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

Very subjective section[edit]

"As the popularity of and demand for online currencies has increased since the inception of bitcoin in 2009,[66] so have concerns that such an unregulated person to person global economy that cryptocurrencies offer may become a threat to society."

"Concerns" about what should be considered as a threat to society is different from different positions. Objectively everything can be interpreted as a threat to society. For example an anarchist, or an anarcho capitalist considers a government as a threat to society. A facist considers immigrants as a threat to society. A dogmatic idealist considers freedom of speech as a thread and so on. You can easily verify this by just watching mainstream news from different countries. USA media has a completely different threat model, then Russian, or Nigerian media and so on. And as no society is superior there is no way to decide.

My point is that statements like the one above are essentially void and only appears as to have meaning, while in fact they are just an additional layer of political manipulation. They constiute a certain point of view as objectiv truth. For that matter everyone who prefers an unregulated society would not consider cryptocurrencies as a threat but as a solution to the threat of regulations.

So at least one has to specify to whom exactly this is a threat. Certainly not to all of society. A great article would write something like: "cryptocurrencies might be considered as a threat to those parties, who prefer a centrally organized and regulated society, while libertarian people see them more as a possible solution to the currently existing hierachical, non democratic monetary system" ... Something like that

You make your point eloquently. However, regardless of whether a concern is subjective, it can seem real for the person until disproved. It does not necessarily help to stigmatize people as libertarians and non-libertarians and defining how they act. My greatest concern is the danger caused by misinformation, lack of explanation and ignorance from risk and that people confuse what is real with what is virtual (and never the two shall meet). I am happy we have the talk page to every Wiki article, especially the complicated ones.

IOTA & NANO[edit]

@MrOllie: you reverted Qwahzi (talk · contribs)'s edit [1] saying it was promotional. My read is that it is no promotional and reflects a real difference in these two cryptos, in that they have a different type of proof of work, that each sender does, instead of the miner. Worth including in my book, as the nuance between these two coins and say bitcoin is significant and encyclopedic. IEEE is probably a reliable source as well, @David Gerard: comments? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

There is a couple of questionable aspects to the above:
  • Every cryptocurrency has some special aspect to it, and this article is not a list of cryptocurrencies.
  • If I understand it correctly, the system used by IOTA should not be called a "proof of work", so I do not consider it encyclopedic to use such a term in relation to it.
That is why I support MrOllie's edit. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Ladislav, how do you suggest to edit the content so that it can be included. The difference between Bitcoin and these small tokens is interesting (at least to me). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
@MrOllie, @Ladislav Mecir - Not having a transaction fee is a major difference that should be mentioned. Without that mention, this Wiki page currently reads as if all cryptocurrencies have or must have a transaction fee in order to prioritize transactions. There is a difference between PoW as a consensus mechanism (e.g. in Bitcoin) and PoW as a transaction priortization/anti-spam mechanism (e.g. in Nano and Iota). Iota does use client-side Proof of Work for their transactions, see the linked sources:, There are also other peer-reviewed sources that mention this feature of Nano as well:, --Qwahzi (talk) 12:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Qwahzi, I note that 100% of your editing is related to the Nano cryptocurrency. Do you have some kind of association with that project? If so, please see WP:PAID and WP:COI, you may be in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use.
As to the issue at hand, I would have no issue with mentioning that some cryptocurrencies avoid the transaction fee in general terms, without mentioning paritcular coins. - MrOllie (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I might be wrong, but I think both IOTA and NANO are Directed acyclic graph in setup or similar. It would be interesting to state how this might allow for no fee transactions. I think that is the concept at least. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I have no association with the Nano project, I'm just a cryptocurrency enthusiast. My interests started with Bitcoin, but I began diving into the technical details over time and found other projects that are more interesting to me. There are only two cryptocurrencies with zero fees (not all DAG-based cryptocurrencies have 0 fees - see Obyte), so to me they warrant the explicit mention, but I would be ok with not mentioning them in this article and leaving the statement more abstract. E.g.: Some cryptocurrencies have no transaction fees, and instead rely on client-side proof-of-work as the transaction prioritization and anti-spam mechanism.[1] --Qwahzi (talk) 13:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
I support naming the cryptos but it seems others dont. If another high quality source is available maybe they will reconsider. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
I also support naming specific cryptocurrencies when they are notable and supported by WP:RS's. This article is completely stunted by the lack of information on specific cryptocurrencies because of a fear of PROMO activity which seems to curtail ALL edits related to any alternate cryptocurrency, no matter what. If some obvious PROMO is happening, it should be removed. Otherwise, notable information should be included per Wiki policy. Otherwise it is WP:Stonewalling. HocusPocus00 (talk) 17:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I wasnt supporting naming all notable cryptos. But a few examples of other novel types (that truly are different) such as Nano and IOTA would be great if we have sources for it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. We are on the same page. HocusPocus00 (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ Pervez, Huma; Muneeb, Muhammad; Irfan, Muhammad Usama; Haq, Irfan Ul (2018-12-19), "A Comparative Analysis of DAG-Based Blockchain Architectures", 2018 12th International Conference on Open Source Systems and Technologies (ICOSST), IEEE, pp. 27–34, doi:10.1109/ICOSST.2018.8632193, ISBN 978-1-5386-9564-7

Cryptocurrency-related programming languages?[edit]

There is a discussion on this at at Talk:List of programming languages#DAML. Please reply there. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 12:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Recent energy consumption claim is nonencyclopedic[edit]

The "equivalent" starting part of the "In 2017, Bitcoin mining was estimated to consume 948MW, equivalent to countries the scale of Angola or Panama, respectively ranked 102nd and 103rd in the world." claim is nonencyclopedic:

  • It is well known that 948MW is not equivalent to any country.
  • Since the consumptions of Angola and Panama are not equivalent, it is not even possible for the consumptions to be both equivalent to 948MW.
  • The consumption of no country is a standard unit of energy, that is why this specific part of the claim does not belong to Wikipedia. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, a recent edit added a citation of the Nature correspondence. Note that per the journal policy,

  • Correspondence is a forum for readers' reactions.
  • Correspondence submissions are only rarely peer-reviewed.

Summing up, the correspondence is not a reliable source of informations. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

It's peer-reviewed scientific research, of course it's encyclopedic. The comparisons to countries are used by the researchers themselves in their papers since most readers have no idea how electricity usage is quantified. And obviously no two countries use the exact amount of energy, but it's helpful context. My original edit used the Nature correspondence as a citation for the claim that scientists were calling for reform, but it also works as context for the lead sentence in the paragraph.Citing (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
As confirmed by the Nature journal, the correspondence is not peer reviewed. While you want to ignore it, it is a fact.
I do not have access to the contents of the article. I do not doubt that if there is any peer reviewed contents that compares 948MW to something, then it is the consumption of some country, not to the country as you mistakenly suggest in your edit, however. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
I understand the correspondence is not peer reviewed but the source before was an archived blog post so this is an improvement (it's still scientific writing and a reliable source). WP:LIBRARY can help with access. There are also other ways. I don't understand the other objection though -- do you have a preferred wording for electricity consumption?Citing (talk) 02:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2020[edit]

In first sentence, add link to digital asset ( Absurdpizza (talk) 20:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

 DoneDeacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:03, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Shopping cart systems[edit]

Besides POS systems, it's not exactly clear which shopping cart systems actually support payment with them. Some do have support for them though, since many webshops (that use shopping cart systems) allow payment with them. See Perhaps clarify in article. --Genetics4good (talk) 09:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)


in term of alcohol.

1 bottle of Belvedere will last 1 year.

1 year equals 250 euro.

cryptocurrency= buy 1 year for 250.

income fast due alcoholics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Introduction - Example Cryptocurrencies[edit]

@Ladislav Mecir: @Ravensfire: @MrOllie: Why are editors removing links to example cryptocurrencies in the introductory paragraph? This article is about cryptocurrency and should obviously include links to examples of different cryptocurrency articles for the reader. This has been in the introductory paragraph for a long time and all of a sudden is being deleted. Why? How does this make the article better? HocusPocus00 (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: @Ravensfire: @MrOllie: Any response? I'd like to add this back to the article if not. HocusPocus00 (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
'A long time'? It was added last week. - MrOllie (talk) 15:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
And then removed a few days later! Humorously, the most well-known example wasn't even included. It's like there's some promotional editing happening... Ravensfire (talk) 16:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Is that your guys answer to why this was deleted? Because it was a recent edit? Also what well-known example wasn't included? I don't care what gets added-- please cut the ad hominem attacks. The examples that were included come from the Wall Street Journal cite. HocusPocus00 (talk) 16:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
HocusPocus00, Shockingly, Yes. WP:BRD. That's normal editing, contrary to your apparent view. As the comment on the original revert (just a few days ago) the example list doesn't add anything. It's something that's easily prone to high amounts of disruption as advocates push their preferences. And on top of it, you don't even include the best known example?!?! That's just pure insanity. Relevant examples can be discussed in the main article, the lead doesn't need them. Ravensfire (talk) 16:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Ravensfire Why are you speaking like the edit purposely left out a cryptocurrency? What is this "best known example" alt that was left out? Ethereum? It was included. Please stop talking in riddles and speak. I didn't make the original addition to the article but we can improve upon it. Also, I am following WP:BRD -- you all are not. Some editor added these examples to the article, it was then reverted by one of you all (I believe MrOllie), and then this edit war began so we are discussing. So the question must be asked- how is this not appropriate for WP:MOSLEAD in an article that is literally about cryptocurrency? Examples of alternative cryptocurrencies are probably one of the most important things the reader should learn about when opening this article. If you are worried about disruption, the article should be protected or the edits should be overseen to make sure they are cited using reliable source's. Not just deleted outright. HocusPocus00 (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Its not appropriate because mentioning particular examples is undue. A list of altcoins does not belong in the lead, which is only supposed to summarize the most important aspects of the article. It already mentions that there are 7000+ altcoins to choose from, which is more than sufficient. - MrOllie (talk) 16:52, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I disagree. Look at S&P 500 Index for example, off the top of my head. If you believe the previous list added to the article was somehow not neutral, perhaps we can come up with a list that is neutral. Maybe the top 5 or 10 alt coins by market cap? The point is people come to this article and are seeking information about cryptocurrency, which includes alts. Links to other crypto articles are very much appropriate for the lead here. HocusPocus00 (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
HocusPocus00, Apples and oranges. That is an article about a stock index. Since this isn't an article on a particular index, the apt comparison would be Stock, which of course does not list particular company stocks in the lead section. - MrOllie (talk) 17:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
MrOllie Fair enough, I should have cited Currency. HocusPocus00 (talk) 17:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I agree with MrOllie that these altcoins are not needed in the lede and adding them is UNDUE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Can you explain how it is UNDUE exactly, if we decide a list that is based on a RS and neutral? Readers should be able to get examples in the introduction. This is something that is typical across Wikipedia. See Currency, Commodity, Precious metal and more. Please explain how cryptocurrency is different. HocusPocus00 (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Here is why: Wikipedia does have the List of cryptocurrencies article. It is not this one. Note also, that the List of cryptocurrencies article is mentioned in this article as one of the see also items. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Ladislav Mecir The fact that this information is relegated to the "See Also" section illustrates the exact problem with this article. Some limited examples of notable cryptocurrencies should be provided in the introduction, per WP:MOSLEAD. This article is literally about cryptocurrencies and there are no cryptocurrencies mentioned in the introduction beside Bitcoin! The fact that there is a separate article, with a separate list of cryptocurrencies does not cure the issue here. This is like if the Currency article mentioned that there was the US Dollar and ignored everything else. Or the Precious metal article with gold but ignored silver, platinum, etc. But they don't do this. They mention the alternatives because they are also notable. Other notable cryptocurrencies exist, are cited by reliable sources, and should be mentioned in the introduction. Why is there such pushback on this? I don't understand. HocusPocus00 (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Also, to be abundantly clear, I'm not saying there should be a long list of cryptocurrencies in the introduction, which is what that article is and the purpose of that article. Just examples of notable ones. HocusPocus00 (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Re "Some limited examples of notable cryptocurrencies should be provided in the introduction, per WP:MOSLEAD." - actually, there is an important example that is already mentioned. As to the other alternatives that are not listed in the article body: since they are notable, they are listed in the List of cryptocurrencies article, but are not mentioned in the body of this article, where the list of all notable cryptocurrencies would be inappropriate. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
This is not a substantive argument. The fact that alternative currencies appear in another related Wikipedia article does not somehow relieve this article of also providing notable information if relevant. Since Bitcoin is also on the List of Cryptocurrencies page, should it be removed from the introduction too? Of course not. This seems like WP:Stonewalling. HocusPocus00 (talk) 23:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
HocusPocus00, there's certainly some WP:IDHT going on. Consider that multiple other editors have disagreed with you. Read over WP:DR for next steps. Ravensfire (talk) 19:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Ravensfire I'm trying to discuss the issue through here to conclusion. I asked why it was appropriate to delete a valid edit to the article (the addition of example cryptocurrencies from the introduction) and I received three different answers. There is no consensus from you all. One of you claim it's WP:Undue (which can be remedied), one of you stated they are already listed in the separate List of cryptocurrencies article (which is not a substantive argument as to why something should not be noted in a main article), and one of you stated that adding examples would make the article prone for disruption (which is also not a substantive argument and can be remedied). In fact, @Ravensfire, your first reaction was to state without basis that I am doing "promotional" editing. Please provide a substantive response as to why this information should not be added to the article, otherwise this appears to be WP:Stonewalling. HocusPocus00 (talk) 20:29, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
Editors discuss content and have positions on it, that is routine and may appear to you as stonewalling. I dont see how we can decide which altcoins to include out of the 7000, thus I too am opposed to inclusion. Your next approach would normally be to open an WP:RFC and then more people can comment on it. Then you can get a wider set of comments and maybe other editors will feel differently. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. All I am trying to do here is allow for the conclusion of a discussion and perhaps reach a compromise. So far I've gotten nothing in the way of a compromise and have been attacked personally, both of which are typical of WP:Stonewalling. Regardless, Moving forward and finding a conclusion: This article appears stunted to me. The lack of information about alternate cryptocurrencies is a glaring omission despite it being a notable part of the cryptocurrency space and the subject of much news. I believe providing examples of perhaps the top 3 alternate cryptocurrencies by market cap (so Ethereum, Ripple and Tether) makes sense in the introduction so people learn examples of cryptocurrencies that have developed beyond Bitcoin. I'm not sure how this wouldn't be informative or neutral. This would also not be UNDUE (they are all the subject of much news and have many RS's). If you think these examples should be expanded, edited, or not added at all, post below. Reasoning would be helpful for future editors. If we can't reach some sort of basic compromise I may raise to WP:RFC. Thanks. HocusPocus00 (talk) 13:39, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
The lede summarizes. If you want to add more information about other cryptocurrencies, then add it to the body and later come back and discuss how you want to summarize it in the lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
I think this is a fine compromise for now. I think the altcoin section definitely needs some work. Thanks. HocusPocus00 (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
Re "All I am trying to do here is allow for the conclusion of a discussion and perhaps reach a compromise." - Well, this issue has been discussed in the past and already reached a consensus between the editors. As noted above, the List of cryptocurrencies article lists only the notable ones (as it should, Wikipedia does not list the ones that are not notable). Taking into account how many cryptocurrencies it lists, the notability criterium does not give us a list small enough to put into the lead section. Your proposed use of another criterium would neither adhere to the Wikipedia rules, nor respect the consensus already reached in respect to this matter. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to accomplish here. I'm trying to simply add a brief additional sentence to the end of the introduction saying something like "Some examples of alternative cryptocurrencies include Ethereum, Litecoin and Ripple." For example, this[1] Bloomberg article came out and spoke about some notable ones. I'm not sure why this article is being stunted from developing. This is the cryptocurrency article (generalized) and the introduction doesn't name any cryptocurrencies beside Bitcoin. This just doesn't make any sense. As I said above (which no one has responded to), I'm not sure why this article isn't aspiring to be as well written as Currency, Precious metal or Commodity. HocusPocus00 (talk) 05:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
The lede summarizes. The source you provided does have nice content for comparison purposes, suggest you add that to the article rather than simply pushing to add weight to your selected Altcoins in the lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I added additional information about Ethereum and Litecoin in the Altcoin section of the article per our discussion above. I'm happy to add additional information about some other notable altcoins as well. Just let me know if any of you believe any others should be covered. I added ETH and LTC because of notability and because they were mentioned in the Bloomberg article. I think Ripple and Tether could easily be added as well. Any issue now with allowing the introduction to be expanded? This introduction is much too short and uninformative for the length of this article. MOS:LEADLENGTH HocusPocus00 (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
I must admit I am ambivalent, and the rest of the editor are opposed to it. I would suggest to spend some time improving the article and then come back to the lede rather than the others way around. This article would be great to have a summary of the major ones as well as some comparisons (that you have started to add). I say keep up the good work, and my vote is to hold off for now on adding more 'examples' to the lede. In closing, I am not sure if tether is often referred to as a cryptocurrency, but it I guess is one. Nice to add something on stable coins to this article as you point out as well. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I thought Tether could be added just as an example of a stable coin. It's also one of the most used cryptocurrencies, even though it's not what people often think about when they think of a typical 'crypto'. I'll continue to work on the article and we can circle back to the introduction. HocusPocus00 (talk) 20:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


Biased list of altcoins[edit]

Per available sources and established editor consensus (see history), there are many notable cryptocurrencies. The choice of cryptocurrencies in the "Altcoins" section is subjective, made just by one editor. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Please see the discussion above in the "Introduction - Example Cryptocurrencies". The list of example alt coins was determined by notability and this Bloomberg article.[1] There are 5 examples listed (ETH, LTC, XRP, DOGE and BSV - all of which are notable). This is the cryptocurrency article and must mention cryptocurrencies beside BTC. As long as there is no issue with WP:NPOV or notability, which I don't see here, I don't see an issue. Can you please explain how this is a biased list? HocusPocus00 (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
No, the list of example altcoins was provably not determined by notability. If it was determined by notability, then we would need to list all notable cryptocurrencies, which is a much longer list than the one currently presented in the article. One Bloomberg article is not sufficient to determine all notable cryptocurrencies (there are other WP:IRS than this specific Bloomberg article). Selecting only a subset of all notable cryptocurrecies, there obviously is an issue with WP:NPOV. The list is biased even in relation to the cited sources: there are cryptocurrencies mentioned in the sources that are not listed in the section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
HocusPocus00, please add some more that you can find RS for. We can have more in the altcoins section. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
No, Jtbobwaysf. This has been discussed and resolved a long time ago by a consensus of editors. You seem to not understand the nature of the problem. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
It's fine to revisit this issue, especially if a decision was made a long time ago. Altcoins make-up between 35-50% (depending on the day) of the crypto space now in late 2020. HocusPocus00 (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Moreover, e.g. Bitcoin SV listed by HocusPocus00 is obviously not as notable as, e.g. Ethereum, taking into account that it was not found notable enough (yet) to have its own Wikipedia article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I did not list Bitcoin SV or DogeCoin. Please get your information correct before making statements about editors here. HocusPocus00 (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I propose to replace the biased formulation by a significantly more neutral

The notable altcoins are listed in the List of cryptocurrencies article.

Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, you are right I didn't realise that SV section of bitcoin cash was being linked to. That was weird and I have changed it to Bitcoin Cash (for now). I too might support a highlight of a few extra noteworthy altcoins in the section, but we would need to have consensus on what to include and how to determine what to include (we might get stuck here). Some have been batted around here and the section above and I might be ok with Ethereum, Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash, Dogecoin, and Ripple. IOTA was also quite notable in the past, that might be interesting to add as well. Same goes for Namecoin. We don't need to be try to be what is notable today, as wikipedia (at least from my opinion) is more about the history, than the present. These all seem to be quite common and longstanding. But that said, it might be nearly impossible to manage this list and come to agreement on what to include and what note to. But we can try. I am with you that anything that cannot muster notability sufficient to have its own article certainly can't get listed here. The problem with only using the list of crytpocurrencies is that it doesn't give us a chance to tell a story, where a story is due and interesting.
Namecoin was the first altcoin. Litecoin was an early clone of bitcoin created by Charlie Lee. Bitcoin Cash is a notable fork of Bitcoin that resulted from the Bitcoin scalability debate. Ethereum was created by an early bitcoin blogger (and later creator of Ethereum) Vitalik Buterin, and Ripple (payment protocol) was created by Jed McCaleb (also known for creating Mt. Gox). 
Just throwing out some ideas where we might consider for inclusion if we can at least wiki link to two separate article or important stories per altcoin under consideration. I'll ping N2e (talk · contribs) he might have a comment. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:43, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I think it makes sense to replace BSV to Bitcoin Cash. Additionally, Ladislav Mecir: having a generic link to the "List of cryptocurrencies" article is not sufficient information for an encyclopedic article that is about cryptocurrencies. The article wouldn't provide any information about any cryptocurrencies beside Bitcoin! We need to use WP:COMMONSENSE here. Brief examples of notable altcoins should be listed. No one is arguing that ALL notable cryptocurrencies should be listed. I think the point we are arguing here is trying to figure out WHICH cryptocurrencies to include as examples in the article, and how to make sure they are objective. One way of doing this is by rewriting the section so it includes only the top 5 alternative cryptocurrencies by market cap. It could say something like: "Currently, the five largest alternative cryptocurrencies by market cap after Bitcoin are Ethereum, XRP, Tether, Litecoin and Bitcoin Cash." Simple and objective. No bias. Additionally, it allows us to expand on those and introduce the reader to several important concepts about crypto such as forks and stablecoins, which are nowhere to be found in the article currently which is ridiculous. HocusPocus00 (talk) 15:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Also, Jtbobwaysf, I think your list above is fine, but I think the list of alts should be tied to something objective to alleviate concerns of bias like those raised above. I think most of the alts you included all led to important issues in the crypto space (such as BCH and the scalability debate), but I think we should still really tie the list down to something objective so no one can continually claim the list is biased (or from it being vandalized). That's why I propose tying the coins listed in the article to those that are the top 5 by market cap. HocusPocus00 (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for mentioning you, HocusPocus00 as referring to Bicoin SV, it was a mistake I made. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Re "I think the point we are arguing here is trying to figure out WHICH cryptocurrencies to include as examples in the article, and how to make sure they are objective. One way of doing this is by rewriting the section so it includes only the top 5 alternative cryptocurrencies by market cap. It could say something like: "Currently, the five largest alternative cryptocurrencies by market cap after Bitcoin are Ethereum, XRP, Tether, Litecoin and Bitcoin Cash." Simple and objective. No bias." - actually, it is not simple, since that would require to get a WP:IRS listing the top five cryptocurrencies by market capitalization. Even if we had that, it would not be simple - after a couple of days, the selection would become biased, not listing the top five cryptocurrencies by market capitalization. Therefore, this criterium you propose is not acceptable for Wikipedia. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
In relation to forks, there already is an article discussing them. It is the Fork (blockchain) article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Regarding stablecoins - as far as I can tell, this is rather problematic: the article contains a cryptocurrency definition now. Assuming that the definition is correct (I am not sure it is, but the consensus was to keep it when I proposed its deletion), the first property is "The system does not require a central authority, its state is maintained through distributed consensus." That is not true about any stablecoin: the values of all stablecoins are maintained by their respective central authorities. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Pragmatically speaking the list of top 5 by market cap is problematic as it is always shifting. I think better to just include a sentence summary of various crypto's from the existing wiki articles as I have more or less suggested above (with a source). There is no real reason we need a ranking, any reader can google a ranking themselves. Wikipedia doesn't need to be complete. But it is useful if we can summarise some historical background, like I was trying to do in my example. What came first, who and what was first, created by who, etc. Tell a story. I too am not convinced that tether is a cryptocurrency as pertains to the standard mainstream definition we have on this article. Tether is a stable coin rather. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. Business Insider has a listing of the top cryptocurrencies that is constantly updated.[2] BI is generally considered a WP:RS when it is not syndicated content (which it's not here). We could use that here. Also I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here: "Even if we had that, it would not be simple - after a couple of days, the selection would become biased, not listing the top five cryptocurrencies by market capitalization." How would after a couple of days the top 5 alts by marketcap become biased? Could you elaborate? The top 5 altcoins by market cap is objectively just that: the top 5 coins by market cap. They can shift in and out, and that is fine. If you are worried about having to constantly maintain the article, perhaps we can start with the top 3 altcoins. Frankly, any information is better than what we have now. Also, I propose we just stay on point here and leave discussion about the lack of information about stablecoins and forks for perhaps another section (although I think it's pretty obvious the article should absolutely have information about those topics). HocusPocus00 (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
If you put an additional indent under my comment, it means you are replying to me, FYI...I guess you were not replying to me, as I never said it would be biased. Not important, just FYI. I don't really have a problem with listing the top 5 as long as we use an 'as of' format, as this is prone to get out of date. I am guess you are not going to update it daily, and I certainly am not going to monitor it. But I think more important is you are for some reason pushing to have a top 5 rather than listening to other editors suggesting another approach for including content. I am opposed to a top 5 in the lede FYI, if this is what you are advocating for. But in the body I am not opposed, but let's hear what Ladislav has to say. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: The reply above was meant for Ladislav Mecir. This conversation moved fast and I missed a reply in between. Also, I am not die hard on my proposal about having the top 5. I was trying to propose an objective list of alt coins. I'm trying to reach a compromise per Wiki policy. I'm fine with your approach as well as I noted above. Again with these insinuations. I think I've made it clear through throughout this whole conversation that I literally don't care what alts are listed, but the article needs SOME alts listed. HocusPocus00 (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Comment: Another editor, Smallbones, just now removed the introductory image from the article which included images of various cryptocurrency logos with this edit (claiming it's an advertisement).[3] Folks, Wikipedia cannot ignore that cryptocurrencies exist and that they have names and logos. If we are not going to provide ANY mentions of alternate cryptocurrencies in the article, then it is inherently biased to include details of only one, Bitcoin. Should we remove references to all coins, including Bitcoin? I think we can agree that we don't. Please, lets use WP:COMMONSENSE here. The image is not an advertisement. HocusPocus00 (talk) 19:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Logos are generally copyrighted and trademarked - which means that we can't use them except as "fair use" images which have lots of restrictions on their use. Undoubtably mashing up a bunch of copyrighted images wouldn't comply with our policy on fair use. But the use of them as advertising is even more serious IMHO. What are they doing on this page other than promoting their use? What is the image being used for otherwise? Just saying "The image is not an advertisement," doesn't explain anything. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Your assumption that these logos are copyrighted is a huge jump to a conclusion, considering that the crypto space is generally open-source. For example, the Bitcoin and Ethereum logos are freely available for anyone to use. Your question about why the image is there is absurd: the reason it's on this page is for information and encyclopedic purposes. If you disagree with it, head on over to the Currency article and remove their "mashing up" of their currencies image. The logo that you removed has a Creative Commons CC0 1.0 designation. If you have evidence that it violates copyright or is is an advertisement, present it. HocusPocus00 (talk) 20:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Logos don't help anyone understand the article, and the article certainly does not go into critical analysis of the logos (nor should it). The copyright concerns are real. The arrangement may be CC0, but it is clearly a derivative work of the component logos so you'd need to show they are all CC0 as well. MrOllie (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
MrOllie Frankly, this is absurd. Perhaps you should remove the Amazon logo from that article as well? Wikipedia policy is to have articles full of relevant images, which the image you removed certainly was. And again- what copyright concerns? You can't just state something and then not follow up with evidence. If there is a copyright violation, I agree it should be taken down. But you can't just make the argument "It looks like it might be something therefore it is.", especially when most crypto logos are open and free to use. If you have a genuine evidence about copyright issues, present it! HocusPocus00 (talk) 20:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
See MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE for policy please. HocusPocus00 (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Also, I find it disingenuous of both of you that once a discussion is happening regarding whether names of altcoins should be included in this article, the introductory image that includes altcoin logos is coincidentally taken down for "advertising" and "copyright" concerns. Despite being on Wikipedia for four years. If you all have a genuine copyright complaint, then I apologize and it should be raised here and discussed. Otherwise, I must say that it appears that you are just trying to deteriorate this article further to conceal as much information as possible about altcoins with false premises. HocusPocus00 (talk) 20:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
HocusPocus00, The MOS section you linked states "They are often an important illustrative aid to understanding." - what do these logos illustrate? How do they improve our readers understanding? Also, to pick one at random, I see Dash's logo there. That is CC BY 4.0, not CC0, and attribution is not given to the author so we are not in compliance with that license. MrOllie (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
MrOllie It illustrates that there are different types of cryptocurrencies. Fairly straightforward. Thanks for raising that copyright issue- I believe the next best step is to raise it on WP:CQ for full discussion and evaluation. HocusPocus00 (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
HocusPocus, I am not insinuating anything. I think better to use my suggested approach to include some alts, focusing on the history and tell a story of altcoins. There are plenty of other sources from the other articles, and if you did a one sentence summary per alt you can construct a section at least on it. I think few would have any objection to adding them to the article body. I think adding them to the lede creates a weight and POV issue, essentially which we should single out to be the lede. I too never liked the alt coin image, but wasn't strongly against including it. But I am not opposed to removal either. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: I'm fine with your approach. You said earlier that I was trying to push listing the top 5 coins, which I'm not. Try convincing the others which coins to include, however. Therein lies the issue. That's why I suggested the top 5, which is objective. Regarding the lead, I still think it's fine to include a brief sentence or two in the introduction regarding alts after the body of the article is developed. Not doing so would actually be inconsistent with how Wiki articles are typically written. Regarding the introduction image, I don't mind if it is replaced with something different. The issue is that it was taken down as an "advertisement" and then again because of "copyright issues", without discussion here first. It just simply isn't a blatant advertisement (there are ~15 coins shown). MrOllie raised a copyright issue with Dash logo. If there is indeed a copyright issue, it should be taken down. However, I think it should be replaced with a similar image that doesn't violate copyright as I think it's illustrative and informative. From my experience, I think most folks are surprised when they learn that Bitcoin isn't the only cryptocurrency. HocusPocus00 (talk) 14:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
We have plenty of sources on the other articles of notable altcoins such as litecoin so it is easy to just make a sentence for this article to summarise lite coin with one or two sources for a sentence here. Then do that 5 or ten times and we have a full section on altcoins on this article. This is a cleaner approach than the top 5. Top 5 seems intuitive but isn't the wikipedia process, as here we first follow sources and give weight to what has more sources, thus the fallacy in taking a top five from business insider. Make sense? As for the image that was removed like I said above, I am indifferent about it. I did think it was nice to have an image, but Smallbones raises the point that what might have been a fair use (wp using a logo) was probably no longer a fair use once a new image had been made to create a mashup. This should be debated at the copyright noticeboard, not here, as we can't form any limited talk page consensus on a copyright issue here. That has to be done on a noticeboard. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with all of that. I started developing out the altcoin section and this 'bias' section of the Talk article got started. I added blurbs on Ethereum and Litecoin and we can move forward from there based on RS's. My original approach way above was to do this (based on a Bloomberg article that had a nice list of ~5 or so notable alt coins and why they were important), but it was shot down in the previous Talk section, saying we can't rely on just one RS because of bias/undue or some such nonsense. I guess we need separate RS's for each alt. Just more cryptocurrency nitpicking -- not from you, but just in general. HocusPocus00 (talk) 07:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, this is mostly cryptocurrency specific, although there are many other article types in Wikipedia that have some sort of WP:DS, such as politics, etc. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Beyond Bitcoin: These Cryptocurrencies Are Doing Even Better". 3 December 2020.
  2. ^ GmbH, finanzen net. "Cryptocurrencies News & Prices | Markets Insider".
  3. ^ "Cryptocurrency". Wikipedia. 13 December 2020.


Seems the image is back, does this have consensus? HocusPocus00 (talk · contribs) keeps re-adding it, while MrOllie (talk · contribs) wants it removed as well as Smallbones (talk · contribs). I believe we generally fall towards removal on copyright concern that the correct venue for this discussion is the noticeboard. HocusPocus00, I previously warned you on your talk page of WP:GS on these articles here User_talk:HocusPocus00#Cryptocurrency/blockchain_standard_notice. Please self-revert (and remove the logo) so you don't run afoul of sanctions. I appreciate having more editors on these crypto articles, but you must respect the existing consensus in place relating to reverts, and wikipedia policy. We are falling on the side of caution here on crypto, and that is intentional and we believe for the overall good of wikipedia. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I've removed the image. I asked the user who stated there was a copyright issue to post the potential issue to the copyright noticeboard but I don't think they ever did. If we are uncomfortable with previous image, can we please discuss another image to use? HocusPocus00 (talk) 07:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
It's a commons image, I tagged it as having a faulty license claim there. - MrOllie (talk) 13:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 February 2021[edit]

Found a replacement link for "Bitcoin: The Cryptoanarchists' Answer to Cash".IEEE Spectrum. Archived from the original on 4 June 2012. Anglepapi9762 (talk) 11:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Not done. Well-intentioned, but the reference has an archive where the article content is publicly available.  Ganbaruby! (Say hi!) 06:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Generic cryptocurrency symbol?[edit]

Is there a generic cryptocurrency symbol? Maybe ¢ or ₵ or ₡? -- (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

"Safemoon" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Safemoon. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 23#Safemoon until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Jalen Folf (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2021[edit]

Typo: Crytocurrency instead of Cryptocurrency. This sentence "On 5 April 2021, The total market cap of Crytocurrency surpassed $2 trillion USD for the first time" Niekshas (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done Deauthorized. (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2021 (2)[edit] (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Not done empty request. Shellwood (talk) 17:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding "Cryptocurrency" revert on External_links of Market Cap and daily prices[edit]

MrOllie's "Cryptocurrency" revert

Dear @MrOllie:

I was searching list of all Market Cap for all Cryptocurrencies in this Cryptocurrency, but only found the total Market Cap. I then searched internet, and found the following link is relevant to "Cryptocurrency" .

It looks that the External_link Market Cap and daily prices of Cryptocurrencies is ok according to Wikipedia:External_links:

"What can normally be linked
3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[4] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.

--Gluo88 (talk) 11:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Gluo88, Given the amount of price and volume manipulation that regularly goes on in cryptocurrency markets, I don't accept that this site provides 'neutral and accurate material'. MrOllie (talk) 11:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  1. the investopedia article A Comparison of Cryptocurrency Price Trackers mentioned "CoinMarketCap is the cryptocurrency world's "go-to price checker for as long as anyone can remember," according to".
  2. this site is being used in Wikipedia for multiple items, including Dai_(cryptocurrency), Sherman3D
Therefore, it looks to be fine regarding to "neutral and accurate material" from my view.
  • What is the best way to resolve the difference between our views?
  • Or, may you or anyone know a better site for checking cryptocurrency market cap and prices for being used in this item?
Thanks. --Gluo88 (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@MrOllie:, I think that it is better to recover my version as explained above. --Gluo88 (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Gluo88, I don't agree. This is a active page, let us wait to see if anyone else has an opinion. MrOllie (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
While I am sure coinmarketcap would love to have a great SEO external link the answer is absolutely not. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Agree with the editors above in not including that external link. Coinmarketcap is run by Binance and the rankings are manipulated a bit. For example, some controversial currencies don't appear on the rankings at all like Hex. I think Wiki would need a completely neutral source. Hocus00 (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Impossibility of conversion to capital asset[edit]

I miss an explanation how the cryptographic record is irrevocably und irretrievably deleted when a unit of cryptocurrency is converted into a physical monetary storage unit, like a coin or a banknote. Otherwise, either the crypto unit or the physical unit would be a fake and could theoretically be reconverted unlimited times, making it worthless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:c23:6843:1800:8cff:fd27:ff7a:4e5d (talk) 16:46, May 10, 2021 (UTC)

It's actually not deleted. To convert into physical currency, you'd go through a clearing house / exchange of some type. They would buy your cryptocurrency for physical currency, giving you the physical currency and they would have the cryptocurrency at that point. It's not deleted, just changed hands. Ravensfire (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

That is a fundamental difference to how real money is managed: e.g. When people „move“ money between accounts at conventional banks, the money is deleted on one ledger and an equal amount of new money is created on the transaction partner‘s ledger (often in another institution and/or country). I believe this is double-entry bookkeeping. No history passes hands but capital is destroyed and created. What you describe for cryptocurrency is handing your ledger to another person, i.e. like giving away one of your bank accounts, or vice versa, being given another person‘s bank account, i.e. a record of transactions, not capital. Essentially it is impossible to convert cryptocurrency to physical currency, like going to the teller or ATM, because there is no controlled process to destroy the virtual record? Moreover, the electronic transaction records at real banks are periodically truncated (transactions older than one year struck from the electronic record) and the capital is usually guaranteed by the state (up to some maximum).

On the topic of exchange of virtual currency to real currency, I found useful considerations in this article. In this context, somebody should verify the important statement „there is no published mechanism to withdraw bitcoin from circulation“. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:c23:6c4c:800:a05d:3a12:1df7:a273 (talkcontribs)

That's not what the term double-entry bookkeeping commonly means, that's a system for using expense and liability ledgers to keep track of what a business is spending money on. Re destruction of capital: Under the requirements you describe if I walked into a pawn shop and bought a gold coin with cash, the pawn shop would be required to shred the cash. - MrOllie (talk) 11:41, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

No. Both the (fiat) cash (being regulated, and by territorially enforced definition) and certainly the gold coin are real. Virtual currency (unregulated) is and always will be virtual, unless you can do miracles. Btw, I do not appreciate sabotage (i.e. your deletion) of my careful (qualified) edits in the Wikipedia article trying to explain the concept of virtual convertible currency in understandable terms. Maybe you can explain the mechanism by which a bitcoin can be destroyed? I can certainly explain to you how cash can be destroyed: legally by the central bank and illegally by me melting the coin or burning the bank note. The latter is sometimes done at funerals.

Wrt the ledger: I am no accountant, so maybe my terminology is not perfect. But the principle remains: in the real banking world, capital is not moved, it is destroyed and created in the named bank accounts of payor and payee, respectively. (Payor and payee are noted in the monthly statements for each party, but these are destroyed by the banks after a fixed legal retention period.) I cannot see this dual account separation with bitcoin which seems to record change of digital asset ownership in a single, albeit distributed and multiple copied, ledger. I am also not sure whether the money changers taking in and paying out real currency while passing along the virtual coins have been licensed to do this by the central banks and the records they are required by law to keep. Definitive references by jurisdiction appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:c23:702f:1700:3d7e:2522:28b:764f (talkcontribs)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. If you add your personal opinions to an article without a reliable source to back up the information, you should expect that they will be removed. This is not sabotage. - MrOllie (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I indicated that I wanted help, not that I was wrong. And I was thinking of regular transactions, not computer hacks (like the 51% attack). Even an ATM can be busted and money stolen but since every banknote is uniquely numbered, it remains traceable. I have amended accordingly: „There is no published REGULAR mechanism to withdraw a unit of bitcoin from circulation [citation needed] (although bitcoin can be lost). Exchange of unregulated currency for legal tender would require permanent verifiable destruction (not change of ownership) of the digital asset unit and the issuance of regulated currency subject to territorial minting right. Otherwise, unlimited physical copies of a unique unregulated currency unit could be minted/printed or credited repeatedly in multiple territories.“ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:c23:702f:1700:3d7e:2522:28b:764f (talkcontribs)

It does keep incorrect information out of Wikipedia, which is what I'm after. - MrOllie (talk) 18:30, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Please stop editing your comments after they have been replied to. This section is no longer an accurate record of discussion as it transpired. See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_own_comments. - MrOllie (talk) 11:13, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@ MrOllie: I have not changed the meaning of the discussion but „talk“ is not a normal sequential chat thread. Sometimes my meaning comes out wrong, so I correct „talking“ to „thinking“, „being“ to „believing“. And I am ok with people tracing changes. You are clever and powerful enough to take it :I — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:c23:744e:b700:959:296:21c4:2319 (talkcontribs)

This is considered to be rude by most people in the Wikipedia community, as you are making it look like we replied to one thing when in fact we replied to another. I, for one, will not be answering any more of your questions due to this. - MrOllie (talk) 11:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Agree with Ollie, dont pretend that not following wikipedia norms is ok because of your personal view of it. Respect the process. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

What is and who can read the digital asset? Is it unique and permanent?[edit]

A prime number is a number that can only be divided by itself (and 1), an attribute making the number unique. Does efficient crypto mining (guessing a target hash to receive a currency reward) - highly simplified - need ever more and larger and larger unique numbers to keep make guessing hashes harder? [1] But it is not the unique prime number that forms the so-called „digital asset“ that changes ownership in a crypto transaction. So what happens to new prime numbers, once „discovered“ (proven by calculated division with all prior prime numbers)? Are they written to a common (community) database, like the one maintained by the Uni of Tennessee? [2] Are larger prime numbers that need more processing power, memory and energy to prove, store and process worth more than smaller prime numbers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C23:6CA1:BD00:80AC:121E:B501:F13C (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


You have misunderstood, I'm afraid. Crypto mining is not prime number based, it is generally based on a one-way hash function. In Bitcoin's case it is SHA-256, which does some incorporate some prime numbers, but they are a fixed set known in advance. - MrOllie (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I am still puzzling about what the „digital asset“ is since there seems little value in guessing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C23:6CA1:BD00:80AC:121E:B501:F13C (talkcontribs)

The miner's proof of work output generally has no value at all. It is just there to prove that they did a difficult thing. Think of it like the inmates in an old prison movie moving rocks from one side of the yard to the other, and then back again. The 'value' for the miner is that if they find the correct answer first, they get to add some coins to their account on the ledger. - MrOllie (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I can see how such work deserves a service reward, but not that it augments the digital asset. In fact, I would consider the new coins inflation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C23:6CA1:BD00:80AC:121E:B501:F13C (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

There's a cap on the coins that are created this way. Essentially they're being paid from a reserve. The total number of Bitcoins is fixed at 21 million. Once the reserve is depleted, miners will be compensated from transaction fees. MrOllie (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, the cap applies only as long as you don’t overcome the 32 bit limitation. But some nifty programmers managed to squash the year 2000 bug in the end. My concern is different: real inflation caused by these virtually indestructible coins for the many, as long as they are considered convertible currency by a select few, infinitely convertible in any number of jurisdictions and never withdrawn from use. The only way out would appear to be to shut down the whole system, some day. But I appreciate feedback on other means.

crypto currency[edit]

It's invincible money this is only for showing on online and ... india is not apruve this currency... it's not money because this is only for fleeing it's have but this is not real money . ... when it's Velu up more and more purchase this crypto currency...... Kevallathiya21 (talk) 11:01, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

India is indeed one country that may have banned cryptocurrency, and I feel rightly so. But citizens of other jurisdictions can still exchange crypto (i.e. virtual convertible currency) to real currency in their jurisdiction and then convert to real Indian currency / legal tender. They can keep doing so every time and as long as someone is willing to part with some real currency in order to own digital asset. High volatility vs relatively stable real currency makes for attractive speculation: buy low, sell high. So every cryptocurrency that is convertible acts as a sink and issuing body for new real currency without removing cryptocurrency from circulation (1 real = 1 real + 1 virtual, every time). By aggregation, the real transactions are anonymized. You as an individual citizen definitively loses, or have to exit at the best terms offered, if you bought in and your country subsequently bans exchange. Ultimately, an unregulated system (crypto) - if allowed to exist, like cancer - wins over the regulated system (real currency) which has to put stability and the wellbeing of its citizens first. What is not helping is the fact that some governments are currently issuing enormous amounts of new fiat money to fuel investment. It becomes problematic for governments wanting to reign in inflation, as in Turkey. I wonder when there will be protests to the UN/IMF about this global scheme. (PS: Please make the title of your talk more specific to your message content or downgrade as a response to my talk, if that was your intention. Everything here is crypto...)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C23:702F:1700:3D7E:2522:28B:764F (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Is Cryptocurrency traceable to where and when it was minted?[edit]

I understand legal tender usually has this property. Does each unit of cryptocurrency contain an indelible reference to the date/time and computer/node on which it was originated and thereby to the real territory/jurisdiction (or multiple?) in which the computer/network was located? What about crypto mined in international waters? Is the information encrypted or public? Is this maybe a differentiator and a way to classify different types of cryptocurrency? How is this solved for the classic, Bitcoin? A table listing the features of various popular cryptocurrencies and what info is public and what is private would enhance the Wikipedia article.

Definition has issues[edit]

The definition has some issues - it seems to require decentralisation. While this is a common view amongst advocates of decentralised cryptocurrencies, it remains that a great many of the things that are called "crypto" or "cryptocurrency" in finance are not decentralised at all, e.g., permissioned-chain crypto-tokens or ICO tokens, that trade in the same markets on the same terms.

Who's Jan Lansky, and why is a definition he created for this one paper canonical?

The Merriam-Webster definition is cited, but not quoted: "any form of currency that only exists digitally, that usually has no central issuing or regulating authority but instead uses a decentralized system to record transactions and manage the issuance of new units, and that relies on cryptography to prevent counterfeiting and fraudulent transactions." The "usually" lets through things like XRP, Libra/Diem and ICO tokens.

Is there a better definition, from a reasonably authoritative source? Or several, preferably - the view from inside finance may be much broader than the view from inside cryptocurrency advocacy and development - David Gerard (talk) 15:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

FWIW, searching Google Scholar on "cryptocurrency definition", I'm finding some pretty good cites that there is "no consistent definition". Still looking for a good cite that this is finance jargon (though it completely is, it would require synthesis to put it in the article - e.g., the range of topics covered in Bloomberg Crypto, say) - David Gerard (talk) 17:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Cryptography is just a digital technology. The issue is who holds (which) keys, what info is stored and processed (where) etc. This whole article should be downgraded and rewritten to generically explain application of cryptographic techniques in the context of digital currency, indicating various technical possibilities. Presumably there are published IEEE and ISO standards to refer to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C23:702F:1700:3D7E:2522:28B:764F (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

just called 'coins'[edit]

In the lede, there may want to be a line that says that fintech tends to just identify cryptocurrencies as simply coins (no hyperlink). For example, just add 'coin' to the first sentence, as in: A cryptocurrency, crypto-currency, crypto, or coin is a... (talk) 15:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2021[edit]

I would reccommend adding this graphics in there: - Really intersting to see the possibilities of potential regulations and bans - by Prof. Dr. Patrick Schüffel and Markus Hammer BenTalin (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. That said, the image would need to be compatible with Wikipedia's image use policy. The image doesn't appear to be freely licensed, so we probably cannot use it on Wikipedia. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

"Memecoin" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Memecoin. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 4#Memecoin until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 18:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Are NFT's worth discussing on page?[edit]


Possibly as a bullet point list we can include related Cryptocurrency technologies to capture the ever evolving landscape of Cryptocurrency technology. e.g. Proof of Stake, Proof of Work, NFT's, etc..

Or we can just include it under any technology section on the web page. I'm not that well versed in new technologies and how many there would be to justify adding NFT reference as a footnote or as part of a bigger bullet point list of emerging/existing Cryptocurrency technologies. SumeetJi (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I think this is worth discussing-perhaps just a brief mention of NFTs, what they are and how they have come to light over the last six months-if there are no objections I will commence writing this section.