Talk:Highest-valued currency unit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Economics (Rated Redirect-class)
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Redirect page Redirect  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Numismatics (Rated Redirect-class)
WikiProject iconThis redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Redirect page Redirect  This redirect does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


is it general practice to use EUR instead of $ in the table ? I do not object to it, i'm just curious if this shift in "world currency" is really happening....

Me too. :) MMad 03:18, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


Im not sure where the original source for this article is from, but it appears that the Euro is currently higher in value than the KYD at the moment. According to yahoo finance, 1 Euro is worth 1.099 Cayman Island Dollars. -Zer0fighta 23:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's higher in value in the table, too; it's listed because it's worth more than one dollar. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 10:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Table of Highest value banknote[edit]

I suggest this section is expanded to include a table of "Highest value banknote".

You use this term to mean The highest numerical value banknote of that currency (the column on your table). It could also be taken to mean the banknote (of any currency) with the highest monetary value. I.e. a table of "most valuable" banknotes in the world in normal circulation.

In which case the 1000 Swiss Frank note (not on your list, approx 650 Euros) would be above the 500 Euro note. The 20 Kuwaiti dinar note (= 53.93 Euros) would be way down the list, below the 100 US Dollar (= 77.98 Euros).

A similar table is also possible "Highest value coin". TiffaF 14:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see your concern. I would like to take up the responsibility. But I'm on wiki break now. Btw, the largest non-commemorative banknote is 10000 Singapore/Brunei dollars, then 500 Latvian Lats. --Chochopk 22:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Why does this only go up to 12? Twenty or ten would be a more logical number. – Zntrip 04:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
The threshold is set to the lower value of USD and EUR. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 11:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I edited the "highest coin value" for the Euro, because there are special coins of €5 so this is de facto the highest valued coin in the EU, however it is not common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Swiss Franc[edit]

The Swiss Franc is missing from this list. (It has a higher value than the Euro, and the US Dollar) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 05:22, 13 March 2007

As of right now, says that 1 USD is worth 1.22536 Swiss Francs. That makes it worth less than a US dollar. Nik42 07:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Monthly update[edit]

This table should at least be updated monthly so that it can keep track of currencies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Yeah, it probably should. The least valued currency unit page is updated rather more frequently than that. Of course, that also contains a number of currencies with high rates of inflation, most notably the Zimbabwean dollar Nik42 22:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did I revert to the old structure?[edit]

The reason why I included both 1 USD = x units and 1 unit = x USD was because the pegged rates of various currencies are defined differently. For example, Bahraini dinar is defined as 1 USD = 0.376 dinar, while Omani rial is defined as 1 rial = 2.6008 USD. 1 / 0.376 = 2.65957446808511.... At 6 significant digit, BHD's valued in USD may be rounded to 2.65 957. But this rounding introduces a loss of accuracy, and it also loses the direction how BHD is pegged. If I had a 1 billion BHD, that could be converted to 2,659,574,468.09 USD (because the smallest unit in USD is 1 cent) without any transaction charge, it wouldn't be 2,659,570,000 USD. This may not be a problem with floating currencies, because the rate changes all the time. But this list contains many pegged currencies, which makes the direction of peg important. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 09:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Canadian dollar[edit]

Since the Loonie is approaching parity with the USD, should it be included on the list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Einsteinboricua (talkcontribs) 19:27, 4 June 2007

At the moment, no. However, it closed at 99.87 US cents today, and will probably continue rising, in which case, it will be added. Nik42 05:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
As of today (13 Nov) the CAD is worth more than the USD, at 1.03743 USD/CAD. Rossenglish 20:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, which is why it was added a month or so ago. Nik42 01:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Why has it since been removed? It has been flirting with pairity for months, is currently almost 2 cents above parity, and has been sitting above 98 cents US since it broke parity.

In addition to demonstrating a "unit buy[ing] ... any given other currency", which is already accopmplished, why not, in order to demonstrate "a ... unit buys ... [an] amount of a given good", which is missing, include a column for gold's spot price in the currency? Or oil, or porkbellies, or whatever sufficiently global commodity satisfies all parties, in case gold is not regarded as a "good" by all concerned. 23:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Highest valued coin[edit]

According to the Bank of Latvia official site[1], the highest valued Latvian Lat coin is 100 Ls, even though I have never seen it and don't know anybody who has. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:35, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

True, but this is special and very limited collector's edition, I wouldn't call it a real coin because normally banknotes start from 5 Ls. --Zummis (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Image "International Monetary Fund logo.svg"[edit]

Can the image "International Monetary Fund logo.svg" be used in the Article "Highest valued currency unit"? -- (talk) 13:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Canadian dollar and Swiss Franc[edit]

The Canadian dollar has now been worth more than the US Dollar for a few weeks. However the situation is not completely stable, with the exchange rate hovering around 1:1. Nevertheless : Shouldn't the Canadian dollar replace the US dollar on the list ? Or should it be extended to 13 currencies for the time being ? 19:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll add the CAD for now. If the USD gains value significantly again, it should be removed again. Passportguy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The same also applies to the Swiss Franc (CHF) Karl (talk) 10:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


Ghana should be on the list. Örsvezér (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

It used to be. Exchange rate fluctuations periodically put it (and also the Canadian dollar) below the USD, so the Ghana cedi and the Canadian dollar are periodically removed and restored. It looks like the swiss franc will be on this list soon, too. Right now it's about 97.5 US cents Nik42 (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Why is the US$ used a the low reference for the list? Wouldn't it be better to inclue a fixed number of currencies, the 10,15 or 20 highest for expamle? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It makes for a convenient standard. The least valued currency unit uses a similar standard - currencies that US$1 is worth 1,000 or more of (or nearly 1,000 in the case of the South Korean won). Nik42 (talk) 05:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

United States dollar[edit]

What is the highest valued banknote of the United States dollar: a) 100 dollars; b) 500 dollars; c) 1000 dollars; d) 5000 dollars; e) 10,000 dollars; or f) 100,000 dollars? -- (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

In current production, $100. Notes above $100 have not been printed in many decades. They were removed from circulation in the 70's, by order of President Nixon, but they'd been out of production for quite a while before then. Nik42 (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason that the dollar coin is listed as rare? It doesn't appear to be rare to me. There are several versions in circulation, it is always available at banks, and (at least in my area) is commonly distributed by vending machines. I am going to remove the (rare) note, unless there are objections. Helikophis (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

While the introduction of the Presidential Dollar coins has improved the circulation of the Dollar coin, I would still classify it as rarely encountered along with the fifty cent piece and the two dollar bill. Where I work we now maybe get them (and the fifty cent pieces) in the till twice or three times a month or so, whereas before it was probably only once every other month at best. Many people still refuse them as change (though I have found that kids and Latin American immigrants like the coins and are happy to recieve them, even asking if we have any more!).
Vending machines in your area distribute them? That's interesting. I thought that was only true of stamp vending machines inside of post offices.
Gecko G (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
They are most certainly not rare. If they were, they would be worth more than a dollar. They're not. "Rarely encountered"? Only because of inertia. -- (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

More currencies to make calcluations against[edit]

Should we have more currencies to make calculations against. $10000000000ten0one1 08:13 23 may 2008

No. Noone has time to do all the math and most of the rates are terribly outdated because the task of updating them is so daunting. In fact I would propose that we even consider tremoving the cross rates for Kuwait Dinars as well, as it is only of very limited interest to most users. Passportguy (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


Despite the recent appreciation in the Japanese yen (now worth a bit more than one US cent), this page had still stated for a while that the exchange rate between the Kuwaiti dinar (worth about ten percent less than 4 USD) and the Japanese yen was more than 400 to 1; I changed that to 'more than 300 to 1' (currently the exchange rate is 349 to 1; it hasn't been more than 400 to 1 since September!).

Now there is 280, but I think it is quite close to 300. (talk) 05:35, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Turkmenistan New manat[edit]

Shouldn't the Turkmenistan manat be on the list, since the USD is worth 1.04 TMT. $1000000000ten0one1 (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

1 US$ is worth 2.85 TMT, not 1.04 ! Passportguy (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


What is the purpose of this page? It does not matter what the value of the currency is now, all that matters (from an objective economic standpoint) is how it changes over time. A currency is strong if (and only if) it holds its value (regardless of that value). (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet it is also interesting which currencies are the most valuable in absolute terms. Btw almost all of the currencies on the list have roughly retained their value over time - the only major exception is the Azeri manat, which is fairly new addition after the manat was redenominated some time ago. I also wanted to note that a high valued currency should not be confused with hard currency - as noted in the first paragraph of this article. Passportguy (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
A purpose is to answer questions such as which currency units are worth more than a British pound (or US Dollar) or which currency unit has the highest value. Karl (talk) 14:13, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Dollarized areas[edit]

Which currencies should we have for currencies are in use in dollarized countries along with local coins? The British Pound has different versions for its crown colonies and the US Dollar has four countries which also use that currency along with local coins, but Tuvalu and Kiribati aren't listed along with Australia even though it has the same situation. Which countries should we have in this list, and how should they be listed?ZanderSchubert (talk) 08:12, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Bermuda and the Bahamas do issue their own banknotes and Panama used to, but they where a huge failure and only lasted a week. However I do agree with you that at least Panama is removed (or the other countries added). $1000000000ten0one1 (talk) 04:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have done some research and Kiribati and Tuvalu's currencies do not have currency codes, however the other currencies actually do. So actually it should be left as it is. $1000000000ten0one1 (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Maltese Lira[edit]

The list is missing the Maltese Lira, which is either the 2nd or 3rd highest-valued currency in the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be because the Maltese lira was replaced by the Euro in 2008. (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Too many significant digits[edit]

The values in the table are currently shown with 6 significant digits, which is exactly how [2] displays them. However, the XE data are updated every minute, and the last three or four digits are not stable from one minute to the next. An HTML comment in the article states that "the accuracy of this article depends on the values for ALL currencies being accurate for a specific moment in time". However, it is difficult to get a snapshot of all of the rates from XE at any particular minute (since it takes a few minutes to get all of them), nor would that serve any purpose. Our reference section gives only the date when the data were retrieved. I think we should show only two digits after the decimal point, e.g., 1.00 USD = 0.75 EUR; 1.00 EUR = 1.32 USD. Peter Chastain (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

No the rates should be left as is. Yes the rates do fluctuate every minute and the rates are not always perfect, but It would be unlikely for the rates to fluctuate more than 0.001 in a few minutes. Also currencies which are very close to another currency, example, the Australian Dollar and the Canadian Dollar to the US Dollar, if they were to be worth 0.996 USD, it would be shown as having an equal value, when actually the USD is worth more than the other currency. On top of all this, many currencies are pegged on this page and the USD to BHD rate of 0.376 rate would be incorrectly shown as 0.38 BHD, resulting in a severe loss of accuracy, not only in that rate, but also in the majority of the table. The table should be left as is, but perhaps the time of which the rates were taken should be displayed, example 05:34 to 05:56, 25 December 2010 UTC, as that would solVe the 'date' issue. $1000000000ten0one1 (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

My past few updates to the currency values have taken place over the weekend, where, due to lack of trading, the values are essentially fixed for several hours, let alone the time it takes to get the values. However, I'm still adding the times when the rates were taken to pin down the moment the currencies had those specific values, even though I don't think such precission is necessary. ZanderSchubert (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Adding more currencies[edit]

Currently, the Singaporean dollar is worth about 0.96 Libyan dinars (or 81 US cents/54 euro cents) and the New Zealand dollar is worth about 0.95 Libyan dinars (or 80 US cents/54 euro cents). Should we add them? And, if so, what sort of limit should we put on the number of currencies in this article? While the list of least valued currency units has a specific limit (it only has currencies whose value is less than one US cent) this article arbitrarily has the top 15. ZanderSchubert (talk) 02:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I've realised that when updating, one has to check whether any currencies not in the list have entered it as in the case of the Singapore Dollar. A web site from which one could quickly make such a check would be appreciated and could be linked from the article. The more currencies listed the harder the article will be to update. My suggested limit is the US Dollar (i.e. we only include the US Dollar and currency units of a higher value). This could also make it easy to check whether a currency should be included in the table as its exchange rate is likely to be quoted against the dollar. Karl (talk) 12:02, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

So far, the issue I've had with updating the currency values is that it's time consuming, not that it's hard to find accurate values. I've also got a list of currencies which have values large enough that we could put on the list, so that's not a big problem either. We just need to decide how many currencies belong in the list and why. Having only currencies worth more than the US dollar seems fine for the moment, considering the huge gap in value between it and the Libyan dinar. ZanderSchubert (talk) 06:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


What about Bitcoin? It's currently between GBP are so pretty high, but unsure how much of a "currency" it can be considered... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uukgoblin (talkcontribs) 15:45, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

2011-may-11 Bitcoin (BTC) digital currency touch 5.99 USD at Arsen.Shnurkov (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
A Bitcoin unit is already more expensive than any state currency existent. There should at least be a mention to it in the article. --Tiago Rinck Caveden (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)i
Bitcoin units have no official value against other currencies - it depends where you trade them. This would make it difficult to put on the table, but it's certainly worth a mention somewhere. --Krenair (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
This true of USD and all other floating currencies as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and added Bitcoin, with exchange rates for USD and EUR, but not for KWD as there is noone who exchanges between BTC and KWD directly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc Merlin (talkcontribs) 11:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

User Sovietia (talk) removed the Bitcoin content without much explanation. Does anyone else see a reason it should not be added? санпинтц 03:53, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it because it is not a legitimate currency. All of the other currencies are issued by countries (except for the IMF, which is a world financial institution). Bitcoin sounds made-up, and the fact that it is not on any foreign exchange sites such as should be an indication of that. If this is not the case, then maybe we should add Berkshares too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sovietia (talkcontribs) 19:39, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

"currency refers to a generally accepted medium of exchange" -- I'm not convinced that being issued by countries is a requirement for a currency to be "legitimate". Very debatable matter indeed, but the wikipedia Currency page does list Bitcoin as a proposed currency, and also the Bitcoin page names bitcoins as a digital currency. Also mind that this article is not named "Highest-valued legitimate currency units", so at least a mention of Bitcoin is in my opinion highly desirable. Uukgoblin (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Would you reconsider your stance now that bitcoin is listed on []? JulianTosh (talk) 08:54, 31 July 2013 (PST)
Bitcoin is accepted as money by many thousands of vendors worldwide and exchangeable for national currency at millions of locations. BerkShares and similar currencies are worthless outside a small geographic area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Sure, if by "vendors" you mean illicit drug dealers, money launderers, and ponzi scheme operators. Bitcoins themselves are only useful outside bitcoin-topia by first converting them to USD/EUR/etc. They are the internet equivalent of casino chips, and instead of winning at cards, you get them by converting electricity into heat. Case-in-point: People like to cite Wordpress as a "large" accepter of bitcoins, but they only take them through a third party that first changes them to USD. (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Wow, don't you have an ax to grind. You seem to be forgetting all the web-devs, coders, accountants, etc... (the list goes on and on really) who accept bitcoin as well as forgetting all the drud dealers, money launderers and ponzi scheme operators who use USD. USD is certainly used illicitly in a larger volume and possibly, there is a similar proportion of illicit USD use (compared to legal use) as illicit BTC use. That infamous dealers website was down for weeks and it did not affect the 'Bitcoin economy' even though it was claimed to be the largest single section of the Bitcoin economy and looking at the list of high profile scams and thefts of bitcoin, that may be similar to USD proportions too. ref ref --Smickles86 (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It is time to revisit Sovietia's removal and concerns. Bitcoin has been function as a real, active, and expanding currency on the Internet for 4 years now. * Currencies do not have to be issued or backed by a government to be a currency - it is what individuals make it. * There are several well established exchanges to accurately determine its value against multiple currencies. * The idea that bitcoins should not be in the list "because they sound made up" is dumb, for lack of a better word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julian Tosh (talkcontribs) 06:06, 13 December 2012 (UTC-8)

Bitcoin does not have an ISO code and does not qualify for inclusion. Dree12 (talk) 22:03, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
That's one opinion, of course. The title of this article is not "Highest-valued currency unit with an ISO code". The relevant policy is WP:N. Having an ISO code is a relevant factor in determining notability of a currency, but by no means is the sole deciding criterion for inclusion in a list such as this. Casascius♠ (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
What would take for Bitcoin to qualify for inclusion? (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
When one can exchange Bitcoin for other currencies are reputable financial institutions and vice versa, rather then "Magic the Gathering Online Exchange." — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
MTGOX now is registered as a money services business. That's reputable in the eyes of the US federal government. JulianTosh (talk) 09:01, 31 July 2013 (PST)
The oldest Bitcoin exchange, Bitcoin Central has successfully registered as a European financial institution. So by your standard, Bitcoin now qualifies for inclusion. (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Bitcoin-Central's parent company Paymium has a partnership with a financial institution, Aqoba. That doesn't make Bitcoin-Central a financial institution. Petomaatti (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
They are a Payment Service Provider, which is a type of financial institution. (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Nope, it says it right on Bitcoin-Central's page; "'But we're neither a bank, nor a PSP. And we intend to keep it that way.'". Aqoba's the PSP. Petomaatti (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Your are criticizing a company for its humble beginnings. They did change their name to Mt. Gox in an attempt to move away from criticism from people like you while retaining their brand recognition and domain name. --Smickles86 (talk) 17:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
There are lots of smaller companies operating as a bitcoin exchanges as well, and there are invidual hobbyist or professional exchangers listed in almost 90 countries. It is not only company size that matters, there exists numerous smaller companies and inviduals operating in that space. It is kind of natural to the low-barrier-of-entry business like a bitcoin exchange. Jerguismi (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Relevant to ISO discussion: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just gone ahead and added Bitcoin again to the list, with proper references for the price quotes that I used. No country code or ISO code was used in the making of my edit, which should assuage any complaints that Bitcoin is usurping some ISO code not officially assigned to it. As for the complaints that "Bitcoin isn't a real currency", well, Bitcoin meets the colloquial and academic definitions of "currency" (no, there is no "must be printed by a central bank" in any definition except self-styled definitions made up solely to discriminate against Bitcoin), people are using it in legitimate and significant ways (that alone makes Bitcoin at least more WP:N than, say, Linden dollars or Ecuadorian Sucres), and that's that. I expect there will be backlash, as we all know that liars will lie -- or, for the more sophisticated version, invent arbitrary burdens of evidence that Bitcoin must pass before they accept reality, but somehow refuse to apply to other currencies -- so I cannot do much about that. Rudd-O (talk) 05:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, to whoever underhandedly removed Bitcoin from the list, and proceeded to add the ex post facto and arbitrary demand that a currency be in the ISO list of currency codes for it to be listed on this page: real nice, scumbag, you must be proud of how you deceive people in the most underhanded way. Rudd-O (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

What about cosbycoins? We use them at my hospice for recovering Dunning-Kruger autists as a bridge currency between nonsense invented internet currencies with no value or worth at all and actual real currencies accepted by real people as a medium of exchange? (talk) 07:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

All Bitcoin exchanges convert BTC to USD (or other fiat currencies). Bitcoin is really just a transport system at this point. It has no actual value, its sole practical use is for the anonymous exchange of fiat monies for drugs and child porn on Silk Road and drama everywhere else. In fact, drama is Bitcoin's chief export! -timb— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

See above this paragraph? Remember when I said liars would invent "reasons" to say that Bitcoin wasn't "real"? Well you're looking at one of those douches lying, right above this paragraph. He just reverted my edits, too, despite the fact that (contrary to his lies) Bitcoin has a value, that all exchanges convert one currency to the other (note his selective "reasoning" there), and that by his own "reasoning", no currency has "real value", and all are "transport systems" (yeah, douchegenius, currency was invented to transport value). Of course, douchebag here is not going to accept logical reasoning, so don't bother. Hey, cowardly anonymous douche, I've been a Wikipedia editor since the first year it launched, I'm re-adding your reversals.
"Bitcoin doesn't have value" is absolutely a false claim. People are paying currently 13$ for one bitcoin, couple of years ago it was less than 1$. Bitcoin might not have value for you, but it has value for some. And it is liquid, meaning that it is pretty easy and fast to change to other valuable stuff such as dollars or gold. That also means that you value also bitcoin, because you can convert it to other items that you "really" value (eg. the value of bitcoin for you is the market rate minus the work needed for conversion.) Jerguismi (talk) 14:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey man, I didn't edit anything, I just posted on the talk page here. Might want to learn how to read IPs there, champ. What's with the name calling? Is your position so weak that you have to resort to name calling and ad hominem attacks? It's great you've been a Wikipedia editor this long. While you were spergin' out over an online encyclopedia I was having sex with girls and doing drugs. For the record, no currency does have a real value, but at least fiat money is a physical thing that I can hold use to buy essential goods and services. All I can do with BTC is trade them for real money to do those things. Why not skip the middleman and just start out with real money in the first place? I can attack this from another angle too: BTC Is bad for the environment. Mining requires extensive processing power which uses a lot of electricity. I saw some math earlier today; generating BTC requires over 10 million kWh every year. That's a lot of electricity being used to produce what is in essence an imaginary currency. -timb

This is not going to be a phony debate about whether Bitcoin is real or not, or the merits of Bitcoin, or how much electricity Bitcoin consumes. There is a Wikipedia page saying you are wrong, so go have that debate there. Or go have sex and drugs again, so you can finally stop vandalizing this encyclopedia and telling people lies. Rudd-O (talk) 08:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, it's merely a collection of sources. Name your source saying Bitcoin is a currency by an unbiased organization with reconized authority, like, say, the ISO. Also, you're pretty strongly ignoring WP:AGF which surprises me for someone who has been "a Wikipedia editor since the first year it launched" (talk) 06:15, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
There's the European Central Bank study on virtual currencies, with a lenghty portion focusing on Bitcoin:
I quote: "It operates at a global level and can be used as a currency for all kinds of transactions (for both virtual and real goods and services), thereby competing with official currencies like the euro or US dollar"
There's also this tidbit about the Swedish FSA considering Bitcoin a "means of payment" for business purposes:
(In Swedish, but google translation looks decent enough. (talk) 12:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

A warning. Rudd-o is trolling. Surprised that the editors don't acknowledge this with his disgusting tone and complex regarding an unrecognized "currency". I would be more willing to listen to the sperging about bit coin if the shitlord wasnt so abrasive to begin with.

Gentlemen: enough vandalism has been committed in this page already. I understand that some of you have concerns and perhaps those are valid, but repeated removal of well-sourced facts qualifies as vandalism of this page. Before making any more edits and removing useful information from it, develop a consensus on this talk page. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I demand that CosbyCoins are added to the list. Only me and my Freemason friends use them, but we easily think they're worth more than two hundred dollars per coin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You clearly just mentioned that CosbyCoins are only used by you and your friend, and have an arbitrary value based on whatever you say. Bitcoin has a market cap in the hundreds of millions of dollars and is used by millions of people. The rate is set based on free currency exchanges located all over the world. Your CosbyCoins argument is just as bad as "they sound made up". -FatRandy13 —Preceding undated comment added 15:08, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
The whole CosbyCoin supply could be arbitrarily valued to be more valuable, and appealing to the number of people (not) using it is just argumentum ad populum (and even so, "used by millions" sounds like gross exaggaration). Petomaatti (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

If by "millions of people" you mean "about a thousand neckbeards or so" then yeah, I agree. Your internet funbux aren't legal tender anywhere in the world and have the same status as company scrip. If all employees of company X decide that their company scrip is worth a hundred dollars per token, does that mean the rest of the world has to agree with that? No, because the scrip isn't backed by anything. (Except by delusion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The individual above this line of text is part of a concerted effort of goons from Something Awful to discredit, defame and sabotage Bitcoin. You can verify this by googling "something awful funbux". In their mighty thread where they organize publicly to sabotage Bitcoin (they have private threads, but there is a very, very long public thread where they organize too) they have mentioned me. Rudd-O (talk) 11:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
It also appears that you are rallying the bitcoin subreddit to support your "truth". This just screams vested interest and POV to me - how do you consider your actions any different? Petomaatti (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
So what you're suggesting is that it's okay to rally people to this page, as long as you do it on Something Awful? (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Can you point out where they have "organized to sabotage Bitcoin" or rallied people to this page? Just wondering if it's just a link to this article, or something as explicit as "I - Rudd-O, Wikipedia editor since it started - have restored the cited content to the Highest-valued currency article. Please keep an eye on it for further (Wikipedia-editorial) edit wars, add to the talk page, follow the process to keep the truth on the page. Thanks.". Thanks! Petomaatti (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
The something awful forums this thread at least. --Smickles86 (talk) 20:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
No, I'm not going to go through nearly 3000 posts to see if the allegation made by someone who responded to an argument with ad hominem is true or not, the onus is not on me. It's good to remember that "talking critically about Bitcoin" is not equal to "concerted effort of goons from Something Awful to discredit, defame and sabotage Bitcoin". Petomaatti (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
You're placing restrictions on bitcoin that the majority of other currencies in this list do not abide by. "does that mean the rest of the world has to agree with that" No! But the rest of the world wouldn't accept Jordan dinars for the sale of their goods either. Bitcoin is accepted by more vendors in more countries than Jordan dinars or Latvia Lats (outside of Jordan and Latvia). Your arguments are arbitrary at best. -FatRandy13 —Preceding undated comment added 16:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Your argumentum ad populum still does not make Bitcoin a legal tender, nor does it make Jordan dinar (or any other currency on the list) lose its legal tender status. Petomaatti (talk) 03:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Huh? I thought this was about currency. Being legal tender is not a requisite for being a currency. --Smickles86 (talk) 04:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
For inclusion to this list there needs to be an additional litmus test to keep Tide detergents, peanuts, Hershey's Kisses, etc away, because when you start playing with definitions pretty much anything can be arbitrarily valued by any group of people to be more valuable than anything else around. Petomaatti (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't the litmus test include intention? That way "Tide detergents, peanuts, Hershey's Kisses, etc" would be kept away and things currencies would be included. --Smickles86 (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
If a group of people agrees on using those items as a medium of exchange, they still fit the definition of currency regardless of whether the items were originally intended for that purpose. If you really want intent, though, someone could just as well make a new item; little paper slips with "one snakeplissken" written on them. Petomaatti (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes but I can walk into a foreign money exchange and have Jordan dinars recognized as legal tender. With "bit coin" I cannot. Therefore, "bit coin" is not legal tender. Q.e.d. When I say foreign money exchange I mean a bank, or the like of a reputable financial exchange. "Magic the gathering online exchange" is certainly not reputable, or merit, or internationally recognized by ANY government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

"Legal tender" means there's a law saying you have to accept it as money. There is no U.S. or State law saying I have to accept Jordan dinars as money, therefore I am under no legal obligation to recognize them as legal tender, and neither is any U.S. foreign money exchange. (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. Currency being legal tender somewhere makes it rooted in law, and making something legal tender usually means that IMF is involved in recommending oversight processes and such; while you might not use the dinar, it's far from a garage operation and it and its relevant processes have practically been validated by all IMF members. Bitcoin's validation, however, is pretty much someone linking to websites where someone calls it a currency. With that standard pretty much anything could be claimed to hold arbitrary value and be a currency, and that's why an additional control over what goes into a currency list has to be implemented (as I mentioned a few lines ago). Otherwise we could get Hershey's Kisses, peanuts, and A4 sheets of paper with a huge star printed on them. Restricting by legal tender status is pretty unambiguous, but I'm fine with restricting by ISO 4217 too as mentioned below. Petomaatti (talk) 04:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
You mean a bank like Bitcoin Central? (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
SA goons will say anything to discredit the fact taht Bitcoin is now accessible as a purchase and sale item through cash processors and major banks in the U.S. and around the world. Reality does not matter to them -- only nitpicking and lies do. Rudd-O (talk) 11:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
It isn't, Aqoba's payment account is not Bitcoin denominated. You have misunderstood their partnership. Petomaatti (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
From that very article - "There has also unfortunately been a considerable amount of miscommunication both within the Bitcoin community and outside about this deal (in which I admit to participating myself), and Bitcoin Central has deemed it fit to release a public message clarifying the facts. The misconception started with the headline of the forum thread making the announcement, “Bitcoin-Central, first exchange licensed to operate as a bank. This is HUGE” This was widely misinterpreted to mean that Bitcoin Central will have the power to act as a bank themselves, but Bitcoin Central’s David François (also known in the Bitcoin community as Davout) clarified: We said “licensed to operate as a bank” which we mean as ‘open accounts to third-parties and hold fiat currency on their behalf in compliance with the regulatory framework’. The headline has since been corrected to instead say “operate with a bank.”" Petomaatti (talk) 03:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
"Yes but I can walk into a foreign money exchange and have Jordan dinars recognized as legal tender. With "bit coin" I cannot." False. You can convert bitcoin into USD (and lots of other currencies) at multiple money exchange businesses. I bet if you were given 100 Jordan dinar and I was given 100 bitcoin, I would be able to convert mine into USD faster than you and pay a smaller fee. So is that the new restriction? You have to be able to walk into an arbitrarily chosen exchange and be able to convert it to USD? Because if so, then you just made the point in favor of bitcoin. "When I say foreign money exchange I mean a bank". You can very easily withdraw bitcoin to your account at any recognized bank. You can also fund your bitcoin wallet through deposit at any recognized bank. Just because you are unaware of how bitcoin works, does not mean it's not a currency. Also, you attempting to appeal to authority does nothing but hurt your argument. Screaming something about government recognition isn't an argument. It's a well known, defined, and documented logical fallacy. -FatRandy13
You always go through a separate exchange like Magic the Gathering Online Exchange, even on deposits. "Withdrawing bitcoin to your account at any recognized bank" sounds especially nebulous (maybe even an underhanded appeal to authority by proxy in order to legitimize your argument?), considering BTC denominated bank accounts do not exist and banks do not exchange BTC. Petomaatti (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

OK - so how is bitcoin not a currency? Because after reading all that I can on Bitcoin and currencies, it seems that bitcoin is indeed a currency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It's about as much of a currency as kids exchanging marbles within their circle of friends for candy. Except it's electronic data and child pornography — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Except bitcoin is not used exclusively to purchase child pornography or any ONE product, you can use bitcoin to purchase whatever anyone may be selling. It also is used beyond people purchasing it for illicit uses, so it isn't dependent on such illicit markets for it to exist and function as a currency. (talk) 08:06, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Do you really think that the Something Awful goons who have targeted this page for sabotage care about facts? It's a rhethorical question because you and I know they do not care. This is why I filed for semi-protection two days ago, and this is why I will file for full protection, after which we'll all go through the lengthy process of freezing the page with the fully-cited content that they tried to remove in their act of sabotage. Rudd-O (talk) 11:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm all for full protection, because then there's someone to prevent you from pushing your agenda and interests onto the article. Petomaatti (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I love Bitcoin, but for this particular page I would like to suggest another reference point: If Bitcoin is included then shouldn't Tide Detergent be included too? [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:358D:1:216:CBFF:FE93:9F81 (talk) 11:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Does Tide detergent (note, common noun, not proper noun, does not get capitalized) fit the definition of currency as established by the "currency" Wikipedia article? Bitcoin does. If Tide detergent does, and consensus builds on a subheading of this page called "Tide detergent", you can have your entry on the table. Note that, unlike the well-sourced Bitcoin exchange rates that have been vandalized from the article repeatedly, the process to include Tide detergent as a currency requires consensus, not just majority vote. Good luck with your suggestion :-) Rudd-O (talk) 11:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
It should also be fairly obvious to anyone reading this that we're quite far away from consensus under the Bitcoin (well, this) subheading, and it has no business in the article right now. Petomaatti (talk) 12:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Reading the three definitions given on the currency page I cringed, the two stricter versions seem self contradictory in the light of cryptocurencies and restricted to goverment fiat. With this interpretation both Bitcoin and Tide detergent seem to only fit the most general definition given there. IOW: yes they appear to be on equal footing. (And no, I don't particularly want a Tide subheading here but prefer to iterate toward a well grounded reasoning behind Bitcoin inclusion.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:358D:1:216:CBFF:FE93:9F81 (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted edit "Reverting underhanded POV push to FishMech's last revision)" by Petomaatti, because he removed properly-cited material (which is factual, but I realize now that Wikipedians don't care about that, so ignore reality for a second) from this article. I will continue reverting this edit, and I will file for full protection of the article shortly, since it's clear that some Wikipedia editors are willing to lie openly and blatantly to sabotage and vandalize this encyclopedia in pursuit of their particularist interests. Rudd-O (talk) 11:33, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The point, which you have missed, is that the "facts" you add have no business on the page as it is. "'Sun is hot'" is a fact as well, but it doesn't belong on this page. Weasel words aren't going to help you, unfortunately, and claiming that you're just editing in the The Uncensured Truth and fighting against Truth Oppressors is quite disingenuous and betrays a certain conflict of interest. Petomaatti (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Guys, seriously? I suggest everyone have a nice cup of tea and a sitdown. Now, if I may be subjective... I just found this page from someone linking me hoping to gather support for this (they will sorely be disappointed), and as someone who has no opinion on bitcoin whatsoever (hence sorely disappointed), I've yet to see any link link to reliable third-party sources. Now, what I do see is a lot of trolling here, and a quick browse of Google does show there's a lot of people here who are just from Something Awful trying to astroturf and troll - seriously, stop calling it "magic the gathering online exchange" when that's clearly an ad hominem and ad nauseam fallacy - and yes, I am trying to assume good faith but there's clear evidence that many people here aren't showing it. However, I must point out there is a concerted effort on the part of the bitcoin people to combat the trolling and astroturf themselves. Clearly, NPOV has just been thrown entirely out the window in the name of trolling, astroturfing, and a passionate debate by people with lots of special interests in the matter. I do not believe consensus has been achieved so far, however, even excluding the astroturfing and trolling. I do however, humbly suggest a section be added listing non-governmental currencies (allow me to apply my fireproof knickers). I don't see how this is controversial, other than not including it with governmental currencies - no doubt the Something Awful people are going to troll even this, but come what may tbh. Therealelizacat (talk) 15:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

"Now, what I do see is a lot of trolling here, and a quick browse of Google does show there's a lot of people here who are just from Something Awful trying to astroturf and troll - seriously, stop calling it "magic the gathering online exchange" when that's clearly an ad hominem and ad nauseam fallacy".

'Magic the Gathering: Online Exchange' literally is the name of the largest BitCoin exchange. It's not a fallacy if it's true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not and never was. The name of the exchange is Mt. Gox. It uses the domain name Jed McCaleb registered this domain thinking he would use it for a Magic: the Gathering Online Exchange. But he never did, he used it for a Bitcoin exchange instead. -- Meni Rosenfeld (talk) 20:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no doubt Bitcoin is a currency. Total market cap is about 140M (source+graph There is a robust market of currency exchange with more than 10 other currencies and more than 20 active exchanges (source+2 pie graphs There are now (Dec 2012) around 40,000 transactions per day( source And if you take out the 100 most active addresses, which constitute a bulk of high frequency trading, the number is closer to 15,000 per day, roughly 5.5 Million transactions annually from real people, buying or exchanging for "real" things or other currencies. But all of these are positive affirmations of what Bitcoin is, and it's clearly more active and valuable than many of the currencies on the current list. Without a significant and verifiable reason to exclude Bitcoin, it would make sense to add it back to the list. (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

What is going on? Why some people are trying to remove Bitcoin from list? FML hi me at pt 21:34, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Because it has no impact on the economy at large and no government or country issuing it.
I'm probably gonna start reverting it myself soon unless someone can prove me wrong.
And please don't mess with my signature, FML. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Bitcoin volume is almost US$ 1 million day, it is relevant. Bitcoin is a currency, please read the article Bitcoin. --- And I am sorry if I mess your signature by mistake. --FML hi me at pt 21:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I think it is relevant to say "Decentralized" in the place of State/Organization. Isn't it? --FML talk - me at pt 21:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
On the economy at large. So you've got something, and you've assigned a value to it, but how exactly does it affect the world?
That's what this is about. I am not questioning the notability of BTC itself, just it's relevance to this page. Please do not try and frame my words otherwise. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:48, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I agree with you about the relevance of this article. I think this article is a kind of irrelevant. "Highest-valued currency unit"? It doesn't say anything. But if this article exists I don't understand why a currency must be out of this just because "no government or country issuing it". Bitcoin is widely used around the world and no State or Organization can touch this. Why this information should be hidden? FML talk - me at pt 21:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Lenin, I am sorry. I misunderstood you. You aren't questioning the article relevance itself, but Bitcoin in this, are you? No, in this case I disagree. Why an important currency (Bitcoin or any other) should be out? --FML talk - me at pt 21:55, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Precisely. But now you must show me the proof of the impact on the economy at large. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 21:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Lenin, not before you show me the proof of the impact on the economy at large in all other currencies in the list. If you proof that, I can proof the Bitcoin has impact on economy. Thanks mate, I am waiting. FML talk - me at pt 22:13, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
And please define "impact on the economy at large". --FML talk - me at pt 22:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't have to. Being a national currency already does that. In fact, it's BTC not being a national currency that puts the burden on you showing its impact.
As for it's used by Silk Road. Any other notable groups accepting it?
I dunno...what makes you think it has an impact anyway? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
First of all, "being a national currency" says nothing. What the importance of this country in the world economy? "Country" is merely a invisible line. Bitcoin is worldwide, much more than a simple country. Do you consider WordPress a notable group? [4], or Internet Archive? Maybe this list can help too: [5]. And what about Wikipedia? --FML talk - me at pt 22:35, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Most of that list are effective nobodies. Also, your source for Wikipedia in fact demonstrates we don't accept it.

And I'm not impressed by your attempt to claim being a national currency means nothing.

I'm gonna remove BTC if I see it on here. Feel free to file a a complaint, but you haven't really made your case. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 22:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I will keep removing it as well (when I'm not defending myself from Bitcoiners secretly making admin reports without proper notification *cough*); Bitcoin is not a legal tender and as it is, it's closer to company stock. It has no business on the page. Petomaatti (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, if there is no good arguments to remove I also will keep putting the Bitcoin in the list. Wikipedia must inform, don't be a barn of activists trying to hide the true. --FML talk - me at pt 02:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay, just so I've gotten this straight, you're saying that something used by a few websites is on par with a national currency. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 03:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Lenin, "few websites"? What is the fun talking like this? Really. I did not get your point. Bitcoin is accepted also in a physical places but it is also irrelevant. Bitcoin could be used only for savings and it would be still relevant. The title of article is "highest-valued currency unit". It says "currency" and I understand by currency anything used to buy things and is being negotiated in many markets in many other currencies (including USD of course). If it is not true, we *need* change the article Bitcoin. Also, we can try to change the article title to "highest-valued fiat currency unit" or "highest-valued currency unit controlled by a country or gov" (in this case we should remove XDR as well). Or we can at least mention the Bitcoin, and we can give a chance to the reader make his own judgment if the relevancy. At least the reader will know that there is a real currency circling around where its unit is more than US$ 13. Just removing or hidden the information won't help anyone. If we try to keep removing the information it won't help as well, because you can see, there are people *using* Bitcoin all the time for everything around the world. I live in Brazil (you could notice by my terrible English, sorry about that) and I use Bitcoin to buy almost any gadget I want on the Internet. So, when some Bitcoin user see this list, he will put the information again, and again, and again. I will put again too, because when I see something wrong on Wikipedia I immediately fix it. And this list is wrong now, it's missing information. I'll fix it asap as I can. If I could not (I don't have many time for this), someone will do in the future. --FML talk - me at pt 03:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I had no idea there was so much bitterness and resentment towards bitcoin. Anyway, I think bitcoin is clearly a currency - it was designed as a currency and is used as a currency. There's a large - and growing - number of bitcoin transactions each day, hundreds (at least) of merchants that accept bitcoin, and dozens of places where bitcoin is exchanged for fiat currencies. One of the criticisms of bitcoin I read here is that it's inherently worthless, only useful as a "transport system." Well that is what currency is, and all fiat currencies are inherently worthless as well. One also argued that it's not a currency because it's not legal tender anywhere. If the USA were to abolish all legal tender laws, USD would still count as a currency. I think bitcoin should be included as a currency because it meets the criteria stated at the top of this page: "The highest-valued currency unit is the currency in which a single unit buys the highest number of any given other currency or the largest amount of a given good. Most commonly the calculation is made against a major reserve currency such as the euro (EUR), the pound sterling (GBP) or the United States dollar (USD)." Bitcoin is a currency, and a single unit buys the most USD and Euros and the most of a given good (at merchants that accepts both bitcoins and USD or Euros). Therefore, I firmly believe bitcoins should be included on this list. Sangaman (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Bitcoin is, largely, not used as a currency. Rather, it is used as a commodity of sorts. It's largely used simply for speculation on the price. You get bitcoins to sell them for a higher price in USD down the line. Any business that accepts bitcoins largely does it simply for the gimmick value of attracting the handful of true believers. You do not exchange Bitcoins for USD, you sell or purchase Bitcoins for USD. You can not go to a bank and exchange your bitcoins for another currency. You have to, instead, sell it using exchanges like Magic the Gathering Online Exchange. That is why Bitcoin is not a currency. (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Here's why your argument is invalid: People are willing to offer various currencies for Bitcoins through various outlets just like currencies past and present. The nature of the outlets and whether or not you consider them a "bank" is irrelevant. Bitcoins are a current medium of exchange in various communities and locales throughout the world. Bitcoins can be redeemed for various types of value. This is what defines a currency, it's ability to be redeemed and Bitcoins can be easily and quickly redeemed for value. Not A Government Shill (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
When you consider commodities, they're not really too far off from what you describe. People are just as willing to offer various currencies for gold, rice, etc. Redeeming Bitcoins means nothing more than selling them to someone else (assuming that you mean redeeming it into real world value, and not redeeming something like a scratch card for BTC), there's no commodity (say, silver) or legal tender backing them to redeem. Bitcoins are as liquid as the market allows, though. No buyers wanting the stuff, no selling going on. Easily and quickly, well, that's fairly subjective - I believe I can sell securities faster and easier than convert Bitcoin into USD/EUR/whatever. Being able to sell them doesn't make them a currency. Petomaatti (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The fact is though that plenty of people want bitcoin even if it's not converted to USD/Euro first. Anyway, see the section that lists multiple reliable sources that call bitcoin a currency, whether or not bitcoin is a currency is not really in dispute anywhere except this wiki page. Sangaman (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how this is relevant - the previous editor put forth a specific definition for currency, and I argued that commodities work pretty much the same way as this particular definition of currency. Petomaatti (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
This is a flawed and ignorant take on bitcoins and currency exchanges. There are plenty of people who use bitcoins for all sorts of purchases, and the reason anyone would speculate on it is because of its usefulness as a currency. It would take me too long to list all the things that can be bought with bitcoin, and Wordpress is an example of a large and legitimate business that accepts bitcoins for its anonymous and borderless nature and not because it's a gimmick. You also don't seem to understand how currency exchanges work, when you "exchange" one currency for another what you are doing is selling the currency you own and buying the currency you want. There is no way to "convert" one currency to another besides buying and selling. There are dozens of exchanges besides Mt. Gox and in many you exchange with the website and not users on the website. In other words, there are no buy/sell orders, just an option to convert x dollars into y bitcoins or vice-versa. Check out coinbase for one such example. Thefreedictionary defines currency as "Money in any form when in actual use as a medium of exchange."[1] Speculation and exchanges do not disqualify one system from being a currency and are rather quite common amongst fiat currencies. Truly, you yourself have acknowledged that bitcoin is a currency in your post above when you said "exchange your bitcoins for another currency. Sangaman (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
To be accurate, Wordpress themselves don't accept bitcoins. They vicariously take bitcoins through a third party, Wordpress then receives their payments in a form that's useful for their operation. (talk) 12:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't call that accurate. Plenty of shops only accept payment through a payment processor, a third party in other words. If Wordpress were to accept Kuwaiti dinars as payment, but only through a payment processor that converts them to USD on their behalf, Wordpress would still be accepting Kuwaiti Dinar. But hey, don't take my word for it - Forbes' article on the subject is titled "Wordpress now accepts bitcoin across the planet."[2] Sangaman (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
The fact that you need to give Bitcoins to a third party who will then sell them to get an actual currency to give to Wordpress shows that Wordpress does not, in fact, accept Bitcoins. (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
That's called a payment processor. You are using an unconventional definition of "accepts." I just included a mainstream, reliable source that clearly says Wordpress accepts bitcoins. Here is another major, reliable source that clearly says Wordpress accepts bitcoins. "Wordpress now accepts bitcoins" from PC World.[3] The fact is that you can pay for Wordpess services with Bitcoins and multiple reliable sources have published articles about how Wordpress accepts bitcoins. Sangaman (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
There is nothing unconventional about that person's usage of "accepts". I run a business and we take payments thru PayPal. We don't accept USD, EUR, JPY, GBP. We accept AUD. If somebody wants to fund their PayPal account with any of these currencies, that's their prerogative, and is invisible to me. If somebody with bitcoins wants to donate to Wordpress, they solicit BitPay's service to donate real money on their behalf. The titles of the articles you've linked say one thing, but the devil is in the detail. (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

All the bitcointers are happy with Canadian Tire Money being added to the list too, then, following their logic? Your Lord and Master (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

For reference, the lists are now being listed as being on unsafe connections to me. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 23:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

As someone who supports bitcoin's inclusion on this page, I am fine with a separate section for the most valuable non-ISO currencies as a compromise. Any objections? Sangaman (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think alternative currency would be a better home for matters regarding non-ISO currencies, or a whole new page for aggregating digital/virtual currency. Petomaatti (talk) 05:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The conversation is pretty spread out so I'll try to recap my objections and refer to relevant policy.

Why should this article stay? Why not delete it?
WP:NOTESAL - "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." ... "Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list."
Most valuable currency, highest-valued currency, and variations thereof are not uncommon questions, and a search returns quite a number of hits from non-financial/non-interested sources - and that is with removing sites mirroring Wikipedia content. Because the topic provides the relevant information, I would say the list topic is considered notable and appropriate for a stand-alone list.
Do note that AfD'ing during edit dispute may be grounds for speedy keep under 2d, "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course".
Why not include Bitcoin? Why not mention Bitcoin? Why not include Bitcoin in a non-ISO currency list?
WP:SALAT - "The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination. To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the size and topic of lists."
WP:INDISCRIMINATE - "As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia."
WP:UNDUE - "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views."
WP:GEVAL - "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship."
I believe that to implement these policies, there needs to be an additional control to determine what is listed, because virtually anything could be called a currency and arbitrarily valued to gain access to the list. Considering how current attempts to legitimize Bitcoin are referrals to websites calling Bitcoin a currency, adding Bitcoin doesn't seem to be more than using Wikipedia as a vehicle for legitimization - getting the word out there - and as such is undue legitimization.
To that end, ISO 4217 is a currency code standard from a non-interested 3rd party, and I think inclusion to an international standard would make it unambiguously "commonly accepted". It's also supposedly a precedent on other currency articles. Adding a supplementary list for non-ISO currencies would allow for virtually anything to be listed again, and would just require yet another a control. As mentioned earlier, currencies such as Bitcoin already have a home in alternative currency, and even a new article for digital/virtual currencies might not be a bad idea.
  • My conclusion: This article should only list currencies with a ISO 4217 currency code and not contain supplementary lists for currencies without one. Petomaatti (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I object. Where does one draw the line with what should be represented as an alternative currency? No. The line must be drawn here. This far, and no further.

Japanese Yen[edit]

With decent knowledge of the economic peculiarities of the yen, I'd like to acknowledge that the base unit of the Japanese yen is ¥100. The lack of usage of the decimal point doesn't mean that the yen should be discredited as one of the highest valued currencies. Per unit $1,£1,€1,CHF1,KWD1 is equivalent to ¥76.2,124.9,109.3,98.6,281.5 respectively.Per unit ¥100 is worth $1.30,£.80,€.91,CHF1.01,KWD.35 in the same order. Such values would place it as the tenth highest valued currency ahead of the swiss franc, and behind the Cayman Island Dollar.

--Rooboy715 (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The same could be said for any low valued currency. This list, however, is 1 unit of the currency, not 100. Currency man (talk) 07:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

fixed rates[edit]

the Jordan dinar is fixed at 0.709, not 0.71, this has also been the average rate in 2011, with daily jumps to 0.708 and 0.710 [6]

the Cayman Islands dollar does not seem to be fixed any more, at least not to 1.20549. It was fixed at 1.2 until some date. Even if it is still fixed, the 1.2something rate should be bold, not the inverse.

the Latvian lats is floating around the value of 0.709something to the euro [7], while the official rate is supposed to be 0.702804. Where is the 0.708483 from? --androl (talk) 17:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Historical highest valued currency[edit]

Wouldn't it be interesting to add a historical highest valued currency section showing the highest valued currencies through history? Just like in the least valued currencies article --eddypc07 (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Only if we can find an accurate enough source. Most currency value websites (like only go back to the mid-90s, and even then they don't have listings for every currency that far back. ZanderSchubert (talk) 06:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

ISO code requirement[edit]

I have removed the ISO code requirement as this is being unilaterally pushed by Dree12 without clear community consensus.

It follows that there should be discussion of this point. Canar (talk) 23:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your removal. I have undone an anon edit that put it back in. Outback the koala (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I apologize for unilaterally pushing the requirement, I was attempting to be bold given the edit warring earlier today. I also agree with the removal and I support a discussion on this requirement. The requirement was based on the list in this article, which used solely ISO 4217 currencies. Dree12 (talk) 01:36, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I see no reason for this requirement outside of a POV-push on a what currency is and what isn't. Let's go by the reliable sources available and the sources say Bitcoin is a currency. (talk) 05:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Name one reliable source that says Bitcoin is a currency. Note: Sites dedicated to Bitcoin are not reliable. That's the main reason for the ISO requirement. It's a reliable source. (talk) 06:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the removal of the ISO requirement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with the removal of the ISO requirement.

Okay, full disclosure: I found out BTC was being pushed here through SA. I lurk.

I don't have any emotional stake in the matter - I just think it looks rather ridiculous to have something without a government backing or a widespread usage on this list. This isn't about BTC - it's about Wikipedia being credible.

Now, can someone please explain to me why BTC should be here anyway? Was there ever a problem with ISO 4217 as a standard for inclusion before BTC? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 06:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


The article is locked because of the edit-warring content dispute. From reviewing just a little of what is above, it is hard to believe that three days will be long enough for you to work out your disputes. I will extend it if I have to. I will also sanction any editor who makes personal attacks in the discussion. Frankly, some of the comments on this page are appalling.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree Bbb, thanks! Who could mediate this conflict? Is not there a middle ground that at least mention Bitcoin? Some text like: "Note: Bitcoin has a unit value of approx. $ 13, but is off the list for being a coin very recent (2009) and even controversy.". Bitcoin has 1/3 to half million dollar diary volume [8] of exchanges, how this currency, negotiated much more than many other, can be out of the list? --FML talk - me at pt 03:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the protection, that was much needed. I am still of the opinion that ISO 4217 membership should be required for admission on this page. ISO 4217 is recognized worldwide and is the precedent on other currency pages. While it is fair for Bitcoin to be mentioned, perhaps on an "other currencies" sublist, as per List of sovereign states, is more suitable than placing it directly on the list? Dree12 (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • I am not going to take a position on the content disputes. There are dispute resolution mechanisms open to you to resolve them if you fail to reach a clear consensus here.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Dree12, I agree with you. ISO 4217 seems to be quite clear and objective criteria, even unfair. But it must be explicit in the article, because a unaware can just put Bitcoin again in good faith. Even if we use that criteria, and it's good because it's objective, I think it is important at least a mention in the text about Bitcoin. It is a curious fact, but more than that, it is good information. --FML talk - me at pt 03:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree with ISO 4217 but I think Bitcoin shouldn't be mentioned. The article is a list with standings; either it's on the list with a standing or it isn't. Petomaatti (talk) 13:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
And as we can see here, the last edition of ISO 4217 was in 2008, and Bitcoin was invented in 2009. Who knows BTC wouldn't is in the next edition? But how we can't predict the future, at least for now we can make a mention to Bitcoin. --FML talk - me at pt 03:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Is it acceptable to knowingly leave an article 4 years out of date? --Smickles86 (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Dree12, have a look on this: [9]. It seems they are already working on some kind of formal recognition. It is very recent: November 2012. --FML talk - me at pt 03:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
They, as in International Standards Organization? No, that's just a draft sent to them by someone else. You can send any draft too, and it'll appear on the webpage; it's not an endorsement or status indication from ISO. Petomaatti (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
As someone who supports bitcoin's inclusion on this page, I would be OK with a separate section for non-ISO currencies, assuming ISO is truly the precedent for other currency pages. I know little about ISO though or how often it is updated, if it gets updated very rarely I believe it wouldn't make a good necessary criteria for defining a currency in general. Sangaman (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

In retrospect, this may have been the worst time ever to do this, but: I have (finally) updated the values of all the currencies in the table. If any admin wants to update all the figures, I've currently got an updated version of the page (excluding the BitCoin) here. ZanderSchubert (talk) 06:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC) (Modified 12:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC) to correct link)

In my opinion, it appears a consensus has been reached as per above sections. With a large majority backed by relevant wikipedia policy,directly and soundly explained, in support of the non inclusion of essentially any of a large possible number of alternative currencies. There is after all an alternative currency article, which again seems to be the consensus for the appropriate place for bit coin as per above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Reliable Sources That Call Bitcoin a Currency[edit]

In response to the argument about Bitcoin inclusion:

"Bitcoin is a currency that exists online."

"Are Bitcoins Becoming Europe's New Safe Haven Currency?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Not A Government Shill (talkcontribs) 06:44, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"I’ve never been all that enthusiastic about Bitcoin: it seems to me to fail a number of the necessary prerequisites of a successful fiat currency."

"A few months back, we explored Bitcoin, and the growing attention it was receiving. The distributed currency has certainly been getting a lot of attention lately (causing the exchange rate to skyrocket)."

The sources say its a currency. I can provide more upon request.

- Not A Government Shill (talk) 06:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Why does this page even exist?[edit]

The "highest-valued currency" isn't a notable topic or useful for anything at all. (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree! :D useless at all. --FML talk - me at pt 23:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 December 2012[edit]

add bitcoins! (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


Can someone with editing privileges update it from June data to December data? That'd be nice Fishmech (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 December 2012[edit]

The values given in the table are six months out of date. More recent figures are available on this user page.

ZanderSchubert (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 03:49, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

request for quick deletion[edit]

As the page cannot be edited I will place this here in good faith;

{{rfd|this information is both NOT NOTABLE and has been entirely ignored and left OVERTLY out of date until this recent "bitcoin" drama and therefore categorically incorrect in addition to being not notable. deletion of this not notable and unreliable stub would completely solve this childish debate over an article which shouldn't be here in the first place, at the very least should not be here in this form}}

The {{rfd}} template is both misplaced (it doesn't go on talk pages) and inappropriate (it is only for redirects, which this isn't). Please see WP:DELETE regarding potential routes to deletion, although I suspect that the only one which won't be rejected straight away will be WP:AFD. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
For the record, I would have edited the values on the page on Sunday had the page not been protected. ZanderSchubert (talk) 09:18, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

bitcoin is a currency add it!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Bitcoins strike again[edit]

Guys, the bitcoin's value keeps raising. It's already 23.5$, shouldn't it at least be noted, even if it's not on the list? In the reference you can add charts like this or Mt. Gox's value. Keep in mind that it is widely accepted, over 1000 businesses already accept it, so even if they would be special lego pieces that you can use to buy a cheeseburger, it's a currency. Bharel (talk) 07:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a sign of instability. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 20:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's currently stable at the 23.5$ mark, nevertheless, stable or not, it's still a currency :/ Bharel (talk) 14:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I have three points I would like to make regarding your comments. 1) It isn't stable, 2) It isn't a currency - its deflationary nature makes it more of an investment, of course leading to 3) It's lack of stability renders it a relatively unsound investment. Danger408 (talk) 06:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah! After all, without Bitcoin, how could you buy this sweet-ass goat? - Desine (talk) 08:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

27 years old goat? No wonder they're selling it, I heard that bitcoiners like their partners young. SAxToshi (talk) 12:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Dear Goonrush,
Just a reminder that the talk page is for discussion of improving the article. It is not a forum. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It's unstable, alright... One bitcoin is right now worth $220.00. :) -- (talk) 14:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

National currencies only?[edit]

Lenin and McCarthy, explain yourself.

You removed my edit to "highest valued currency unit" with the comment "keep this to national currencies". Why is that, exactly? Who decided that this page is about national currencies? And when?

Undoing your revert, and please follow proper etiquette. Mrcatzilla (talk) 01:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I would think it would be obvious that a page like this would be about national currencies rather than an e-token system. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 02:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure why that is "obvious", exactly. Bitcoin, which you dismissively refer to as "e-token system", is a digital peer-to-peer currency, recognized by a few countries (notably Germany [4][5][6]). Please provide some argumentation to defend your viewpoint. Mrcatzilla (talk) 02:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Alright, so it's an online private currency. That doesn't really explain why it should be considered on par with a national currency. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 17:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Why should it not be considered on par with a national currency? Who and when decided that this page is reserved for national currencies? You still haven't provided an argument to defend your position. Mrcatzilla (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
As much as I hate to go "no u", this page started out as a national currency page, so you should be the one making a case for why it belongs here. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 19:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
When the page is updated all the currencies listed need to be updated from a single source to keep it consistent. Is there a source that lists the exchange rate of the bitcoin alongside all the other currencies that is suitable for updating this page? The absence of such a source would be a good reason for not listing the bitcoin. Karl (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
The source used to update all floating exchange rates does include the bitcoin. See . However the addition of the bitcoin should be removed till the page is updated so all exchange rates are consistent. Karl (talk) 12:04, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
XE doesn't endorse bitcoin's status as a currency. On their info page for XBT (, they say Bitcoin is not legal tender in any country and is not recognized as an official currency by any regulatory authority. XE does not endorse nor express an opinion as to whether or not Bitcoin is an official or legitimate currency. In other words, the only source for these exchange rates in this article is unwilling to recognize Bitcoin as a currency. Breadblade (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I am glad we finally came to a consensus - Bitcoin stays. I am going to go ahead and update all values in the table, too.Mrcatzilla (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure that we have a consensus. That link also has entries such as XAU: The value of 1oz gold. Should it be included? Karl (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
The wiki page for gold does now not claim that it's a currency, but it does for Bitcoin. Mrcatzilla (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources for any purpose (WP:WPNOTRS) Breadblade (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Reverting vandalism again. The page is titled "Highest valued currency unit", without specifying "fiat" or "national" currency.

2Awwsome reverted it again citing Let me quote from there: "If it removed content with no explanation or an unconvincing one, note that you are restoring valid content, and why the explanation is unconvincing (if the edit summary box is too small for this, continue on the talk page)."

I am open to discussion on whether this page is reserved for national currencies only or not. You will need to present a coherent argument, though.

Mrcatzilla (talk) 15:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

If bitcoin really needs to be in this list, the article shouldn't be protected, because people would need to update the exchange rate of this incredibly stable currency on an hourly basis. EditorInTheRye (talk) 10:10, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


In the merger with List of circulating currencies, information has been lost. This information being the exchange rates and the rank. This may not be worth restoring, but I do note that the Russian language version of that articles does include exchange rates along with pictures of banknotes and coins.

Karl (talk) 13:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The loss of information was because of vandalism by Volunteer Marek, which has been reverted. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 14:06, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Please stop referring to my edits as vandalism, that's bordering on personal attacks. The information was removed simply because it was original research. Volunteer Marek  16:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
I've got a source now that refers to highest-valued currencies, and it's not a mirror. Restoring content because of a new source. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 18:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
No, no you don't. You simply can't tell a Wikipedia mirror from a reliable source. Please see WP:COMPETENCE.  Volunteer Marek  21:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)


Re: [10]


The result of the AfD was to merge [11]. The "merge" part actually involved a single sentence or note, not all the nonsense OR that is the subject of this "article".

Regardless of what the proper merge procedure, or what exactly the material that needs to be merged is, you can't simply ignore the outcome of the AfD by claiming that "merge is not complete".

One, this "not complete" is your own idiosyncratic opinion which has no consensus what so ever on the relevant talk page [12]. You basically want to transport this piece of crap article wholesale to a different article where it would be as crappy and ORish as it is here. Understandably other editors don't feel the same way. You don't get to have your way simply because you're more obstinate, unreasonable, argumentative and obnoxious than other editors.

Two, even putting aside the issue of what portion of this article deserves to be included in the other one, you don't get to ignore the AfD and keep restoring this one until you get your way. All the material is in the page history. If somehow you manage to convince others that some other parts of this article should be merged as well - not just the short note for which the AfD-merge result gave consensus - then, and only then, you can put that stuff in the other article. For the time being, quit restoring the text of this article. It was rejected at AfD for a reason.




 Volunteer Marek  21:48, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

As not even a bit of information from this article was merged, it is not possible to delete it yet. --Jklamo (talk) 01:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
You can take that up in the discussion at List of circulating currencies. Unfortunately there's almost nothing in this article that isn't nonsensical, unsourced OR. The little bit that could conceivably be useful - that the Kuwaiti dinar traded for most dollars of any national currency - was in fact merged into the other article. Respect the outcome of the AfD. Volunteer Marek  02:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I accidentally saved my revert without completing my edit summary, so explaining here: If more information needs to be merged to that article, you can still merge it there. Edit warring over the result of a concluded AfD isn't going to get anyone anywhere, however. Breadblade (talk) 07:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

'Merge' does not mean delete and redirect. It wasn't merged, so it shouldn't be redirected until the merge has been completed. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 08:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

And if you don't think it should be anywhere on Wikipedia, consider a second AfD. Oh, and btw, "this "not complete" is your own idiosyncratic opinion" is false because none of the information is anywhere on the target page, not even as a note. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up. 17:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The part that wasn't OR crap was merged. The rest needs to go into the dustbin of Wikipedia history. "Merge not complete" is a bullsh*t reason which you are simply using to ignore the outcome of the AfD.
Allow me also to point out that this is like the fourth or fifth perfectly pointless dispute/edit-war that you've managed to start in your very short tenure on Wikipedia. Please stop wasting people's time. Volunteer Marek  18:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
None of it was merged. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up. 21:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Sigh. The part about the Kuwaiti dinar - which is the *only* part that can be very very very charitable described as non-OR, and which is the *only* part that there was *some* support for merging - was merged into the article [13]. Honestly, even that bit is WP:UNDUE and trivial. *You* then replaced the merged with a copy paste of the present article [14]. This was then reverted.
Again. The content of this article is 99% original research. There are no reliable sources on the subject. Such sources don't exist because the concept itself is nonsensical and made up. The consensus on AfD reflect this, with the small proviso that the part about the Kuwaiti dinar *could*, but does not have to, be merged into List of circulating currencies.
If you are able to convince editors at the talk page of List of circulating currencies that some larger chunk of this article should be included there, then you can *always* go to the page history here, find the relevant info and put it in. Good luck with that though, since the consensus at that page is very clearly against you.
For the time being however, we have to respect the outcome of the AfD and redirect this to List of circulating currencies.
 Volunteer Marek  19:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Your merge was reverted. For the time being we have to respect the outcome of the AfD and merge it. If it wasn't merged it should be kept here. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up.See where I screwed up. 19:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
More WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Nobody but you wants this material anywhere. Policy requires that if you want it kept you provide a reliable source. You haven't. If somehow you manage that magic trick you can ask for the article to be restored. In the meantime the outcome of the AfD was most definitely *not* "keep" so stop edit warring over this. Volunteer Marek  19:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^
  4. ^
  5. ^
  6. ^