Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

RfC: Retail use of bitcoin in the lede

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

---

Does the lede more accurately represent the reliable sources before or after this edit? Bosstopher (talk) 12:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

[Explanatory note: When discussing what people do with bitcoins, the lede currently only mentions retail use although gambling and hoarding are far more popular uses. In fact, little more than 2.5% of bitcoin transactions were associated with purchasing items at retailers. A recent MIT Technology Review article explains bitcoin's use-in-retail-sales deficiency succinctly. Fleetham (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)]

• After Have given my rationale here.Bosstopher (talk) 12:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• After Currently, the lede only mentions retail use of bitcoins, neglecting more popular uses such as hoarding and online gambling. This needs to change. Fleetham (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Before

• The formulation "elicit goods" does not make sense.
• The cited MIT article strived to make it clear that "the design of Bitcoin and the blockchain, its public transaction ledger, make it challenging to distinguish specific types of transactions," and that the formulation "after some growth in 2013, retail volume in 2014 was mostly flat" was an opinion by Tim Swanson. In contrast to the source, the edit presented the statement "retail usage having expanded in 2013 and remained flat in 2014" as a fact, misciting the source.
• In particular, the formulation "remained flat" was miscited. The opinion by Tim Swanson contained the formulation "mostly flat", which is not the same.
• It is a fact that the MIT article cites an opinion of "people who closely track its use" saying "the currency is still used primarily for online gambling, purchases of illicit goods and services, and speculation". The formulation is dubious, however, mentioning three different use cases as "primary".
• The edit based on opinions presented in one cited source removed the mention of retail growth in bitcoin found notable by Techcrunch, The Economist, International Business Times, Reuters, and other sources cited in the article body.
• The formulation "Criminal activities are primarily centered around black markets..." is present in the lead section of the article, it is placed in another paragraph. Its meaning does not differ from a formulation stating that "the purchases of illicit goods and services are one of the main criminal activities". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:11, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I do think for the most part the after edit is better because it makes uses of newer sources. The before edit takes a 2013 source and makes it sound like its still happening. One change I would make as Ladislav Mecir pointed out one source says "mostly" instead of "remained", good synonyms we could use are mainly, overall, and by and large. AlbinoFerret 14:35, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed that while it's better after, some changes do still need to be made. Fleetham (talk) 22:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Definitely After Called by bot. The before version leaves out a good part of the article, and is also using language that is not encyclopedic. After version is definitely better. Darx9url (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

• Comment If the goal is to introduce new informations from bitcoin use analyses, then they should be mentioned in the article body. For example, the information that "the bulk of transaction volume has nothing to do with the actual buying of goods and services" seems to be confirmed by two independent sources, but, at a closer inspection, the sources contradict each other. The Reuters article cites Jeffrey Robinson ascribing bitcoin use primarily to "activities such as miners moving bitcoins between wallets", while the MIT technology article cites a Federal Reserve analysis ascribing bitcoin use primarily to "hoarding and gambling", and "several people who closely track its use" ascribing its use primarily to "online gambling, purchases of illicit goods and services, and speculation". The cited sources explain that "The design of bitcoin and the blockchain, its public transaction ledger, make it challenging to distinguish specific types of transactions." This explains why the ascribed primary uses differ significantly from source to source, and thus, that the primary use of bitcoin is, in fact, unknown. It makes sense to discuss the new findings related to the primary use in the article, but it makes no sense to do it first in the lead section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The thing is, moving bitcoins from one wallet to another isn't using them. Also, hoarding, when it comes to bitcoins, is a form of speculation. Paul Krugman wrote something a while ago promoting the idea that bitcoin would fail because people wouldn't spend them instead hoarding them because they imagined that bitcoins would be more valuable later. So, I imagine you're just confused by 1) synonyms and 2) the distinction between what people might do with bitcoins and how people use bitcoins. Fleetham (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• For me, the opinion of Jeffrey Robinson: "the bulk of that transaction volume has nothing to do with the actual buying of goods and services: activities such as miners moving bitcoins between wallets" is as sensible and revealing as an opinion that "the bulk of fiat transactions has nothing to do with actual buying of goods and services: activities such as bankers moving currency between accounts", with the reservation that it is you who put it to the article.
• "hoarding, when it comes to bitcoins, is a form of speculation" - this idea of yours is original. In fact, hoarding and speculation are terms with different definitions and uses. To find out that not everything is a speculation, I recommend you to read "Speculators play one of four primary roles in financial markets, along with hedgers who engage in transactions to offset some other pre existing risk, arbitrageurs who seek to profit from situations where fungible instruments trade at different prices in different market segments, and investors who seek profit through long-term ownership of an instrument's underlying attributes." mentioned in the lead section of the Speculation article. That sentence clearly and in an explanatory way distinguishes four different types of activities you seem to have a problem to set apart. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The point is, things like hoarding and moving bitcoins between different accounts are not actual uses. These are things that happen to bitcoins but not things people use bitcoins for. No one has ever said, "I feel an urge to transfer something from one account to another. Eureka! I will use bitcoins to fulfill my dreams." Fleetham (talk) 10:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

How does one tell whether a transaction is a peer-to-peer payment or merely a transfer between one entities accounts? For instance, the transaction where a friend pays off a debt to me does not appear any different than me transferring some spending money from my offline savings wallet to my smartphone spending wallet. Mrcatzilla (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and close the RfC soon as it looks like all interested parties have weighed in. Fleetham (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Fleetham , please REPLY to Ladislav's arguments, instead of evading to different issues (your unreferenced opinion of what uses are and are not) and doing your hallmark impatience pushing. just because YOU think the parties that shared your view have weighed in, you cant make the cut. No, Fleetham. 30 days, no less. --Wuerzele (talk) 06:01, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Before. The lede more accurately represents the reliable sources before Bosstophers edit. His edit is

• biased itself, while its author said he found bias. He inserts his personal opinion in particular (Advocates of bitcoin claim retailers have an incentive to accept bitcoin)and in general by stressing negative aspects of bitcoin.
• introducing poor style ("Bitcoin has found its main uses") with uneven expressions like "retail usage having expanded in 2013 and remained flat in 2014"), strangely while criticizing that as well (!)
• full of orthographic (elicit) and grammatic errors ( "data indicates" instead of data in plural).
• using editorializing terms like "rather than for use as currency" or "only a small proportion of bitcoin...."
• making inaccurate quotes (remained flat instead of mostly flat)
• removes sourced information without explanation.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

The reason I wrote "advocates of bitcoin claim" is because that's what the source does too : "Bitcoin advocates, and especially merchants, say one of the currency’s most enticing promises is that it could significantly lower payment processing costs." The writer himself does not claim this. Any negative aspects of bitcoin I am stressing are also stressed in the reliable sources. I am just giving these aspects their due weight. I apologise for the poor spelling and grammar in that edit. However, I still think the general content and direction of my version was more accurate. Also what was the reliably sourced information I removed? Bosstopher (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Before - the after is full of grammar errors and does not cite enough sources for an accurate picture, as it sure sounds like it's biased. We can change that section, but I hope it doesn't end up being the text in the linked edit. ʬʬ (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Before - I agree with the version "before". --Fox1942 (talk) 04:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Category:Carding

So my addition of Category:Carding was reverted as 'unrelated'. Well I disagree, I've been writing up Carding and the category I have applied to MoneyGram, E-gold, Liberty Reserve and Western Union, I think it's only fair this share the category. Deku-shrub (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

How does an article on credit-card fraud relate to Bitcoin? Is there such a thing as a Bitcoin credit card? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree it is unrelated. The only remote connection I could see is if someone used stolen credit cards for buying bitcoins. But by that logic anything you could buy with a stolen credit card would be in the category. No there is no such thing as a bitcoin credit card. Chillum 17:17, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Not only I think that the article is unrelated to carding. I also think that none of MoneyGram, E-gold, Liberty Reserve or Western Union is. It is a mystery to me why did you relate those to carding, while thinking that, e.g., the Credit card article is unrelated. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Bitcoins are "created" by mining is wrong and should be corrected

they are not created by mining; that's a misconception. By design there are a total of 21,000,000 of them and they are released by mining. The system is designed so that the motivation for participating in the bitcoin network will gradually shift from mining reward to transaction fees, and it appears to be working swimmingly. 204.8.27.140 (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

204.8.27.140: "they are not created by mining"

• You should read the formulation in the article and try to understand it. It is not equivalent to the formulation you call "a misconception".
• The formulation in the article is confirmed by an independent reliable source. If you want to change the formulation in the article, consult the WP:NOR article, please, to make sure you propose the material attributable to a reliable source. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:07, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Moving forward from the RfC

Now that the RfC has been closed as no concensus, does anyone have suggestions for how to improve the paragraph about retail use of bitcoin as suggested in the closing remarks? Brustopher (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, per WP:NOCONSENSUS remove the recent additions and return it to the long standing version until consensus can be formed. AlbinoFerret 23:42, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The recent additions were removed a month ago, so that's already done.Brustopher (talk) 23:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, its been a loooong day. AlbinoFerret 01:46, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Brustopher, I don't understand what you are asking with "how to improve the paragraph about retail use of bitcoin as suggested in the closing remarks". I see no closing remarks of the RFC. The long standing version is what it should be, and it is.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

In the close by Kingsindian: The "after" camp also makes some good points mainly about using newer sources, and noting that some aspects of Bitcoin are not addressed adequately in the lead. I suggest that a consensual text be found, perhaps in draft form, before using it in the lead. Brustopher (talk) 09:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a draft should be created and agreed on. Fleetham (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Bitcoin XT

New stub for Bitcoin XT created. Anyone interested please review/fix/expand/enhance/etc. Cheers ✌ -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

XT would be better as a subsection of this article.Chris Arnesen 13:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

As it passes the general notability guideline, a separate article is for XT is no worry. Of course relevant subsections/mentions on Bitcoin and History of Bitcoin are also appropriate. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't notable, though I'm not 100% convinced it is. I said it'd be better as a subsection here. See Wikipedia:Notability#Whether_to_create_standalone_pages -- Chris Arnesen 13:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It's better as both 😎 -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 14:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

XT is supposed to be replacing Bitcoin. So this article should be renamed as the old Bitcoin becomes obsolete and everyone transfers to the XT version of Bitcoin. Or do some editors believe that a fork will happen with some people persistently using the old Bitcoin system? But since magic glass ball fortune telling is not allowed then the article should be moved when there is some official announcement by the Bitcoin management organisation about what is happening and whether 75%* of the miners agree that the switch to the new Bitcoin XT should go ahead. (*percentage of mining power) QuentinUK (talk) 06:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Regards to the Bitcoin Article

Oh great. Now I have to renominate it again for the 3rd time. (GA1 failed, GA2 passed, 6 months later article got delisted) But first, I think there is nothing wrong, but if there is something wrong please do tell me. I mean, I don't see any edit warring going on. BUT, there is a content dispute. Can someone PLEASE tell me what is going on? Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 19:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

The reason it was demoted was that GA2 wasn't a proper review, and people thought there was significant room for improvement. To my knowledge the only content dispute currently ongoing is the RfC further up on the page. Hope this helps explain things. Brustopher (talk) 22:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That helps. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 18:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit #681621567

The edit #681621567 replaced the original word "Conversely", with the word "However". Fleetham justified the edit as "Incorrect use of term". In my opinion (it was not me who introduced the word to the text), the word "Conversely" was appropriate and shall be kept. On the other hand, the word "However" (however well-liked by Fleetham) does not look appropriate, not communicating the same information to the reader. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC) My check in various dictionaries revealed that it is, indeed, possible to use the word "conversely" in such a situation, which makes Fleetham's justification invalid. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree Ladislav Mecir. Conversely is actually more neutral than However. If such a conjunction is needed Id prefer conversely. However is always at risk to smell of WP:SYNTH see MOS:OPED.--Wuerzele (talk) 16:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Wuerzele, in this specific case I have to disagree. Do not forget, please, that the situation in the USA was described in the WSJ as a discussion related to criminal misuse, but the result of the discussion in the parliament turned out to be that the officials expressed their common opinion that bitcoin offers legitimate financial services. That is confirmed by the WSJ article, so there is no WP:SYNTH involved. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Ladislav i dont understand why you posted what you did, as you appear to have changed your mind. (maybe cross it out? I actually was more concerned with the "Officials state..." weasly part. that is really WP: Synth, if it's contained only in one source, and the sentence goes on stringing a series of different refs. whatever the case, I read the lede, and found it overall good, except for the language in the last sentences, which clearly differed. All in all this is a tempest in a tea pot and I will recuse myself from further comments in that matter. --Wuerzele (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit war in the last paragraph of the lead section

Wuerzele, please take this also as a response to the question in the previous section. The last wording of the paragraph) that was stable for some time looked as follows:

The use of bitcoin by criminals has attracted the attention of financial regulators, legislative bodies, law enforcement, and media. Criminal activities are primarily centered around black markets and theft, though officials in countries such as the United States also recognize that bitcoin can provide legitimate financial services.

While only one source (the WSJ) was used to confirm the last sentence, plenty of other sources were available. I mention this in reaction to "it's contained only in one source", which is rather inaccurate when examined properly. Now, new editors came and added a bunch of countries, which, according to your opinion, introduced some inconsistencies. For example, you noted that some of the countries listed, like the Isle of Man or Jersey, may not be countries. Also, you disliked the fact that the "Officials" word was used. I do not think it is reasonable to mention original research just because the editors added new informations to the existing text, but that may be a subject to discussion, which is what I want to start here. For example, to me, the word "officials" did not cease to be appropriate just because new informations and sources were added to a confirmed (by a respectable quantity of reliable sources) statement. To illustrate why I think that the "officials" word may be appropriate even when other countries are added to the statement, let me mention the case of the United Kingdom. The actual source mentions prime minister David Cameron, but there are other sources mentioning George Osborne, e.g. Yet another issue I am having with the text is the WP:OR text added by Fleetham as the last sentence. Summing up, I revert the paragraph to the status quo, until we find a better and consensual wording in this discussion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. My primary concern with the "OR" text was to make it clear that bitcoin didn't attract attention from law enforcement in some countries while in others it was praised as a legitimate financial thingy. Prior, the text could be interpreted as there being pro- and anti-bitcoin countries, but your revert makes it clear that it's reviled and embraced simultaneously in the same countries.. Fleetham (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Cryptocurrency task force Invitation to all

-- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 09:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Replacement of $ by HK$ in Swanson's estimates

Hi all. The edit #688742022 replaced '$' by 'HK$' in Swanson's estimates. I do not see any support for this in the cited sources. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing

News of this new surge could be added to the sections herein: 'Price and volatility' (and/or) 'Bitcoin obituaries'.

Headline-1: Bitcoin Frenzy Back As Epic Bust Fades

• http://www.wsj.com/articles/bitcoin-frenzy-back-as-epic-bust-fades-1446682772

QUOTE: "The bitcoin casino is open again. EU decision to define bitcoin as currency helps spur buying. The price of the digital currency has climbed as much as 50% this week, re-creating ..." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

The definition of bitcoin in the lead section

The edit #687308464 changed the wording of the definition from:

Bitcoin is a payment system...

to

Bitcoin is a digital store of value and payment system...

My objections to the edit are:

• The edit was not based on a citation of a reliable source.
• The statement does not explain the nature of bitcoin. For example, using a similar claim to define real estate stating that it is a "store of value", would not be completely wrong, but it would not explain the true nature of the real estate, namely that it is a "property consisting of land and the buildings on it".
• The "store of value" characterization is one of functions of money and a property of many types of assets: real estate, precious metals, precious stones, collectibles, drugs, livestock, stock, etc.
• Some sources specifically claim that bitcoin is not, due to its volatility, a good store of value.

There is also a positive aspect to the edit:

• The edit tries to communicate the known fact that bitcoin is not just a payment system, but that it has an identifiable second nature, distinct from the payment system.

As the "Classification" section points out, there are many classifications of bitcoin on which there is no broad consensus. For example, one of the latest attempts in The Economist mentions that bitcoin is the world’s "first decentralised digital currency", but the fact that The Economist put the characterization into quotes somewhat relativizes it. As pointed out in other sources, there are objections against this classification, and many sources state that bitcoin is not money at present for various reasons.

In my opinion, the "common denominator" statement about the second nature of bitcoin, distinct from the payment system, is that it is a digital asset (for example, The Wall Street Journal mentions this). I think that the digital asset characterization is neutral and not objectioned by any of the sources. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Ref I found

Hey. I was looking at http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Bitcoin , and I found a link that looked like it was dead. Ref #5 was the one, and it looks like it is working fine. Can somebody tell me what the problem is? Which one is right? Thanks, Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 21:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Yoshi24517: It has something to do with the {{Better source}} template. I don't really have experience with it or how it's integrated with refs (it looks like it's inside of a ref), but hopefully this puts you on the right path. -Newyorkadam (talk) 00:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Satoshi Nakamoto Revealed As Australian Craig Stephen Wright

Satoshi Nakamoto Revealed As Australian Craig Stephen Wright

Police and tax investigators have raided the Sydney home of a man that members of the Australian bitcoin community say might be the mastermind behind the controversial cryptocurrency, just hours after reports emerged in the United States suggesting that he may be its secretive creator.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/bitcoin-founder-could-definitely-be-australian-20151209-gljc73.html#ixzz3tu7XOK3M Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

http://www.smh.com.au/business/bitcoin-founder-could-definitely-be-australian-20151209-gljc73.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.241.237 (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Further examination of removed links to other wiki-articles

I want to ask for further examination and explanation on what was so bad with theses two edits: 1 - "See also" , 2 - "Reference" , linking Bitcoin with other cryptocurrencies. Beside ambiguous general policy redirects (and "choose your own reason from the list"), I had gotten no real justification for the nedded removal operation.

Anyhow, the articles in matter are short with in-going links. Are we interested with people finding and reading them? If "Bitcoin" is not worthy linking to them, then what are we left with?! VirtuOZ (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

I did not revert your 1 - "See also" . That said, I must disagree with your "no real justification" complaint since the justification for the revert is present and is perfectly understandable. First, your edit was reverted based on the manual of style policy discouraging the use of bulleted points. Second, it does not make sense to list altcoins in this article, because there is a specific List of cryptocurrencies article and we should not duplicate its contents. I know that you listed just a couple, but that, again, is a problem, since it is nonneutral to emphasize only the ones that you like. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

History section: about Silk Road shutdown by FBI

I think that the story of Silk Road shutdown, as it is reported in the "history" section, should be better introduced in order to make clear how it is related to the Bitcoin history. I've tried to edit the paragraph myself by both (1) writing that DNMs regularly use bitcoins in their transactions and (2) providing a reference to a document already cited in the Silk Road article which states annually sales figures of that market between 2011 and 2012. Unfortunately my edits are not accepted and Wikipedia only shows a "generic error" that doesn't make me understand what I'm doing wrong. While I need to investigate this issue, could please someone edit the involved section?

Fabio Maria De Francesco (talk) 17:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Extortion possibilities

I haven't got time to add to the article right now but thought it should be mentioned that extortionists producing ransomware ask for their ranson in bitcoins because they are P2P, not connected to any particular government and supposedly untraceable. How long will it be that real kidnappers start using this system to get their ransoms?

I myself would prefer to trade in genuine currency for so many reasons I can't see why anyone would want to use or support this idea. Euc (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

"Digital asset"

"Digital assets are classified as images, multimedia and textual content files." says the article on digital assets. So is bitcoin an image, multimedia or a textual content file? Or maybe a combination of these? --2003:71:CF36:C782:10A1:8E38:2108:2AA2 (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned in the article, the block chain contains mainly textual informations. Other types od informations are possible, though, so it makes sense to use a more general, multimedia classification. As opposed to other digital assets, in čase of bitcoin, unspent outputs have associated individual ownership rights, depending on the knowledge of associated private keys, although the individual unspent outputs are not files. Does this information help? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the source for this. I think it's unlikely that the Wall Street Journal, as a business newspaper, was commenting on Bitcoin's technical structure or format. More likely they were using 'digital asset' in the general sense of digital asset, i.e. something of economic value that is 'of or relating to computers or the information age' - which Bitcoin clearly is. Whether it's a 'digital asset' as in digital asset is less clear, and at any rate, unsourced. – Steel 11:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The claim in the article is sourced. The distinction you are trying to make is what it is: original research. I suggest you to read the digital asset article thoroughly to find out how the usage and scope of the notion is evolving. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

A source has used the word 'asset'. It didn't clarify explicitly which of the different meanings of the word asset it intended, so we need to look at the context. It's not original research to say that the source meant asset, although if it was, it would also be original research to say that the source meant asset. Whether or not Bitcoin is a digital asset of the narrow kind described in that article, in most cases when the word asset is used with regards to Bitcoin it's the broader meaning of 'something of value that can hold wealth and be traded' which is used. This article uses the word asset several times in that sense (e.g. "but he concedes that many assets have prices that are greater than their intrinsic value") Which bit are you disagreeing with, specifically? That Bitcoin is first and foremost 'something of value that can hold wealth and be traded', or something else? – Steel 11:35, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

As far as I remember, the source used the term "digital asset". The fact that it used the notion "asset" elsewhere does not change that. Moreover, there are other sources such as Wired, Daily Mail Australia, Forbes, Business Wire, and many others, mentioning bitcoin as a digital asset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladislav Mecir (talk • contribs)

I'm not disputing that it's a digital asset, the issue is there are multiple meanings of that phrase and you have the wrong one. One of your links, Wired, defines digital asset as "assets whose ownership is recorded digitally" which is exactly what I said above. I'm going to change the article accordingly. – Steel 14:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

You have absolutely no consensus on this. As demonstrated above, there are many sources for the "digital asset" classification. Once you find a reliable statement claiming the opposite, and distinct from your WP:OR argumentation, you are welcome to present it. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

If you think that the definition of the "digital asset" notion in the Wired article is a new definition different from the definition(s) used in the Digital asset article, it may be reasonable to consider adding the new definition to the Digital asset article. You should consult WP:RS to find out that it is not an accepted practice to use the Digital asset article as a source for (edits of) the Bitcoin article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

To be honest I'm not sure you've understood what I've been saying. But clearly there's no consensus for either version, so perhaps it would be better to remove this from the lead entirely and just have the old text referring to payment system. – Steel 14:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Due to the existence of many sources confirming the "digital asset" characterization and due to the fact that there is no source to the contrary, that is not a good idea. It does not make sense to use the Digital asset article as an argument in this discussion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

As I've said repeatedly, I have no problem calling it a digital asset. It is a digital asset. Again, my problem is that there are different meanings of digital asset - the Wired article above defines it one way, and you define it a different way, with no source. I'll try a second compromise solution. See what you think. – Steel 11:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Steel "Again, my problem is that there are different meanings of digital asset - the Wired article above defines it one way, and you define it a different way" - Sorry to contradict you, but I am not defining "digital asset" in any way. I am just citing the sources. I found out that you edited the source calling your edit "second compromise solution" without even describing it here. Nevermind, I had a look at the difference and found out that you removed the cross link to the digital asset article. I will not revert your edit to get rid of possible edit warring finally, due to the fact that it lowers the density of links in the lead section. It is a fact that the link to the digital asset article may be put to its first occurrence after the lead, or to the "See also" section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Bitcoin on Bubble Template?

I've just removed the British Housing Bubble from Template:Financial bubbles, because of discussion at Talk:Affordability of housing in the United Kingdom, where I suggested that it's disputed and therefore not NPOV to call it a bubble since many people say that it wasn't one.

I have a similar question about inclusion of Bitcoin on the template, but I know more about housing markets than Bitcoin. Can anyone weigh in on whether Bitcoin should be on the template (and if it should then should we add the template to this article.)--Jahaza (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. There is a dispute whether bitcoin is a speculative bubble, as the "Speculative bubble dispute" section mentions. I think that due to the dispute, it is not NPOV to call bitcoin a bubble. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Fee related edit war in the lead section

Edit #699960677 justified as "qualify categorical statement which is no longer necessarily true" introduced a change to the lead section. I reverted it to the WP:STATUSQUO due to the following reasons:

• The purported "qualification" justification was not correct, since the qualification (information when) was missing.
• The source on which the edit was based was a self-published article not satisfying the WP:RS criteria.
• The cited source based its claim on a citation of a reddit discussion, which is another unreliable source.
• The original reddit source discussed a fee asked by a specific software as a "priority fee" (whatever that means), i.e., not the fee actually paid.
• As a matter of fact, the available transaction fee statistics confirm the original statement.

Due to the listed reasons I find the revert to the WP:STATUSQUO fully justified. Nevertheless, the original editor chose to revert again in #700113273. The problem is that the immediate revert does not follow the accepted WP:BRD policy, and that it constitutes a WP:EDITWAR. Moreover, its "boosterism/whitewashing" justification is not acceptable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Statistic material from Quandl

In the edit #702637124 Stesmo deleted the Bitcoin currency data - statistics from the "External links" section for the second time in a row justifying the edit as follows: "Reverting external link that doesn't meet WP:EL." However, per WP:EL, "what can normally be linked", are: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to [...] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics [...])." Since the discussed link is indeed a site containing neutral and accurate statistic material relevant to encyclopedic understanding of the subject, which cannot be integrated to the article due to the amount of detail, I disagree with the deletion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Ladislav MecirAdd it to the DMOZ. Keeping ELs to a minimum is important here and the DMOZ allows for editors to do that. Additionally, each currency on Wikipedia does not need a link to a page that tracks each currency's value against other currencies. This does not add to the encyclopedic understanding of Bitcoin, rather is just a tool for currency traders. Are you involved with, benefit from or are compensated by Quandl? Please stop adding this site to Wikipedia. Stesmo (talk) 02:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• "Are you involved with, benefit from or are compensated by Quandl?" - no.
• As explained above, your interpretation of WP:EL is not based on understanding.
• Also, your claim that the statistics is spam is mistaken.
• The removal of the statistics is not important, and other editors may not have the same preferences as you do.
• Re "each currency on Wikipedia does not need a link to a page that tracks each currency's value against other currencies" - indeed, descriptions of other currencies also don't contain sections related to bubbles, volatility, ... Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Alternative applications

My edit shortening the "Alternative application of the block chain" section name was reverted with the justification: '"of the block chain" is necessary here, because the section is not about "Alternative applications of Bitcoin" (which is implied, if there is no qualifier)'. I disagree:

• the first alternative application specifically mentions bitcoin, not the block chain
• the second alternative application mentions the "colored coins", which are, in fact "bitcoins of negligible value"
• the article is about bitcoin, and there is no need to list any alternative applications that are not related to bitcoin Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you are right on omitting "of the block chain", also because the current versions can lead readers into thinking that we are talking about other block chains. On the other hand, "alternative" is not clear without - are we talking about applications of bitcoins alternative to bitcoins?! "Extensions" would probably be more appropriate. Or "other uses of bitcoins", so that it is clear that we are talking about new roles rather than alternative mechanisms. --Toobaz (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, but I think that instead of "Other uses of bitcoins" it should be just "Other uses" (per WP:MOS, the section name should not repeat the name of the article). Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah right --Toobaz (talk) 22:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

(I'm the aforementioned reverter ...)

Perhaps we should first ask the question: what is the "primary" application that the "alternatives" are to? And then, how are the "alternatives" different to the primary application? That might make it easier to understand what the scope of the section is.

The first application listed (ADEPT) gives no indication that it is anything other than payment, so I'm not sure that it is an alternative, so perhaps it doesn't belong here at all. It might be automated, but it's still (apparently) just a payment. Would we call PayPal or Apple Pay, or direct debit an "alternative application of credit cards/EFTPOS"? I think not. (If ADEPT is not just automated payment, then the sentence needs to be worded to explain what it is.)

Perhaps a better section name would be "Use of the blockchain to store non-bitcoin transactions", eg other currencies, shares, land titles (if the the intent is to use the same block chain - "bitcoin technology" suggests that it might a different block chain). Wordy, I know, but it makes it clear exactly what the "alternative" is. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:28, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I lean towards the "Other uses" section name. It is in contrast to the uses previously mentioned in the article, which are:

• as a form of payment
• as a medium of exchange
• as an investment target

Regarding the ADEPT use:

• Since it is meant for the Internet of things, I do not think it is the same use as the above mentioned "form of payment". The "T" in "ADEPT" means "Telemetry", i.e., a use sufficiently distinct from "payments".
• On the other hand, while the article name states that it is "using bitcoin’s block chain tech", it looks to me that the goal of the project is to create a block chain-inspired, but separate from bitcoin and probably different database. If that is true, I do not think the use belongs to this article.

The use of "bitcoins of negligible value", called "colored coins" to represent and transfer the ownership of shares surely is a use of bitcoin distinct from "form of payment". Hope this answers a couple of questions. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Topics for consideration

What are hash-locked transactions? What are Zero-Knowledge Contingent Payments? What are replace-by-fee transactions? What are sidechains? Lightning Network? This could be covered in the article. Or do you think it is not notable? --Ysangkok (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Use by criminals

The use of bitcoin by criminals has attracted the attention of financial regulators,[34] legislative bodies,[35] law enforcement,[36] and media.[37] Criminal activities are primarily centered around black markets and theft, though officials in countries such as the United States also recognize that bitcoin can provide legitimate financial services.[38] This section is irrelevant - or otherwise put - a similar section would be just as relevant when it comes to currency - in fact, a lot more criminal activity takes place with fiat currency and bitcoin is tame by comparison, being so tracable. 129.205.133.98 (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Ponzi scheme dispute

Someone should put some quotes from papers by economists describing the fiat system as the same here, for contrast. OR remove this section altogether, unless a similar section is added to money and fiat pages. 129.205.133.98 (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to compare this article to fiat pages. There are serious problems with WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE in the section:

• The European Central Bank article used as a source does bring several arguments why bitcoin cannot be a pyramid or Ponzi scheme:
  • bitcoin is decentralized, so there is no organizer who could disappear with the funds
  • nobody benefits from the system, apart from those benefitting from the exchange rate evolution, or those hard-working miners
  • bitcoin is open source and its code is available to any interested party
• however, instead of representing the ECB article fairly, just one sentence from the source is cited: "it [is not] easy to assess whether or not the bitcoin system actually works like a pyramid or Ponzi scheme."
• Economist Nouriel Roubini's opinion is mentioned twice, using two different articles, both based on the same original source, Roubini's twitter post that "bitcoin is a Ponzi game". This gives Roubini's post WP:UNDUE weight. From the original source it is not even clear whether Roubini wanted to claim that bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme.
• The opinion of the head of Estonian central bank is also mentioned twice giving it WP:UNDUE weight. Moreover, the source does not confirm that he stated that bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme.
• The Slate article cited to confirm the statement that "various journalists ... have voiced concerns that bitcoin may be a Ponzi scheme" mentions only one journalist referring to Ponzi scheme, Eric Posner, and even he states that "A real Ponzi scheme takes fraud; bitcoin, by contrast, seems more like a collective delusion."
• Jonathon Trugman, in his New York Post article states that bitcoin is a "pump-and-dump Ponzi scheme", which is questionable, taking into account that the Pump and dump scheme differs from other scams such as Ponzi scheme.

What, in addition to the above described violations of WP:NPOV, makes the "Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme" theories WP:FRINGE is the majority opinion that bitcoin provides legal services to customers presented by witnessing officials at a US senate hearing, in a Swiss National Council report (page 21) written in response to postulates of Swiss National Council members, and in other sources mentioned in the section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

"blockchain"

Wow, 'came to this article to see if "blockchain" has its own (yeah, i could've asked the search box, i know), and made no hits in the whole text until the references sections at the bottom.

Apparently, this has been discussed previously, as visible at

1. Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 10#Block chain is two words
2. Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 26#"Block_chain" versus "blockchain" spelling
3. Talk:Block chain (database)/Archive 1#Block chain vs Blockchain

with the last entry the most complete on the subject.

I came to see if "blockchain" has its own page because i was reading articles in the press about "blockchain" being an interesting technology in itself, which could be used for other purposes. From this, my opinion is that it should most often be spelled as "blockchain" in one word. The Block chain (database) article uses both spellings. It seems to me sensible to write in the style of "the blockchain ledger is a block chain system."

--Jerome Potts (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Bitcoin Principles

• 21 million coins.
• No censorship: Nobody should be able to prevent valid txs from being confirmed.
• Open-Source: Bitcoin source code should always be open for anyone to read, modify, copy, share.
• Permissionless: No arbitrary gatekeepers should ever prevent anybody from being part of the network (user, node, miner, etc).
• Pseudonymous: No ID should be required to own, use Bitcoin.
• Fungible: All coins are equal and should be equally spendable.
• Irreversible Transactions: Confirmed blocks should be set in stone. Blockchain History should be immutable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.74.246.9 (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2016

2 May GMT +8 time, Australian entrepreneur, Craig Wright claimed he was the inventor of Bitcoin and worked under the name Satoshi Nakamoto. BBC claims that he provided technical proof to confirm his identity. Therefore, the, "History," section should be updated to depict that Mr Wright was the inventor; however, worked under another name.

Perhaps it can be updated to the following: Bitcoin was invented by Craig Wright, an Australian entrepreneur, who identified himself to the public as Satoshi Nakamoto. Prior to revealing his identity in May 2016, there was speculation around the true identity of Satoshi Nakamoto and the real inventor of Bitcoin. Wright published the invention on 31 October 2008... (continued as normal.)

Kayminmb (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done for now: per the Satoshi Nakamoto article, there is still some question about this. Cannolis (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Notes

This phrase "Bitcoin[note 5][note 6] is a digital asset" reads awkwardly. I suggest removing the notes and embedding some of the text in the sections to make a smoother reading. I thought I'd get a sense of what others think before editing. T1259 (talk) 07:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, T1259, and thank you for your proposal. The notes were subject to discussion several times, recently at the GA reassessment. I agree with you that the notes should be in the article body. I propose to create a new "Etymology and orthography" section for the purpose. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Craig Steven Wright as founder Satoshi Nakamoto

News continues to break relating to Craig Steven Wright's claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto. I suggest we keep this page as Wright claiming to be Nakamoto, until at least the dust settles. I changed the wiki entry to reflect his claim.

The Economist "Craig Steven Wright claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto. Is he?". Economist. 2 May 2016. Retrieved 2 May 2016. http://www.economist.com/news/briefings/21698061-craig-steven-wright-claims-be-satoshi-nakamoto-bitcoin

BBC "Craig Wright revealed as Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto". BBC. 2 May 2016. Retrieved 2 May 2016 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36168863

This might develop later into a whole section entitled controversy, so until that happens suggest keeping it as "claims to be the creator" rather than "is the founder."

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Well it looks like the dust has settled and Wright retracts his offer to provide proof. Can we revert back now? 97.84.91.70 (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should the "Ponzi scheme dispute" section be deleted?

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

---

Should the "Ponzi scheme dispute" section be deleted? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

There are serious problems with WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE in the section:

• The European Central Bank article used as a source does bring several arguments why bitcoin cannot be a pyramid or Ponzi scheme:
  • bitcoin is decentralized, so there is no organizer who could disappear with the funds
  • nobody benefits from the system, apart from those benefitting from the exchange rate evolution, or those hard-working miners
  • bitcoin is open source and its code is available to any interested party
• however, instead of representing the ECB article fairly, just one sentence from the source is cited: "it [is not] easy to assess whether or not the bitcoin system actually works like a pyramid or Ponzi scheme."
• Economist Nouriel Roubini's opinion is mentioned twice, using two different articles, both based on the same original source, Roubini's twitter post that "bitcoin is a Ponzi game". This gives Roubini's post WP:UNDUE weight. From the original source it is not even clear whether Roubini wanted to claim that bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme.
• The opinion of the head of Estonian central bank is also mentioned twice giving it WP:UNDUE weight. Moreover, the source does not confirm that Mihkel Nommela stated that bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme.
• The Slate article cited to confirm the statement that "various journalists ... have voiced concerns that bitcoin may be a Ponzi scheme" mentions only one author referring to Ponzi scheme, Eric Posner, and even he states that "A real Ponzi scheme takes fraud; bitcoin, by contrast, seems more like a collective delusion."
• Jonathon Trugman, in his New York Post article states that bitcoin is a "pump-and-dump Ponzi scheme", which is questionable, taking into account that the Pump and dump scheme differs from other scams such as Ponzi scheme.

What, in addition to the above described violations of WP:NPOV, makes the "Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme" theories WP:FRINGE is the majority opinion that bitcoin provides legal services to customers presented by witnessing officials at a US senate hearing, in a Swiss National Council report (page 21) written in response to postulates of Swiss National Council members, and in other sources. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

There is an original definition below, defining a Ponzi scheme as: "1) something to do with money that 2) is bad and 3) will fall apart eventually". I think that this definition should be treated per WP:RUMOUR, stating that speculations and rumour are not an appropriate encyclopedic content. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Votes

• Yes, per the discussion it presents a WP:FRINGE theory. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
• Welll, hmmm. As a point of fact seems apparent that it is extremely unlikely that bitcoin is a actual ponzi scheme per se. However, we have to take the language as we find it, and if people want to use "ponzi scheme" to mean "thing I find displeasing"... if enough people do that, then that's what it means, n'est-ce pas? Picking Eric Posner's Slate article at random.... at the heart of his [so-called] argument, Posner is like:

"A regular Ponzi scheme collapses when people realize that earlier investors are being paid out of the investments of later investors rather than from the returns on an underlying asset. Bitcoin will collapse when people realize that it can’t survive as a currency.... A real Ponzi scheme takes fraud; bitcoin, by contrast, seems more like a collective delusion"

Wulll.... Posner flat-out makes a differentiation between a "regular" or "real" ponzi scheme and bitcoin. OK. Posner's not too careful, and his editors don't reward him for being careful so why should he be. But people do this, and it's allowed up to a point. I expect that most people -- I include many bankers and journalists -- are a little vague on what a ponzi scheme is. They know its bad though, and some of them know it has something do to with money. If we define ponzi scheme as 1) something to do with money that 2) is bad and 3) will fall apart eventually, then maybe bitcoin is a ponzi scheme. By that definition.

Since bitcoin might be a ponzi scheme if that is the operative definition, and since enough notable people have said so (possibly using that operative definition) then we'd be remiss to ignore that. So leave it in with the appropriate edits mentioned, e.g. not using Nouriel Roubini quotes totaling more than the number of heads he has, and so on. Herostratus (talk) 05:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Remove it It's not a Ponzi scheme despite being one of the dumbest notions to arise from Internet Relay Chat Rooms. Bitcoins are not classic Ponzi inasmuch as funds are not being solicited from gullible with a percentage being used to "milk" other gullible people while the majority of the funds are siphoned off for the profit of the crook. Had Bitcoin been anything like a Ponzi, there are regulatory and prosecutorial entities within the countries where the phenomena was performed which would have stomped down hard on the concept.

At core Bitcoin was basically people buying, selling, and trading a collectible -- like bottle caps. For the extant article, that is quite correct, Bitcoin is not and never has been a Ponzi-type scheme, that supposition is not supported by any legitimate, solid criminal nor civil indictments or theory. Damotclese (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Yes this should be treated as a fringe position. Damotclese is absolutely correct, Bitcoin is not and never has been a Ponzi scheme by any reasonable definition. Whether it will prove a long-term sustainable model of a digital currency is another question altogether. DES ^(talk) 22:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - Bitcoin is in no way a true Ponzi scheme. Though it has been described as such, inclusion would be WP:FRINGE. As Damotclese noted above, if it were in fact a Ponzi scheme, it would have been shut down immediately. Meatsgains (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - Remove references to Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme.--v/r - TP 04:26, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - Bitcoin seems to have come far enough to be out of the Ponzi scheme category. Many of the altcoins were Ponzi schemes, though. (Paycoin comes to mind.) John Nagle (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
• Merge with Speculative bubble Keep the section but place it in the Speculative Bubble dispute. Contrary to above comments, these are not fringe theories and are advocated by established economists. The content represents a different view on how Bitcoin "fake" money whose value is entirely driven by perception in a way assets that yield returns do not. For example, there are no banks accepting deposits or making loans in BitCoin (to the best of my knowledge). There is at present no concept of return with BitCoin. Tale.Spin (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• Request If you happen to have any example of an established economist advocating the theory that bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, let as know, please. Thanks. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

• Response I don't think I was clear. I didn't mean that established economists have said BitCoin is like a Ponzi scheme per se, but the mechanism behind its valuation is along the lines seen in speculative bubbles. Bubbles are inherently in themselves a natural form of Ponzi scheme. The established economists making this suggestion, already cited in the article currently, include Eric Posner, Jeffrey Tucker, and Nouriel Roubini. Tale.Spin (talk) 03:07, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Sufficient quotations in the initial discussion here to mention; and there has, I see, been an actual Ponzi scheme. Has anybody looked for comparisons to the Dutch tulip bubble? That, speculative markets, and Ponzi scheme would make a nice section at a higher level. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - It's this time of year again I guess. Ladislav Mecir starts his discussion section not by arguing that the content doesn't belong, they argue that the content is wrong. Instead of arguing that the sources are not reliable or relevant, they argue that since they believe they can argue against those opinions, that those opinions are nullified. That, however, is not how Wikipedia content is determined. Many of the arguments here are that "since it's not a ponzi scheme, nobody's opinions on that front matter", Per WP:DUE, that's not a valid rationale for the removal of content. I'm not opposed to shortening the section per WP:DUE, but Bitcoin's more fervent supporters have been on a long recurring mission to remove anything negative from the article (this just happens to be one of the more undesirable topics). I don't think it should be removed just because the same editor brought up the same exact arguments multiple times, hoping something would stick. LM cited WP:FRINGE, but from what I'm seeing in that guideline, even WP:FRINGE does not support the complete removal of this content. There are multiple sources that discuss the ponzi scheme concerns, to have the article present itself as if those don't exist is not in keeping with WP:NPOV. I'm not suggesting the content needs to remain as long as it does, but "i think it's wrong" is not a reason to remove it. Saying "some people think it's a ponzi scheme, but it's not and here's why" is not the same as saying "Bitcoin is a Ponzi Scheme!" - Aoidh (talk) 07:14, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2016... hi hello

49.150.75.82 (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

•  Not done No request made. ~ Rob^Talk 08:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Edits against the consensus established by the RfC

The consensus at the above 'RfC: Should the "Ponzi scheme dispute" section be deleted?' led to the consensus that the section should be edited to:

• change the wording for neutrality and factual correctness given the existing sources - the edit [1] made by BU Rob13 was made to reflect this
• remove the duplicates of opinions - the edit [2] made by Ladislav Mecir did this

The series of edits, [3] through [4] made by Aoidh:

• reverted the edit [5] made by BU Rob13, reinstating the biased formulation
• duplicated the opinion by Eric Posner again
• suggested that the opinion by Eric Posner is not an opinion, while the word "seems" in his formulation "...[bitcoin] seems more like a collective delusion." indicates otherwise
• changed the section title, ignoring the fact that said "concerns" are opposed (by majority opinion, in fact)
• removed several opinions opposing said "Ponzi scheme concerns"

To not create an edit war, I revert my edits to the state reflecting the consensus after the RfC close. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The good of these edits first: Having a summary sentence at the beginning of a paragraph isn't duplication of information; it's an appropriate way to start a section. My close said nothing about duplicate information (unless you're referring to a second RfC I'm unaware of?). The Eric Posner bit appropriately attributes the opinion to Posner. I personally prefer "concerns" to "dispute" because I don't see any "dispute" here. "Controversy" would be a better alternative to both, in my opinion, but WP:Controversy sections suggests avoiding that term. I don't think either term is supported/opposed by my close, and a discussion (hopefully brief) on the appropriate name for the section would be appropriate. And then the bad: Changing "resembles" to "may be" is inaccurate according to the sources. The removal of opinions posing the Ponzi scheme view is obviously problematic and should be reverted based on the close of the RfC calling for neutrality. ~ Rob^Talk 06:04, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

"Having a summary sentence at the beginning of a paragraph isn't duplication of information; it's an appropriate way to start a section." - Agreed, but then, as a summary, it is biased, failing to mention that there are opposing opinions. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:03, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• I changed it back to "may be" because that is what sources say; not that it resembles a ponzi scheme, but that it is or may be one. This isn't the first time the "may be/resembles" part has been discussed, and while there are sources that say "resembles", to word the article to suggest that because a source says this exact thing, that sources only go so far as to say this is not a reflection of the sources, and is (and has been) LM's attempt to downplay or remove anything negative about bitcoin in the article. Concerns that it "resembles" something sounds less accusatory that concerns that it "is" something, and that's what the sources say: that there are concerns that Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme. - Aoidh (talk) 09:26, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• @BU Rob13: About the removing of opinions opposing the Ponzi scheme accusations, I removed the Huffington Post and PC World, which do not lend credible weight to the discussion and bog down the section with unnecessary quotes. I kept the more salient opinions that concluded against bitcoin being a ponzi scheme, such as the World Bank, Eric Posner, and the Swiss Federal Council, which carry more weight than an opinion blog. Given that the consensus in the RfC was that the section was too long, I don't think the World Bank should be given the same weight as a freelance blog author whose qualifications are that they are "passionate about finance". Neutrality should be based on the weight of the opinion, not the number of quotes we can stuff into the article. I changed "ponzi scheme dispute" to "ponzi scheme concerns" because dispute does not reflect the sources, in my opinion, and makes it seem like it's an opinion with equal weight on both sides, when it's just a few people with concerns (while not fringe, it's also not a majority opinion either, it is an opinion which is in the minority). I'm unsure as to why LM is opposing the section title change, because dispute implies something more prevalent than concerns; a single person can have concerns, but it takes much more for there to be a dispute. - Aoidh (talk) 09:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• The RfC was closed with the consensus that the section needs heavy edits for neutrality. You, Aoidh, already reverted the first, neutral edit, twice, which constitutes an edit-warring attempt. Take this as a warning from me, please. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:27, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• "Neutral edit" is not exclusive to edits that you, personally, agree with. I am aware of how the RfC was closed, and was making a bold edit to fix it. My reverting a bold edit is no different than you doing so, and it's strange how you're quick to revert my edits back to the "RfC version", yet when I do so it's somehow inappropriate. If you're going to revert back to the state it was during the RfC, you can't selectively do so to suit your own opinions. Sources are not concerned that bitcoin merely "resembles" a ponzi scheme, they are concerned that it is a ponzi scheme. If we're going to edit the article to properly reflect the sources, the text should be changed to say "voiced concerns that bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme." because that is what the concerns are, to try word it to suggest otherwise is not an accurate reflection of the sources and thus not in keeping with WP:NPOV. I am certain that the sources that say it resembles one are greatly outnumbered by those that say it is one, so how exactly was that edit not neutral? - Aoidh (talk) 10:44, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
  • @Aoidh: My problem with your edit is that you put Posner's name next to "may be" a Ponzi scheme, when that isn't an accurate representation of his concerns. He specifically states "resembles" and proceeds to draw distinctions between what a normal Ponzi scheme looks like and what the Bitcoin Ponzi game looks like. We have to be careful to accurately represent all sources instead of lumping them all in to "may be". I don't disagree with using "may be" for other journalists/academics who actually have said it's a Ponzi scheme, such as the NYU Stern professor who tweeted "Bitcoin is a Ponzi game". ~ Rob^Talk 15:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• @BU Rob13: In this article he wrote, Posner does say that it "resembles a Ponzi scheme", but he also flat out says "Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme". He has no issues quoting that on his faculty page, so I don't think it's inaccurate to say that he views it as a ponzi scheme, and not just resembling it. More to the point, the other sources, from what I can see, do not say that it merely resembles a ponzi scheme, so I likewise don't agree with lumping them all into "resembles" when that's not an accurate reflection of the sources. - Aoidh (talk) 17:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• He quite literally says "More than anything else, it resembles a Ponzi scheme" later in the article. Resembles was his word, not mine. He later also says "A real Ponzi scheme takes fraud; bitcoin, by contrast, seems more like a collective delusion." In the context of the entire article, he is stating that Bitcoin is functionally the same as a Ponzi scheme (i.e. has the major characteristics), but not that it is a Ponzi scheme. ~ Rob^Talk 17:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• What I'm seeing there is that he has concerns that "Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme" (his words) because it resembles one. Not an either/or situation, but rather one because of the other. I don't think it's inaccurate to say that he is included in those with concerns that it is a ponzi scheme when that is, word for word, the title of the article he wrote, which is quoted again on his faculty page as such: Eric Posner: "Bitcoin is a Ponzi Scheme" - Aoidh (talk) 17:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
• What if Posner isn't included with that part, but instead this New York Times piece is cited to the lede of that section showing that the concerns are largely that it is a ponzi scheme, not that it merely resembles one? My issue isn't with Posner specifically, but that his use of the word "resembles" in a single article is being used to downplay the concerns of all the other sources, none of which (as far as I can tell) use "resembles".- Aoidh (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• That is a fair concern. I'd rather just omit Posner from the first sentence, then. There are academics that state it is a Ponzi scheme, and it's fine to lead with that, but we shouldn't be citing Posner among them if there's questions about whether that's actually what he thinks. His article is unclear because it makes statements that I believe to be contradictory. Keep in mind that article headlines are often intentionally over-the-top to draw in the reader, and the body is usually more accurate. This is seen all the time in press releases for scientific studies, for instance, but it happens a lot in journalism too. We can give Posner a more detailed treatment with both the "is a Pozni scheme" and the clarifying "resembles" quote further down the section. That way, we can let the reader decide what exactly that combination of quotes means, rather than making an editorial judgement that borders on WP:OR. ~ Rob^Talk 08:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: - For the reasons I gave previously, do you have any objection to removing the Huffington Post and PC World? My issues with those are they're filler, not something that creates a balance but something that was literally added as a tit-for-tat. Jeffrey Tucker for example, lends a great deal of weight since his background shows that he knows what he's talking about. Posner is a widely cited legal scholar and is a Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School. His opinion in the matter carries weight. The opinion blog hosted on Huffington Post? The qualifications of that author is that, in their own words, they are "passionate about finance". Of all the works to cite, citing that one does not show balance. The article has Posner, the heads of banking systems, and Nouriel Roubini, whose qualifications in this field are too many to list quickly here citing concerns about Bitcoin being/possibly/resembling a ponzi scheme, and then to refute those the article quotes a "passionate" blog writer refuting their concerns. That's not a balanced article, and in my opinion including those Huffington Post and PC World quotes hurts that balance, rather than work towards helping it. - Aoidh (talk) 01:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. Aoidh's proposal to delete opinions of journalists opposing the "is a Ponzi scheme" claims:

• The section start mentions "various journalists" having concern that bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme. However, according to Aoidh, the opinions of journalists (a personal finance writer and a PC World journalist) opposing the concerns need to be removed.
• The RfC consensus is that the balance of the section is heavily shifted towards the "is a Ponzi scheme" opinion, and the proposed changes are not improving the text in this respect.
• Aoidh: "His opinion in the matter carries weight." - it depends. When he says "seems", he declares that he is uncertain. When he says "collective delusion", he is speaking outside of his qualification, since he is not a psychologist, and he admits that, stating it next to his "seems" reservation. To get an opinion that carries weight on a collective delusion matter, one would need to consult somebody else.

The section still fails to mention the opposing claim that the senior U.S. law-enforcement and regulatory officials recognize that (as opposed to a Ponzi scheme) bitcoin can provide legitimate financial services.[6] Ladislav Mecir (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Nothing you said refutes my concerns with the bloggers being included. If someone has concerns, a qualified individual refuting them carries more weight. If a qualified person has concerns, an unqualified person refuting that does not carry weight, and if anything makes it seem like only those without qualifications can refute the claims. That doesn't help the balance in the article, that hurts it. Balance is not throwing as many quotes as you can into a section to try to fluff out an argument, all that does is water down the argument. As for your "not a psychologist" thing, I kind of see what you're trying to say, but it falls short of the mark. He is speaking well within his qualification when he explains why it's not a ponzi scheme, and that the support for bitcoin must be a "collective delusion" since "Bitcoin will collapse when people realize that it can’t survive as a currency because..." that has nothing to do with psychology. - Aoidh (talk) 04:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the attempt to trim the section

I've made a test edit as seen here in an attempt to fix the concerns with the section. It's not too long, which helps with the concerns in the RfC, it's balanced as it doesn't give too much weight to a minority opinion, but (my favorite part), it also isn't bogged down in a sea of quotes. It's not perfect, and I'm not happy with Posner being the only one quoted, but I didn't want to include him on either "side" so I left his alone, since it helps with the flow of the section as "X has concerns, here's a quote from Y saying it's not, and here's reports from Z supporting the idea that X isn't quite right" That way it's not just a random collection of quotes with no flow, but is also short and to the point without giving undue weight to a particular viewpoint. - Aoidh (talk) 05:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the the shortened version gives less weight to the minority opinion, which is what was requested by the consensus from the RfC. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

New section proposal

Suggestion for a new information to the end of the wallets section, just before Reference implementation starts: Purchasing physical cryptocurrency usually requires trust to the manufacturer. Self-made physical cryptocurrency requires trust to the machines which are used to create the private key.

Physical Bitcoin coin manufacturer Denarium was first to introduce a multisignature physical Bitcoin coins (2015). The multisignature technology makes possible to create trustless physical cryptocurrency. Thus, the manufacturer is not able to access funds under false pretenses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihqtzup (talk • contribs) 06:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Sources

I see the sourcing on this article is not good. Sourcing to primary sources is not a good idea when done extensively. The PDF about the origin of bitcoin from 'coin desk' is not a good source. Also recently an editor removed information on the actual inventor of bitcoin in favor apparently of the old outdated information from 'coin desk' magazine. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Earl King Jr. above you forgot to mention which sources you consider to be bad. I do not think that your "the sourcing on this article is not good" is generally true.

Re your "recently an editor removed information on the actual inventor of bitcoin" - that is provably false. What I removed was just an, according to the sources, disputed claim on the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto. The Satoshi Nakamoto article contains quite a few of such claims, every one of them being disputed. Since the claims are listed in the Satoshi Nakamoto article, and since this article refers to it, there is no need to repeat the disputed claims here, and I find it even less important to pick just the newest claim and present it as "the actual inventor of bitcoin". Therefore, there is no consensus on your "actual inventor of bitcoin" edit, and, until such a consensus is achieved, it is better to revert your "actual inventor of bitcoin" edits to WP:STATUSQUO. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It also seems that the article is padded with a large amount of useless chatty information some of which is not sourced but even the long drawn out information that is sourced is of such minutia and non notability that a lot of the article should shrink. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

False info about Craig Wright

I just see this to bitcoin wikipedia page

"Craig Steven Wright has claimed to be the creator of bitcoin. Wright, named himself as the creator of bitcoin in a BBC news interview. Wright apparently proved his claim by using 'signature' bitcoins associated with its inventor. Wright said 'his admission is an effort to end speculation about the identity of the originator of the currency.' In December 2015, Wired and Gizmodo, magazines also named Wright as likely to be bitcoin's creator.[88]"

this is completely false and lure to misunderstanding. Wright was never prove that he is Satoshi. He never sign any transaction that prove that and there is strong evidence that he is a hoaxer. He only joke two devs with false evidence and is well real known now. Wired and Gizmodo in the end they say that they do mistake about this. Please remove this entry from the wikipedia page of bitcoin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chek2fire (talk • contribs) 11:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

edit: i see that someone correct the page. Imo we must completely remove Craig Wright from bitcoin article. He has nothing to do with bitcoin history. Maybe they deserve to be in Satoshi Nakamoto page as the person that failed to claim to be Satoshi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chek2fire (talk • contribs) 14:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

^ Agreed. Anyone can come out and claim to be the creator. But the only way for them to prove it is to move those original coins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.150.169.96 (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Agreed The sources state that the claim is unconvincing. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Delete the "Other uses" section

I propose to delete the "Other uses" section. Reasons:

• The section does not describe any use of bitcoin, listing only experiments and pilot studies.
• Experiments and pilot studies presented as "uses" violate the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" principle.
• The experiments by UBS are only "using bitcoin blockchain", and there is no indication in the cited sources that the UBS plans to use bitcoins.
• The notability and reliability of the cited sources is questionable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Delete it. Also huge sections of the article are full of minutia that has the article bloated. Its not user friendly. Just because some obscure thing is presented somewhere is not a reason for inclusion. The long drawn out section of China accepting bitcoin that goes on and on and finally stops when China decides to stop using bitcoin is a good example of a long useless section. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• OPPOSE the proposal. Those are uses of bitcoin, and they are sourced with reliable sources. N2e (talk) 04:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Just because some obscure information is sourced with marginal sources does not oblige inclusion. There are too many blue sky experiments or projections in the article about how this or that could happen if this or that were to happen. For the subject the article has too many small subsections on non notable projection stuff. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

COMMENT: I took another look and see that Earl King deleted the entire section, along with a number of what appear to be decent sources, less than one hour after it was proposed. This proposal needs longer discussion than the fifty minutes it was given between proposal and deletion. N2e (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The reasons for deleting seem compelling. You did not address the reasons.

The section does not describe any use of bitcoin, listing only experiments and pilot studies. Experiments and pilot studies presented as "uses" violate the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" principle. The experiments by UBS are only "using bitcoin blockchain", and there is no indication in the cited sources that the UBS plans to use bitcoins. The notability and reliability of the cited sources is questionable. As it stands the limited consensus is to delete that info. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Note If you check the history, you will find out that the UBS experiment was consensually deleted in the past for the reasons listed here and this is the second attempt to put it to the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Info. on Chinese section

How about removing the long section about China accepting and then rejecting bitcoin or boiling it down to a couple of sentences. Useless historic information, article bloat. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

The article does not have such section, there is only a paragraph present in the "History" section, and that paragraph does not look too long to me. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Khan academy

Khan Academy is way to iffy a source for the article [7] there are multiple people and groups calling it not reliable for a good education. Removed from article. There has to be more legitimate sourcing available. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

• The source you cite to illustrate your point is quite isolated compared to the recognitions and awards listed at the Khan Academy article.
• The source you cite discusses mathematics, and it does not mention any information relevant to bitcoin, which is the subject of the article.
• There are reactions to the article, mentioning that the source just lists an opinion of a founder of a site trying to become a Khan Academy competitor. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Its not a good thing to include in the article at all as any kind of 'See also' or to be used as a citation to prove or reinforce anything [8] Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit on history

A recent edit by Ladislav Mecir [9]. Using some Bitcoin presentation meet up seminar and a Bitcoin Forum, yes an ordinary forum is not appropriate. A false edit summary to call this some educational piece also. It is not. Its a promo piece of a seminar and a forum. I removed that once and returning it seems really out of sync. with encyclopedia information Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Earl King Jr., since one of the sources you deleted has been published by the Hasso Plattner Institute, it si an academic source. By reinstating your deletion without achieving any consensus here, you are edit warring, trying to enforce your deletion by improper means. Take this as a warning from me, please. It is also not the first case where you acted this way, your introduction of "actual inventor of bitcoin" to the article was also consensually deleted after you tried to enforce it using the very same approach. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

What makes you think Hasso are are anything other than a school for industry [10] according to them they train i.t. people. They probably 'publish' a lot of things. Because something is published by a school does not make it a good or reliable addition to an article. It was a seminar for instruction pay money meetup for training I.t. people. Maybe one of their members went to a seminar to work, or not, and that gave them a claim to publish the seminar for some obscure reference point, but that does not make it a good source for the article. Giving a Wikipedia article site link as you did above means absolutely nothing in this question. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

You can not use this sourcing bitcointalk for one thing that type of link is black listed here. You returned that primary advertising advert BitcoinTalk Forum chat site to the edit which I removed also and that is an editing mistake that I assume you are ignorant of, that Forums for citations are a non starter. Bitcoin Forum site, yes the actual Bitcoin Forum. How you interpret that as a good source is really another question that someone else can ask (though I just did) but I can tell you it is a mistake to put the Bitcoin Forum as a source to your edit and then complain about edit warring when its removed which is what you have done now. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)