Template talk:Cryptocurrencies

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GNU Taler?[edit]

Perhaps GNU Taler should be included under "Other" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:19, 18 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Auroracoin which is listed as scrypt based is not scrypt based and should be removed. ( (talk) 18:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Collapsing template[edit]

How to collapsing this template, I've tried {{Cryptocurrencies |state=collapsed}} no luck so far. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update, works on the Cryptocurrency article - maybe it depends where the navbox is deployed

First three section are all cryptocurrencies, add section for companies?[edit]

The first three sections are cryptocurrencies divided by encryption type. Also would it be good to add a section for organizations involved such as Bitcoin Foundation and LocalBitcoins. Proposal below. Jonpatterns (talk) 15:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By encryption Hash coin coin coin coin coin
N coin coin coin coin
other coin coin coin
Organizations organization organization organization
Related topic topic topic
I don't think encryption makes all that much sense. It's outdated. A more logical one would be to sort by "Proof-of-X". Namely Proof of work and Proof of stake. Though there will be some outsiders or combinations. Would also think that a list of organzations would be rather huge-Thomas (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Selective removals[edit]

An editor has been selectively removing entries from the template. This kind of template is essentially a navigation template, so all cryptocurrencies that have articles should be listed. If a currency is removed due to not being notable, it can be removed from the template. Greenman (talk) 12:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Greenman: It wasn't me - but I'm close to do it too. I mean Titcoin? Really? You cant be serious. Are you planning to list all 600 coins that ever existed? Coins like Auroracoin have totally fallen out of use, and shown to be scams (same as MazaCoin for all I know). I think a top 10 should do, and scams should not get any exposure. -Thomas (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)Selective removalsReply[reply]
(PS.: Coinye - disfunct since a full year!)
@Thomas Veil:Titcoin and Coinye already have articles, so they should be on the navigation template. Wikipedia navigation templates are used to navigate, and therefore list all the related articles in that topic. I have not added any cryptocurrency coin articles, and don't plan to, but you need to be able to find those that exist :) A navigation template is not the place to be selective - the article itself is, so if any of the coins are not notable, that can be discussed on the article page and the article deleted if needs be. I'm aware that some of the coins are in disuse and are/were scams, but that does not make them not notable in itself. Many topics get articles because of their notoriety. Greenman (talk) 11:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Greenman:I see - makes sense. So it's more an issue with which pages exist. (Though Coinye is more notable because it bothered Kayne West, rather than that it was a currency).-Thomas (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right. If you think any of of the articles do not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements, you can start an AfD. Regarding Titcoin in particular I think it barely passes WP:N (maybe not -- a lot of it a trivial mentions). There's basically zero people who still cares however (see [1], market cap of $9000 and 24hr volume of 1 BTC), but as per WP:NTEMP an AfD will probably fail. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

KodakCoin as an ICO, not an Ethash coin[edit]

For the record, if we listed every cryptocurrency in this template we would've filled Wikimedia's servers full.

KodakCoin is an Initial Coin Offering, and should not be listed here. There are already tons of ICOs, listing this one in particular does not make sense.

My arguments:

  • Ether is a fundamentally important currency for the operation of other currencies (such as ERC-20 tokens and other tokens). It is used in Ethereum, therefore is listed as an Ethash PoW secured currency.
  • KodakCoin is an ICO, which currently does not even exist (at least to the public). It should not be listed as a currency until more details are released. It also seems to be regulated by U.S. laws, and it follows a KYC scheme, according to their website.
  • There is no source pointing towards KodakCoin being secured by Ethash. It seems to only be an ICO, there is no future mining or staking. This may change in the future.

Potential counterarguments:

  • KodakCoin exists on its own blockchain. It already has an ICO. Therefore KodakCoin should be listed as a currency. Refute – KodakCoin can be called a currency, but is not Ethash secured. If necessary, it should be listed in a new article for ICOs to reduce bloat in this template.
  • KodakCoin will be on a separate blockchain. This means it need a Proof of Work algorithm to secure it, and it is its own fundamental currency. Refute – We do not know any details about a separate blockchain. Blockchains DO NOT require PoW to secure itself. They can use other schemes, including (but not limited to) Proof of Stake and Proof of Authority. Most ICOs also only offer the tokens on an existing blockchain, and stake is transferred to a separate blockchain while the devs get to keep the funds (should the fundraiser be successful). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheExceptionCloaker (talkcontribs) 01:01, 4 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
KodakCoin is a cryptocurrency. That's the criteria for being listed in this nav box. The purpose of the nav box is simply navigation. KodakCoin is Ethereum based, which means it fits into the Ethash category, right? I don't understand the relevance of the ICO to this matter. - MrX 🖋 23:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2018[edit]

There is an additional consensus mechanism that should be added under the 'consensus mechanisms' category. This additional mechanism is: Proof of Stake 3.0. Also, BitBay, BlackCoin, and Colossus need to be added under this new category of Proof of Stake 3.0. [1] [2] [3] Tradersnow (talk) 19:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:09, 11 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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

I would like to add PIVX to a Proof of Stake list Onezetty (talk) 06:16, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: PIVX does not appear to have a wikipedia article at present. Template:Cryptocurrencies is a navigational template; the point of the template is to aid navigation between related wikipedia articles. If an entity does not have an article, it will not be included in this template. Thanks, NiciVampireHeart 15:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I actually wrote a subsection about PIVX a while ago that can be seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zerocoin_protocol#Private_Instant_Verified_Transaction_(PIVX). Perhaps this can be re-requested? Dr-Bracket (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 October 2018[edit]

Add Blackcoin to the list of Proof-Of-Stake currencies. It introduced Proof-Of-Stake v3 to the market which have been adapted by a number of other coins. (talk) 15:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rejected All entries in a template need articles. Not only does Blackcoin not have an article, its previous article was deleted - David Gerard (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

The link under "Proof-of-Work - SHA-256" for the cryptocurrency "Steem" needs to be moved to "Proof-of-Stake" and needs to have the page it links to changed from "Steemit" to "Steem." The current placement and link are incorrect. SouthernWolf95 (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done--B dash (talk) 05:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This template should include all cryptocurrencies with articles[edit]

Just to echo Greenman (talk · contribs) above, this is a navigation template, and should include all of the cryptocurrencies with articles on Wikipedia. If an entry is non-notable, then the article should be nominated for deletion, not simply removed from the template. I have already added a number of currencies in this edit and would appreciate help adding any I missed. Best, BenKuykendall (talk) 06:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We can add Zerocoin_protocol#Private_Instant_Verified_Transaction_(PIVX) if someone can find a reliable source on what their hashing algorithm is. Dr-Bracket (talk) 04:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that if it has an article it should be included. Pinging @Smallbones: who recently removed MazaCoin in this edit. Џ 10:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2019[edit]

Auroracoin is not "Scrypt based", so should be removed from the list of "Scrypt based" currencies; Same applies for Potcoin and Gridcoin. (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is why coins should require their hashing algorithm defined in the article before being added to the table. How else are we supposed to verify the table's accuracy? Dr-Bracket (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A few seconds of research would be enough to figure this out, or if anyone who actually knew anything about crypto currencies were involved in these articles... Unfortunately the crypto currency articles are dominated by a cabal of people who know nothing about the subject matter, have a bias against crypto currencies and who chase all new contributors away, and so we sit with absolute rubbish quality stuff like this horrendously inaccurate table. ( (talk) 09:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC))Reply[reply]
 Not done for now: Please state which sources you believe are "biased" before making accusations against users. ToThAc (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please state why you believe it is good to continue representing information that is trivially provable to be false, while on other parts of wikipedia valid information with actual citations is struck down based on lengthy notability discussions. Please stop these double standards immediately and remove this misinformation. These coins are not scrypt based, remove them. ( (talk) 07:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC))Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2019[edit]

Please move the cryptocurrency Steem from the "Proof of Work" to the "Proof of Stake" section, because Steem uses the delegated Proof of Stake consensus protocol.

The cryptocurrency Steem started with a "new" consensus approach, which was initially misleadingly called "Proof Of Work" in the bitcointalk announcement and is actually a combination of Proof of Stake, Proof of Work, and Voting. This consensus algorithm later became known under the term "delegated Proof Of Stake" (DPoS), because the stakeholders are voting the "miners" (which are called witnesses in Steem, or block producers in EOS). EOS, which was the follow-up project after Steem, uses a similar approach.[1][2]Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).[3]

VikiSecrets (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by VikiSecrets (talkcontribs) 11:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2019[edit]

Please remove ALQO as it has been WP:G11d. (talk) 13:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done Chris Troutman (talk) 13:22, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2019[edit]

Please add Tezos to the list of Proof of stake currencies. That is, please change Fredcy (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done, since the article Tezos exists and seems notable at first glance. —Nizolan (talk · c.) 04:20, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2019[edit]

This template lists NXT as a Proof-of-Work cryptocurrency. This is not true. NXT is not minable and is purely Proof-of-Stake. Jacobrobertwoods (talk) 09:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done how did that get there ... anyway, moved, thanks - David Gerard (talk) 10:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Non-fungible token[edit]

Maybe add Non-fungible token ?! 2A02:2455:460:2400:8447:DC8E:4900:F1DE (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 February 2020[edit]

Add "*Nano" to the " RockmSockmJesus (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done. To what exactly? –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:57, 10 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2020[edit]

Add Digibyte to list of Proof of Work cryptocurrencies. DigiByte is a 100% Proof of Work (PoW) blockchain that can be mined with five algorithms called Sha256, Scrypt, Skein, Qubit and Odocrypt. Cryptosquawatch (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: Entries in this list need to have an existing article in Wikipedia's main article namespace. The only article I see about this is a declined draft from a few months ago, which is not sufficient. If you would like to improve that draft and work toward getting it published as a live article, please see the advice on that draft for how to proceed. You can also review an essay with some advice at WP:WTAF. Thanks, ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minor nomenclature edit Ada -> Cardano[edit]

Would it be possible to adjust Ada to Cardano Nizolan / Chris Troutman ? Although a rather small change it is consistent with the template reference to project rather than ticker. Thank you :) Blockchainus Maximus (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 21:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for letting me know ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) :) Will make the edit in that case.Blockchainus Maximus (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2021[edit]

Please add Algorand to proof of stake cryptocurrencies (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: All entries in navigation templates need to have corresponding articles (which Algorand doesn't), see WP:WTAF. Volteer1 (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to include companies associated with Cryptocurrencies?[edit]

I think companies such as CoinMarketCap should be implemented into this navbox, struggling to think of what the title of the section should be called though. What do you guys think? GR86 (📱) 15:36, 11 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]