is not widespread debate surrounding this yet; most of the citations I can find seem to in fact suggest widespread acceptance of legislation. If you are alluding to something else, please cite it. Fanta206 (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

─────────────────────────See the 25 or so references in our article Cryptocurrency bubble and the 700,000 pages given in a Google search of "Cryptocurrency bubble". Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

* Google search results are not useful as an encyclopedic argument, sorry.
* Articles claiming that there is a cryptocurrency bubble do not make cryptocurrency a "controversial asset", similarly as articles claiming that there is a real estate bubble do not make real estate a "controversial asset". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:30, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
How about the reference you just added? See
I do think you are tending toward a violation of WP:OWN on this article. What kind of references are needed to include the fact that Facebook has banned advertisements for cryptocurrencies? Why aren't the Financial Times and Bloomberg L.P. good enough? Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
Instead of assuming bad faith, you should consider inserting the information into the article body. This particular news may have some place there, but surely not in the lead section as explained in WP:LEAD. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Agree, with an adjustment
    • Smallbones, thank you for proposing to edit claim that "cryptocurrency is a controversial digital asset." It is obviously has the correct spirit, but please allow me to explain the reason for resistance from other users on this issue. Your focus with this change is on the word "controversial." You will have a very hard time finding legitimate sources and publications that can argue for cryptocurrency being "controversial" because concept of "controversial" is subjective, it is, in fact, an opinion. What is not an opinion, and is a fact, is that cryptocurrency is not digital asset at all. An example of a digital asset is a Pixar Studios movie "Finding Nemo" - it has an inherit value associated with work, jurisdiction that defends its value and a license holder that owns right to it. Cryptocurrency, on the other hand, is an equivalent of property, a DVD copy of that movie on your shelf at best. What you are focusing on is that that it is inappropriate to call that DVD copy of "Finding Nemo" an asset and it should be referred to as a "controversial digital asset." I submit to for your consideration that it was never an asset in the first place, moreover, it will never become an asset since no jurisdiction is able to defend it beyond its status for property. The suggestion I can make for you is to revise your change to "cryptocurrency is a digital property" and support that statement with any number of legitimate sources, US-IRS being major. Thanks, and please keep me posted!--Litesand (talk) 18:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Disagree re: WP:WEIGHT. I suppose they are controversial, at least there is a lot of edits. However, I believe that the controversial text in the lede is a WP:WEIGHT issue and should probably instead be explored in a dedicated section instead. It would be like saying "Donald Trump is a controversial president" in the lede. The statement certainly would be true, but I dont think it would belong in the lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Disagree for reasons pointed out by Jtbob. The first sentence of any article needs to be a crisp, concise definition. It's not the place for commentary. The controversy should be in a dedicated section and maybe at the end of the lede ("Crytocurrency has been critized...") but not right at the start. Look at our articles on fiat money, demurrage, the Austrian School, the Tobin tax, the gold standard, planned economy, capitalism, quantitative easing, or technical analysis: not one of them has a lede that denounces the subject as controversial even though all of them undeniably are. I share Smallbones' unhappiness about the fanboy nature of most of our cryptocurrency articles and I'd be very happy to help fix the problem, but passive-aggressive jabs in intro sentences are not how you go about that. How about we get together and write a useful, informative Criticism section instead? Kramler (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
    I agree Kramler. Earlier there was interest by some editors to input a lot of content on the Bitcoin article and we created a couple of sub-articles to try to be a home for it, as bitcoin apparently suffers from WP:TOOBIG. The articles we created one survived (Cryptocurrency bubble, originally called Bitcoin bubble if I recall) and the other on Ponzi didn't pass AfD. The ponzi one that didn't pass AfD mabye the content can be found here Talk:Bitcoin/Archive_31#Bitcoin_Ponzi_scheme_and_pyramid_scheme_concerns_section_and_sub-article. Thought this might be useful as maybe it could instead offer some Cryptocurrency ponzi content, rather than just Bitcoin ponzi content. Thought this might be useful here in creating an overall criticisms of cryptocurrency section, or even article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
    Thank you for the links; I will look at them in a bit. I have a few bookmarks to articles that could maybe serve as a starting point for broader criticism. Bubbles and scams are not the only reason people mistrust cryptocoins after all. Some points that have been made, off the top of my head: the inherently deflationary nature; the fact that proof of work is really just proof of spending power; the way popular coins all seem to fall victim to mining cartels sooner or later; the quantum computing canary thing; the built-in tendency towards crippling transaction costs; the strong historical and philosophical link to certain ideologies that many people find very unpleasant. Right now this article addresses none of these issues. I'll rifle through my bookmarks and I'll post some URLs here in the morning and then everybody can add/comment/draft/dismiss at their convenience. Kramler (talk) 18:15, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
    One more thing, I'd like to politely suggest a two-step process. Let's talk about the issues as such in round 1 and then worry about what particular sources to cite for each point we want to put in the article in round 2. Any serious discussion will inevitably involve a few tabloid articles, political manifestos, personal opinion pieces, and other things that are not exactly WP:RS and if we start with the rules lawyering too early we're never going to get anywhere. Every point and counterpoint should be evaluated on its merits and not on how vulnerable its physical location on the Internet is to the various and sundry verbal cudgels in the WP:FUCKYOU namespace. Kramler (talk) 18:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
    Another popular Bitcoin criticsm I see on wikipedia is also electrical usage (energy consumption). I'll ping Ladislav Mecir (talk · contribs) he might have some input on this as well. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
    Good thinking! I'll create a new section because this one is already getting unwieldy. Kramler (talk) 23:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some things that a "Controversy" section might want to discuss[edit]

Idea: I'm splitting this into by-topic subsections. Let's discuss each of the controversies that the article could be talking about separately. Things should be more readable that way. Feel free to add additional subsections if you come up with additional topics. Kramler (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Purpose[edit]

Crypto doesn't really seem to solve anything that needs solving. Some detractors say that it fundamentally can't; they basically assert crypto combines the disadvantages of government-issued fiat with the disadvantages of commodity money like gold, without having any of the benefits of either. Examples:

Ideology[edit]

"Like all currency systems, Bitcoin comes with an implicit political agenda attached."[8]

Satoshi had an explicit Libertarian agenda. Many notable crypto advocates are techno-Libertarians. Many say they believe in the Austrian School and like bitcoin because they want to remove the banker's ability to manipulate the money supply. The crypto movement also has close ties to the neoreactionary movement and the alt-right in general and has been attacked on these grounds in the past. Notable actors in the Silicon Valley venture capital scene have espoused philosophies that mash crypto together with seasteading, the redpill movement, HBD, transhumanism, Moldbug's Dark Englightenment, the works. No matter which side you are on in these debates, the article is deficient if it simply does not mention them. Some examples:



Dark markets[edit]

Related to the above, the only groups and causes that routinely use crypto coins as an actual medium of exchange are unpopular with most people: darknet markets for drugs and assassinations, Neonazi groups cut off by Paypal and the banks, money launderers, ransomware operators. This too has prompted attacks, not just on the individuals in question but also on crypto as such. Examples:

Macroeconomic impact[edit]

Since there is a definitive fixed maximum number of bitcoins that can exist, bitcoin is intrinsically deflationary, according to mainstream economic theory. Adoption of bitcoin as the primary currency in some market would (definitely) cause a deflationary spiral in the short run and (probably) monetary balkanization in the long run. Examples:

Sociological aspects and impact on specific groups[edit]

Crypto advocates seem to believe that crypto is the cure for all manner of social ills, but for the time bing, bitcoin has had exactly zero effect on either inequality or the ability of certain social group to extract rents from others. Proof of work is essentially just proof of spending power. The people who can mine lots of coins are the people who have lots of money. Any crypto coin is also inherently similar to a Ponzi scheme in that early adopters win disproportionate rewards and the late adopters are always taken advantage of to some degree. More generally, with no regulation and no other mechanisms to protect the unsophisticated and the gullible, crypto is practically guaranteed to move wealth from less privileged people to more privileged ones. We may already be seeing signs of this. Naive crypto investors are getting into trouble due to surprise tax bills or due to the beginning crackdown on market manipulation. The actual criminals will have taken appropriate precautionary measures; the honest joes are getting fucked. Examples:


  • What's behind Bitcoin mania? Talks about the "thefts, frauds and hackings" and compares the mania to the Dutch tulip frenzy and the South Sea bubble TOWT7 (talk) 14:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Gender[edit]

One particularly interesting aspect of how crypto redistributes from the havenots to the haves is the gender imbalance in crypto. So far, the early adopters reaping the huge payouts have invariably been dudes. Even today, the crypto world is dominated by techbros and quite a few of them seem to be flamboyant douchebags openly hostile to female participation. It appears possible that widespread crypto adoption would set back gender equality by quite a few years. On the other hand, some detractors say that the gender imbalance simply means that crypto ultimately cannot succeed. You can't win as a currency if you don't attract the people who buy most of the groceries, most of the clothes, most of the overpriced lifestyle coffee, three out of four books, and all the Hulu subscriptions. Examples:


Nobody has ever stopped women from entering the crypto space and there is literally zero hostility towards women in this space. If you're upset that women choose not to get involved, then take that up with women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.221.50 (talk) 15:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Environmental impact[edit]

As another consequence of the whole proof-of-work thing, bitcoin is a grotesquely inefficient way to convert one type of purely abstract capital (fiat money) into another form of purely abstract capital (crypto money). You have to spend enormous amounts of electricity on the currency conversion. The ecological impact could be noticeable. Ecological impact aside, note that we gave up the gold standard in part because it is stupid and inefficient to dig gold out of holes in the ground (mines) only in order to put them into other holes in the ground (vaults). When it comes to currencies and what backs them, energy expenditure matters. Examples:



Usability[edit]

One of the main selling points of bitcoin was supposed to be that all transactions are final. No chargebacks for any reason, under any circumstances, at all, ever. It turns out that it kind of sucks for all transactions to be final. Users send money to non-existing addresses; users lose access to their money through losing passwords; users lose access to their money through bugs; buyers are hesitant to wire money to merchants if they have no established recourse should the seller fail to deliver. Examples:


  • Jacobin, 2018 The Dumb Money "a disruptive technology that mainly disrupsts its own users", "the Bitcoin failure graveyard" TOWT7 (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)


Debate away.

Ponzi Scheme Concerns[edit]

lot of content can be found here Talk:Bitcoin/Archive_31#Bitcoin_Ponzi_scheme_and_pyramid_scheme_concerns_section_and_sub-article

Cryptocurrency Bubble[edit]

can consider to wikilink to main article here Cryptocurrency bubble and maybe add one sentence summary

Advertising bans[edit]

Cryptocurrencies advertisements are controversial and have are banned on Facebook,[1] Google, Twitter,[2] Bing[3] Snapchat, LinkedIn and MailChimp.[4] Chinese internet platforms Baidu, Tencent, and Weibo have also prohibited bitcoin advertisements. The Japanese platform Line and the Russian platform Yandex have similar prohibitions.[5]

Unregulated trading[edit]

Trading in bitcoin is under investigation by the U.S. Justice Department for possible price manipulation.[6][7]

DISCUSSION

  • I have added a couple of sections above (ponzi and bubble). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I added links to some of the sections that were already there ^^ TOWT7 (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for these! Ponzi and bubble definitely need to be mentioned. The links look very interesting! Where would we best start compiling a draft? Here on the talk page? On a separate page in the Draft namespace? In somebody's User space? Kramler (talk) 23:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Smallbones: looping you into this discussion here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

So seriously, where do we draft this thing? My sandbox? Kramler (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, your sandbox is ok with me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Matsakis, Louise (January 30, 2018). "Cryptocurrency scams are just straight-up trolling at this point". Wired. Retrieved April 2, 2018.
  2. ^ Weinglass, Simona (March 28, 2018). "European Union bans binary options, strictly regulates CFDs". Times of Israel. Retrieved April 2, 2018.
  3. ^ Alsoszatai-Petheo, Melissa (May 14, 2018). "Bing Ads to disallow cryptocurrency advertising". Microsoft. Retrieved May 16, 2018.
  4. ^ French, Jordan (April 2, 2018). "3 Key Factors Behind Bitcoin's Current Slide". theStreet.com. Retrieved April 2, 2018.
  5. ^ Wilson, Thomas (March 28, 2018). "Twitter and LinkedIn ban cryptocurrency adverts – leaving regulators behind". Independent. Reuters. Retrieved April 3, 2018.
  6. ^ Cornish, Chloe (May 24, 2018). "Bitcoin slips again on reports of US DoJ investigation". Financial Times. Retrieved May 24, 2018.
  7. ^ Robinson, Matt; Schoenberg, Tom (May 24, 2018). "U.S. Launches Criminal Probe into Bitcoin Price Manipulation". Bloomberg. Retrieved May 24, 2018.

Notability of Cryptocurrencies: Informal RFC[edit]

I have seen and participated in many AFDs recently about cryptocurrencies (CC), most of which are non-notable by way of failing the GNG. I don't think CC need to have their own notablity guidelines, as we have the GNG (all hail) and TOOSOON, which allows to weed out a lot of unproven dime-a-dozen CC. Should there be a mass purging of the less notable currencies and they instead be listed on List of Cryptocurrencies in a separate section for TOOSOONs which pass WP:V? Pinging editors who have worked in this area: @Prince of Thieves, DGG, Mark the train, Retimuko, Greenman, Widefox, Hrodvarssen, Jytdog, Winged Blades of Godric, Power~enwiki, Deathlibrarian, K.e.coffman, Vermont, Velella, Alfie, Sphilbrick, and John M Baker: I will also leave notes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numismatics/Cryptocurrency task force and WP:FINANCE. Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC) Ps. if anyone considers the editor selection too narrow, canvassing, or otherwise improper, feel free to convert to an actual RfC, I don't mind.

re-ping: Hrodvarsson L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Just a note, in my view WP:CORP, (in particular the new version that will soon be introduced) is a more relevant specific guideline for these than the WP:GNG, in almost all cases these are commercial or commercially backed, marketed as a product or otherwise compatible with WP:CORP. Prince of Thieves (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I was reading through CORP, and wasn't sure if it was the most useful policy because these currencies kind of blur the line between thing and company. It will help authors looking to create articles on cryptocurrencies by allowing them to make sure the sourcing is proper. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 15:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I feel as a general rule any CC that has had an "initial coin offering" is definitely commercial, and since no-one is likely to argue the notably of Bitcoin or Ether (Ethereum?), that's most of them. Also as I understand it the new guidelines (which are based on current consensus) make less distinction between commercial organisations and commercial "things". Prince of Thieves (talk)
  • There is almost always nothing to say about them except directory information: their size and who runs them. The sources are almost always promotional, not independent, or indiscriminate from publication whose purpose is to list them all. Dealing with the qualifications for sources for notability required by the GNG is in any borderline case to some extent subjective, and can be argued in either direction. But for those who like the GNG, it haas a provision that where there's nothing much to say, articles can be merged even if they are technically notable. DGG ( talk ) 15:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes, with ICO being the new IPO, my opinion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qtum, in agreement with Prince of Thieves. Widefox; talk 17:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I suggest setting the bar at fulfilling not one, but several of the N standards - say all of:
  1. WP:CORP (WP:CORPDEPTH)
  2. WP:NPRODUCT
  3. N for technology (so depth of coverage of the tech)
With over a thousand coins already, it may be helpful to additionally deal with this specific case of systemic bias WP:RECENTISM by tackling the incentive head-on - something like requiring:
4. WP:SPINOUT from parent articles e.g. List of cryptocurrencies via AfC.
This weeks announcement of a ban on ICO, exchange, cryptocurrency adverts on Google, FB etc indicates a broad promotionalism problem that we may need to specifically address ourselves before investing wasting more volunteer time in the vain of WP:BOGOF. Widefox; talk 17:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I would support deleting most of them but not sure a mass purge is the way to go about it. The normal AfD process for each seems fine, with the possibility of SALTing those which are very likely P&D scams. Hrodvarsson (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Since there is no deadline, I am perfectly happy to do my list over time individually. But prompt attention to new articles is important, and Bankex was a good example of how companies closely related to this industry are as common and promotional as the crypto-currencies themselves, even if they never released a "coin". Prince of Thieves (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I view them all as promotional and non-notable. And ICOs are likely criminal, as IPOs that are just declaring themselves exempt from regulation with no legally coherent reason. This should become clear within the next month. With Facebook and now Google refusing to accept cryptocurrency and ICO adverts, some real regulation coming (as stated by the SEC, CFTC and European regulators), and more and more experts saying "this is just a bubble" the cryptocurrencies are all likely to crash, and we are doing our readers a great diservice but suggesting that there may be something real about them. Get rid of them all asap. Smallbones(smalltalk) 21:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Smallbones, agreed on the ICO are unregulated and dangerously useless. The problem is that "digital coins" don't really have a jurisdiction. In case of getting funded, a Corporation in the United States for example, can sell stock without having to do an IPO only to accredited investors, certain conditions being met, one of which is having make no public announcements of the stock offering, among others only selling stocks to people who can afford to gamble with large sums of money - the State having jurisdiction and the Corporations Code to enforce, this is a completely legitimate way to find financing. "Digital coins" are not financial assets that can't be made compliant to anything since there is no jurisdiction, nor is there a code that governs issuance of such “coins.” I am not an expert on regulations, but certainly "digital coins" are not being sold as securities, otherwise this would be clearly illegal, at least in the United States. ICO's resemble MMM Ponzi scheme taking place in 1994, with promised returns of up to 3,000%. Back then the Mavrodi brothers called it "voucher investments." I think ICO's are still notable, specifically, due to an enormous amounts of cash being funneled into them, same as MMM is notable for causing million people to lose their savings back in the 90’s. Its caveat emptor at this point, but that doesn't by itself, warrant a non-notable status of information, this content just doesn't belong in this particular Article. Thanks.--Litesand (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
    • Actually ICOs are regulated in the US if they are being sold to US investors and they are selling securities. The head of the SEC has something akin to "Every ICO I've seen is a security offering" Should I dig up the quote? It's pretty obvious that they are securities if they are being sold or exchanged for bitcoin, etc. and promise something in return. I think the smoke and mirrors campaign says that ICOs specifically say that the tokens aren't worth anything. But if they are selling something that is worthless - you've got plain old garden variety fraud. Wanna buy a bridge? Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
      • Smallbones, recently the CFTC had argued to treat Bitcoin as a commodity, placing it into category of an economic good; a very bad joke on their end to place Bitcoin and precious metals into the same category. You most likely are referencing this link (https://www.sec.gov/news/public-statement/statement-clayton-2017-12-11) that basically states that for ICO's "the answers will differ depending on many factors." The fact is neither "coins" nor ICO's have ever been registered with the SEC in the United States, I am guessing the same goes for other jurisdictions with whatever agency controls securities in other countries. "Coins" do not have a clearly defined ledger among other requirements for an asset, unlike stocks and bonds, essentially, a back-door into issuing unregulated securities to gambling masses. As much as the regulators trying to fix it, it is incredibly late in the game, most of the money from ICO's and Bitcoin is unlikely to be recovered on an aggregate scale. This fact alone doesn't stop ICO's from being notable, having to be notable doesn't require to produce a public benefit. Instead of a bridge, maybe CFTC will reclassify steel from an Eiffel tower as a commodity, it seems all we need to do is to start offering it as some "coin" somewhere. Cheers! --Litesand (talk) 06:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Presumed non-notable -- barring meeting WP:NCORP, I don't see these articles as viable. WP:NOTSPAM also applies. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Most of them are anyways non-notable, and I see loads of them are being nominated at AfD. Henceforth, a criteria satisfying not one but several factors for notability as said by Widefox would be helpful. MT TrainTalk 16:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I would advise against making a special criterion. There will always be arguments at AfD that the general criterion over-rides it. The way we have Special notability guidelines is confusing, because some are limits on what is otherwise acceptable, and some are extensions, and people can try to use them in both ways. It will probably be better simply to apply the substantial & independent qualifications of the GNG in a strict manner, and making use of our current definition of interviews with the founder as primary sources for the purposes of notability.
But in any case, they ned to be nominated separately. Some are going to be more notable than others, and multiple nominations with dozens of articles are sometimes closed as relist independently if even one of them seems to be better sourced. (At any rate, that's what I personally usually argue for) I have a further recommendation, based on years of refining my strategy: go slowly, perhaps 2 a day, and start with the weakest. Anything more gets the attention of extreme inclusionists. As for timing, the way to go is to start right now. The current mood at AfD will support deletion. DGG ( talk ) 17:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • I agree with DGG, the existing guidelines are sufficient to deal with these articles. I also agree that doing them all individually is sensible. I am doing a few each day from my list. I don't think anything will be assisted my dumping a hundred articles onto AfD all at once. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
  • This article is focused on the general cryptocurrency concept, legal factors, financial implications and technical issues. The discussion shouldn't have "to weed out a lot of unproven dime-a-dozen CC," but instead, to focus on the concept itself. There is already a list of "notable" cryptocurrencies, exchanges etc. listed elsewhere on wiki, whoever moderates that, let them discuss it there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litesand (talkcontribs) 20:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Agree with DGG. In fact, at the AfDs being more strict about primary sources and independence goes a long way. Widefox; talk 17:49, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, if anyoen is interested in following crypto-related AFD, watchlisting the Finance Delsort list will help. L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Challenges section[edit]

Can we add a section titled "Challenges" highlighting the challenges cryptocurrencies are facing at the moment? Such as The Scalability problem (the blockchain of a particular coin may exceed the size of commercial Hard Drive thus decreasing independent nodes) and Quantum Processors (that may be able to deduce the Private Key from a Public Key much faster in a matter of minutes than the regular cpu in approx. 3 years) (Alexceltare2 (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC))

If it is reliably sourced then yes, otherwise no. Prince of Thieves (talk)
  • Alexceltare2 Thank you for suggesting to add content. The best way to proceed is for you to add your proposed information with sources in the format you would like it to be added to the body of the article. The two "challenges" you are proposing are somewhat odd. Hard drives are hardly an issue for scalability; instead - the cost of mining, pool mining fees, lack of oversight and the long-term security of the ledger are main challenges with all proof-of-work decentralized cryptocurrencies. Quantum processing isn't really a problem either, since miner will always take the most profitable route, as long as it is able to collect fees, any algorithm can follow. The challenge with cryptocurrencies is human, not a machine, hence the stopgap of the blockchain. You may obliviously have some bright ideas on the issue and great sources to support it, so please present it with specifics. Cheers!--Litesand (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2018[edit]

149.152.191.2 (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Causing a rise in GPU prices ===

The sudden increase in cryptocurrency mining increased the demand of graphics cards (GPU) in 2002.[1] Popular favorites of cryptocurrency miners such as Nvidia’s GTX 1060 and GTX 1070 graphics cards, as well as AMD’s RX 570 and RX 580 GPUs, doubled if not tripled in price – or were out of stock completely.[2] A GTX 1070 Ti which was released at a price of $450 sold for as much as $1100. Another popular card GTX 1060's 6 GB model was released at an MSRP of $250, sold for almost $500. RX 570 and RX 580 cards from AMD were out of stock for almost a year. Miners regularly buy up the entire stock of new GPU's as soon as they are available, further driving prices up.[3] This has caused, in general, a disliking towards cryptocurrency miners by PC gamers and tech enthusiasts.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. You only reposted existing text from the article with no additions or deletions. Based on the material you have given me, I cannot ascertain what edits you wish to have made. Altamel (talk) 00:12, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Bitcoin mania is hurting PC gamers by pushing up GPU prices". Archived from the original on 2018-02-02. Retrieved 2018-02-02.
  2. ^ "Graphics card shortage leads retailers to take unusual measures". Archived from the original on 2018-02-02. Retrieved 2018-02-02.
  3. ^ "AMD, Nvidia must do more to stop cryptominers from causing PC gaming card shortages, price gouging". Archived from the original on 2018-02-02. Retrieved 2018-02-02.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2018[edit]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. L293D ( • ) 21:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Volatility[edit]

There are numerous cryptocurrencies currently the most important in circulation are for Litecoin at 5.5 billion dollars, Ripple at 9.7 billon dollars, Ethereum at 44.3 billion dollars, and the most significant Bitcoins at 185.5 billion. Overall these represent the majority of cryptocurrency market which signify 73% of the total cryptocurrency market value[1].The intrinsic volatility of cryptocurrency has have tremendous swings in value which change yearly, monthly, and even daily. The main drivers of volatility specifically include a sudden increase in the “buzz” surrounding a cryptocurrency could be understood as a signal of increasing volatility [2]. The high volatility most frequently coincides with high volume and price drops. If market participants are risk-averse, given the same expected mean returns, they would be less willing to hold the cryptocurrency if future volatility increases, which would drive prices down and affect returns negatively [3]. This effect would become evident shortly after the surge in “buzz.” or popularity. Gibro2118 (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2018[edit]

section 8.1 : Causing a rise in GPU prices It mentionne increased the demand of graphics cards (GPU) in 1992. the reference [96] it dated january 2018 and make no mention of 1992.

One could argue modern gpu did not exist in 1992. 160.109.104.44 (talk) 19:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 20:36, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Community authorized discretionary sanctions proposal[edit]

A proposal to impose community authorized discretionary sanctions on all articles related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#General_sanctions_proposal. Your comments are appreciated at that discussion. MER-C 16:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2018[edit]

Found that Reference Number 110 is not opening up, showing up 404 error, I had similar content to my blog, maybe this can help it to complete the need in that space & users can get the all the reference from Wikipedia site.

https://www.brokefuturist.com/blogs/news/4-trend-bitcoin-ethereum-mass-market/ 122.163.29.244 (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: You are corrrect in that the source for that information failed WP:V and has apparently been removed from Inc.'s website. No captures appear available in archive sites. We generally do not accept blogs as reliable sources so I have removed the assertion completely. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 05:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

United Precious Metals Association and Quintric[edit]

This supposedly gold-backed cryptocurrency may be worth mentioning, if reliable sources can be found: https://www.upma.org/upgrade-to-quintric Eastmain (talkcontribs) 20:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2018[edit]

There is a misspelling in source no 3.: Currently is stated

Schuettel, Patrick (2017). The Concise Fintech Compendium...

which is WRONG.

CORRECT it should be

Schueffel, Patrick (2017). The Concise Fintech Compendium...

Please be so kind and correct that.

Unfortunately even scientific texts have already used this wrong citation. Hegfrler (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks again. Grayfell (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Investopedia[edit]

@Retimuko: Is Investopedia not a reliable source, its content is controlled by an editorial team? Jonpatterns (talk) 17:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be another encyclopedia (at least the page you cited), but with an unknown process and not citing any sources. But even if they did cite sources, it seems to be a tertiary source, and therefore should be used carefully, sparingly and, perhaps, should better be avoided altogether. Justifying things in one encyclopedia by citing another seems to be fundamentally wrong. In particular, it is not like a publication in a reputable magazine with a date and an author, and the contents that will never change except some rare and separately published corrections. Instead, it can, as any encyclopedic article, change at any moment, and, in this case, without notifications and history. Are you aware of any existing consensus regarding using Investopedia as a source? Retimuko (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I'm not aware of consensus on either citing Investopedia or citing encyclopaedia's in general. The temporal changes are avoided by quoting access time (and perhaps backing up on the Wayback Machine). Academic papers partly built on citing other sources. The crucial thing to me is whether there as been a reasonable editorial process, which in the case of Investopedia seems to happen. For reference there is a WikiProject dedicated to importing information from Encyclopaedia Britannica (1911 ed) which is now public domain. Perhaps it is a WP:Teahouse issue. Jonpatterns (talk) 09:55, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Complete list of all Crypto coins[edit]

Hello All. Can we launch a list of all the crypto coins ? There are thousands so it will be a bit list. Will such a list be of value ? I will launch the list if anyone wants it Regards S H — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherbert~enwikibooks (talkcontribs) 13:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not the place for a list of all cryptocurrencies. There's already List of Cryptocurrencies, but these only contain notable entries. Also see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Greenman (talk) 09:53, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

controversial[edit]

@Smallbones: you are continuing to attempt to insert your WP:FRINGE POV that cryptocurrency is controversial into various ledes of articles, an obvious WP:WEIGHT issue. Here [9] and [10] you did it again. Please seek consensus before continuing along with this line of editing that overweights this content. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2018[edit]

Please change:

Additionally, cryptocurrency can be permanently lost from local storage due to malware or data loss. This can also happen through the destruction of the physical media, effectively removing lost cryptocurrencies forever from their markets.[91]

To this: Additionally, cryptocurrency private keys can be permanently lost from local storage due to malware, data loss or the destruction of the physical media. This prevents the cryptocurrency from being spent/used, resulting in its effective removal from the markets.[91]

Reason: It’s under the category of ‘reception’ and is not applicable. More importantly it has been written in a way that implies that cryptocurrency ‘lives’ on local storage or physical media (akin to coins in a wallet). This is misleading and conveys the completely incorrect idea to the reader. 167.179.170.225 (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

 Done Ruslik_Zero 20:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Source on IOTA being first non-Blockchain based Cryptocurrency[edit]

The current sources for IOTA being the first non-Blockchain based currency are questionable (i.e. their own whitepaper and their own blog). I'm yet to find anything outside a tangle explorer, but Byteball was launched in 2016 and IOTA wasn't until sometime in 2017 which suggests that Byteball actually came first. Should we remove this claim?Dr-Bracket (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, if the claim is not reliable, then we should. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I removed it. Morgan Ginsberg (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
This kind of promotion based claim (my chain is bigger, better, first, etc) needs to have top shelf sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:15, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

[edit]

I know this is well known by many editors here including David Gerard (talk · contribs) and jytdog (talk · contribs) but I thought I might highlight it.

A cryptocurrency data company showed Reuters an email it had received from an individual offering an article on business website Forbes.com for $2,500. The post, which would feature a company's name and website, could be delivered in six to eight weeks, the email promised. The email included a coupon for a $500 discount.[11]

Note the end of the Reuters article mentions paid Forbes contributor articles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2018[edit]

Please change "an open, distributed ledger that can record transactions between two parties efficiently and in a verifiable and permanent way"[28], under the BlockChain section, to be paraphrased as followed:

A blockchain is a digital record of ledgers that document the transactions between two parties as a means to regulate and preserve administrative control.[28] Serrano9 (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Not done. The proposed paraphrase is not grammatically correct, and it would change the meaning of the sentence. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2019[edit]

The following can be added after ref [17] " In February 2016, the notion of a Regulated and Sovereign Backed Cryptocurrency (RSBC) was discussed. Subsequently NationCoin as a concept was envisaged and protocols for its development were outlined. [1]" Pulakeshi610 (talk) 09:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Might just be me, but I do not personally see the notability of this. Dr-Bracket (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 Not done: This edit would violate the undue weight policy. — Newslinger talk 13:21, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Combining the second sentence versions in the Cryptocurrency article[edit]

(@Dr-Bracket, Jtbobwaysf, and MER-C: I've moved this here from my talk page. Jtbobwaysf's reversion is clearly disruptive. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC))

I see the little reverts going on at the Cryptocurrency article, where you wrote 'They are prone to fraud and have operated under a "veneer of legitimacy"' and @Jtbobwaysf: reverted it back to "Cryptocurrencies use decentralized control as opposed to centralized digital currency and central banking systems". I think they are both very critical talking points, and one shouldn't replace the other. Do you think we should instead replace the sentence with "Cryptocurrencies use decentralized control as opposed to centralized digital currency and central banking systems, however they are prone to fraud and have operated under a "veneer of legitimacy."? Dr-Bracket (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I haven't removed anything, just added one referenced sentence. Combining two very different sentences doesn't make mush sense to me. Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes I just had a look, and it seems things were just rearranged. That said, and correct me if I'm wrong, until someone can actually prove that the fraudulent nature of cryptocurrency is a larger area of focus than the decentralization, I don't think that sentence should come first. It certainly makes sense to me, at least, to include the decentralization aspect in the initial paragraph. Dr-Bracket (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The essence of any security or financial instrument is that somebody pays cash upfront and somebody else gives them a promise to pay them back following the contract terms. Even a small possibility of fraud goes right to the essence and poisons it. "Can the issuer be trusted?" is the central question. An automotive analogy would be "Does the car have an engine and wheels?" If it doesn't, don't mess with it if you want an automobile.
Decentralization is a total side issue. Something like "Are the tailfins pointy enough?" Smallbones(smalltalk) 01:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Attacking the other editors doesn't improve the content.
@Jtbobwaysf: please sign your posts, and please do not accuse me of attacking other editors. Were you writing about the above comment? Where is the supposed attack? Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:08, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@Smallbones: what does the text of the wsj source say? I dont have a wsj subscription. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear - you reverted my edit saying "Undid revision 879329183 by Smallbones (talk) this nonsense is either synth or OR. this "subset of a subset," do you have a source for this?" without bothering to look at the reference given at the end of the sentence and then accused me of "synth or OR. this "subset of a subset,"". This follows your accusation of sockpuppeting at WP:AN [12], (while linking to WP:DUCK).
Have you tried the library? Smallbones(smalltalk) 22:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I didnt say I didnt look at the source. The source says “The SEC helped to get rid of the veneer of legitimacy.” Sounds promotional and repurposed to mean something else. What is this subset of subset? Is this in the source, or your OR?Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: I don't have a subscription either but searching the article in a search engine and clicking that link or clicking a link from a social media post (WSJ tweet) allows you to see it sometimes. Џ 09:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
@Џ: thank you, this worked. Initially it didn't but then I opened in a chrome incognito tab, and then it did work to open it through twitter. Appreciate the tip. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)