Jump to content

Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 30

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25←Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32→Archive 35

Casing?

Why is "Bitcoin" lowercase? Because there are two or three versions/forks? Thanks. Michael Ten (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest reading the article. The Terminology section must answer your question. Retimuko (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed edit to first half of design section

Currently a lot of the design section is useless. It just talks about random topics in bitcoin, like the blockchain and how transactions are encoded in Forth or a similar language without actually telling the reader how it works. So I have made some edits in my sandbox copy of the article to the design section only in order to unify the content. Any thoughts on this? Esquivalience (talk) 03:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Bitcoin Gold edit war

I mentioned Bitcoin Gold under Decentralisation. Maybe there should be a general section about forks.111.193.164.123 (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm - it seems someone tries to start an edit war there. Is Bitcoin Gold such an emotional subject? I did mention (with reference) that there was some controversy around it. Just for the record, my text was:
A hard fork planned for 25 October 2017 is to create Bitcoin Gold[1], a coin that is designed to truly decentralise the coin mining process, which currently is mostly done by a few huge mining factories, mainly in China.[2] There is some controversy around this project.[3]
111.193.164.123 (talk) 04:19, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
"someone tries to start an edit war there" - indeed, 111.193.164.123, specifically, it is you. I suggest you to read WP:BRD to find a suggestion how to proceed. Once your additions have been reverted, you are not supposed to readd the contents without a discussion at this page. My objections to your edits:
  • Your claim is not related to the subject of the Bitcoin#Decentralization section, in fact.
  • The source[1] does not look like an independent source and does not confirm the information is notable enough to be added to the article.
  • You are not in compliance with WP:NPOV (another suggested reading) when trying to synthesize the claim about chinese miners in relation to Bitcoin Gold citing the source,[2] where no reference to Bitcoin Gold can be found. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b https://news.bitcoin.com/another-bitcoin-fork-bitcoin-gold-project-plans-to-fork-bitcoin-next-month/
  2. ^ a b https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/why-the-biggest-bitcoin-mines-are-in-china
  3. ^ https://news.bitcoin.com/a-closer-look-at-the-suspicious-activity-involved-with-the-bitcoin-gold-fork/


Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fworkneh.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

A proposal to remove unexplained jargon

This update justified as "grammar" replaces the wording:

On 1 August 2017 bitcoin split into two derivative digital currencies, the classic bitcoin (BTC) and the Bitcoin Cash (BCH).[1]

directly supported by the cited source, by the formulation:

On 1 August 2017 bitcoin split into two derivative digital currencies, the classic bitcoin (BTC) and a hard fork, Bitcoin Cash (BCH).[1]

This is not a grammar correction, in fact, and it just unnecessarily introduces new jargon to the sentence. I propose to revert the edit to WP:STATUSQUO, effectively removing the unexplained and unnecessary jargon. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I prefer the newer version with the jargon. I think we could wikilink to Fork (software development). There is so much coverage of hard forks on this page, Ethereum, etc that soon enough we need to explain what a hard fork is Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:10, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I also prefer the jargon but agree that we should probably explain hard fork properly somewhere. Erik.Bjareholt (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with referring to Fork (software development) when referring to a blockchain fork, which is not the same. Also, in software development, there is no notion of a "hard fork". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
This page Bitcoin_scalability_problem#Forks has a discussion of hard and soft forks. We can wikilink to that . Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Having checked the source[1], I also found that it used the term hard fork, but not in the sense the changed formulation does. The hard fork term in the source was used to refer to the split into two separate chains, the sense you can also find in Investopedia[2], and that in the cited source the hard fork term did not refer to any particular subchain that resulted from the split. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I am ok with using the investopedia source, but I know that @David Gerard: didn't like hte investopedia source say it was user generated content. David, another discussion of how to cover the split between a cyrptocoin. Any comments? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Firstly, my contribution does not mean that I want to use the Investopedia source in this case. I just pointed out that the changed formulation misrepresents the source.[1] As such, the change is not WP:NPOV. Also, if you look at the recent attempts at editing the sentence, there were even greater mistreatments of sources without respecting the fact that the wording is being discussed here.
  • Secondly, the reliability of Investopedia as a source has been discussed at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard with the result that it is acceptable as a WP:IRS. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

To achieve a consensus, I propose a new wording. I suppose this wording to both reflect the available sources, and to explain the Bitcoin Cash hard fork notion:

On 1 August 2017 bitcoin split into two derivative digital currencies, the classic bitcoin (BTC) and the Bitcoin Cash (BCH). The split is called a Bitcoin Cash hard fork.[1]

Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c d e Smith, Jake (11 August 2017). "The Bitcoin Cash Hard Fork Will Show Us Which Coin Is Best". Fortune. Retrieved 13 August 2017.
  2. ^ Hayes, Adam (21 March 2017). "Can Bitcoin Hard Fork?". Investopedia. Retrieved 8 June 2017.

SegWit claim

With regards to SegWit, I have done so. Your basis for wanting the link removed is that there are competing sites. Name one, that is also community run and not for profit. 101.174.96.40 (talk) 08:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

"Your basis for wanting the link removed is that there are competing sites." - No. My reason for the removal was that the claim was unconfirmed. It remains unconfirmed, since the new source you use also does not confirm the claim. I challenged the claim, and will remove it if it remains unconfirmed. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed as "not introducing a violation of NPOV." Toddst1 (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

While this edit is justified as "Articles are supposed to have an external links section", that is far from the truth as the Acra (fortress) featured article demonstrates. Bitcoin does not have any "official website", which might be a reasonable external link candidate. Currently, the only external link present in the section is a link to the bitcoin.org website. Per the article contents, there are other competing project sites. To be neutral, it would be necessary to either create a list of the competing sites (that is discouraged by WP:ELNO, however) or to not list bitcoin.org as the only site in the section. In such case, the section would be empty and could be removed, which would return the contents to the WP:STATUSQUO. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you name such a site? There are no other sites that were registered by Satoshi himself, AFAIK. And no other open-source community run sites. As for WP:STATUSQUO, see the very first revision of this page: [1]. Why does Bitcoin Cash have an official website in its EL section, then? If there is any neutrality in doubt, it is yours. I see that you removed completely any mention of Segregated Witness from this page, despite it being covered extensively in the news. I also see that you put back an extensive list of forks under the Reference implementation section, despite it being more appropriate under governance. You also removed a link to the Bitcoin Core software from the External links. There are no competitors to that, because those forks are not bitcoin. Are you pushing some kind of anti-Core agenda. You aren’t part of this, are you: [2] 101.174.96.40 (talk) 06:54, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
  • "Can you name such a site?" - I do not need to, various project are cross linked in the article, so there is no need to use external links for that.
  • "And no other open-source community run sites." - WP:OR
  • "Why does Bitcoin Cash have an official website in its EL section, then?" - I do not know why, or why is that relevant to this discussion.
  • "I see that you removed completely any mention of Segregated Witness from this page" - If you mean my recent deletion of the challenged claim, you are welcome to add it back with a WP:IRS not failing to verify the claim. I do not understand how is that relevant for the present discussion.
  • "I also see that you put back an extensive list of forks under the Reference implementation section, despite it being more appropriate under governance." - that is easy: I reverted your deletion to keep WP:NPOV in the Bitcoin#Reference implementation section to not mention just one preferred implementation. Your edit deleted all the variants in there, also the ones that were (contrarily to your claim) not mentioned elsewhere. The Bitcoin#Governance content is also neutral now, not preferring any specific implementation. Also note that this is not relevant for the present discussion.
  • "You also removed a link to the Bitcoin Core software from the External links." - of course, Bitcoin Core is cross-linked from the article, which is a preferred method of linking in Wikipedia. I do not doubt that an interested reader can find more information at the specific article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
No, i’m talking about the external link. Give me an example of such a site. 101.174.96.40 (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Well? 101.174.96.40 (talk) 10:45, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Since you have still not responded, I will reiterate: you claim that including this non profit community run informational site is somehow “POV”. You base this on the claim that there are other competing sites. You have not given ONE example. Also, let me remind you that this domain was registered by Satoshi Nakamoto himself and the VERY FIRST revision of this page had a link to it. 101.174.96.40 (talk) 07:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I came here as an uninvolved editor after reading the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. The assertion that including bitcoin.org as an external link violates NPOV is abjectly absurd. Toddst1 (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Toddst1, there should be a link to bitcoin.org and we dont need to link to reddit to keep NPOV. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2017 (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.

satoshis

The term "satoshis"is used twice, but never defined. Jmatxx (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Likewise, the term "network alert key" is not explained. Jmatxx (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

"The term "satoshis"is used twice, but never defined." - it would help if you read Bitcoin#Units. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Bitcoin Vending Machines

Keene and Manchester NH’s Bitcoin Vending Machines 64.175.41.99 (talk) 01:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Volatility section

Bitcoin does not have any volatility. Only the exchange rate to other things such as USD can have volatility. This section needs to be revised. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

In finance, "volatility" is a statistic derived from the variations in the money-, e.g Dollar-, price series of an asset. Every asset "has a volatility". SPECIFICO talk 12:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Nonsense. [3] is the definition of option volatilty. This article's section is talking about the volatility of the USD/BTC exchange rate, it has never had such volatility for example with ETH/BTC. BTC doesn't have a settlement currency. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Not RS. Added "series" above to clarify. SPECIFICO talk 13:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Bitcoin fees

The section on Bitcoin fees erroneously states that fees are optional: try finding an exchange that does not charge for buying or selling your Bitcoins. Does not exist. In fact, it is often stated that one of the main advantages of Bitcoins and crypto currencies in general is that there are no third parties (banks) involved and transactions are free. This is wrong: Using traditional money you may or may not pay a fee for bank transfers, but you pay no fee when using cash. Using Bitcoin, yes you can transact directly between 2 parties but you are still tied to an exchange to check, where you ALWAYS pay a fee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.56.227 (talk) 03:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree, I cant imagine we could find an RS that is current which states fees are optional. Fees were designed into the system by satoshi to my recollection. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Disagree - using exchange is optional. Sources also state that fees are optional. If you found a source that states that fees are not optional since, e.g. January 2017, mention it, please. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't know of a really good source, but I do know it's common knowledge in the Bitcoin space that you have to use fees nowdays. Most sources stating otherwise are pre-2017 and out of date. The best source I can come up with is https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Free_transaction_relay_policy, which indicates that the reference client refuses to relay or mine zero-fee transactions by default, though this can be changed. 50.32.218.143 (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Biased treatment of a source

This edit [4] justified as "encyclopedic lang, and accuracy - this is not controversial" changed the formulation "have been leery of" directly supported by the source to "are aware of" formulation. I think that the biased treatment of the source is not neutral, and that it actually is controversial. That is why I reverted the text to WP:STATUSQUO. After finding out that the nonneutral treatment of the source was found controversial, the user started an edit war reverting the text to his own preferred variant again with this edit [5] using "encyclopedic style" as a justification this time. In reaction to that, I mark the controversial text using a template, propose to revert the text to WP:STATUSQUO again, and warn Cpaaoi that edit warring is not needed here. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Not to mention the content conflicted with the source and sought to generalize and cast doubt upon exchanges in general. This topic has its own article Digital currency exchange and lots of content about the challenges exchanges face. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
What you are calling "edit warring" (a few reverts followed by an RfC does not meet the definition) would be more accurately described as "protective editing" by yourselves. Cpaaoi (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Your additions have been deleted several times by different editors. The fact that you have been warned should help you to find out that it does not make sense to continue your reverts and claims that "this is not controversial". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
It does not meet the definition of edit-warring. Cpaaoi (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
It certainly is WP:TENDENTIOUS editing Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Which is a case of the moving the goalposts. And likewise false. Cpaaoi (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Propose removal of CME prediction

Remove: "Plans were announced to include a bitcoin futures option on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange in 2017.[109]"

As far as aware, this is still in the future; as of 4 Dec, Bloomberg says we are still waiting (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-04/the-next-big-short-hedge-funds-prepare-to-trade-against-bitcoin)

Note that *unflattering* material (UK/EU restrictions due to come in over the next few weeks) has recently been deleted under WP:CRYSTAL, but *flattering* predictions such as this have been restored following deletion and left intact. Oh dear, oh dear. WP:NOTADVERTISING Cpaaoi (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL refers to unverified/unverifiable information. It says that future events should be included when they are notable and likely to happen. The CME futures news fits both of these criteria. Laurencedeclan (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Shall we reinstate, then, the verified statement from the UK Treasury about imminent EU-wide restrictions, as reported in the Telegraph? Cpaaoi (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I don't know. I haven't seen the material. It does, however, have zero bearing on the CME futures news. Laurencedeclan (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/03/bitcoin-crackdown-amid-fears-money-laundering-tax-dodging/ Cpaaoi (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Propose include UK Treasury announcement of restrictions

UK Treasury announces imminent restrictions. Should be mentioned, like predictions of CME directly above. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/03/bitcoin-crackdown-amid-fears-money-laundering-tax-dodging/ Cpaaoi (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Bitcoin Cash in “History” section

We need to agree on the best way to introduce and explain Bitcoin Cash. The current version is the worst possible version: it takes up two paragraphs, it is confusing, and the sources contradict each other. I think we should a) explain the motivation for the fork, b) explain how the fork copied the ledger and past transactions, and c) detail the differences between Bitcoin Cash and bitcoin (“larger blocksize” is probably enough). It is unusual to specifically name a source (“Forbes says X”) and having two paragraphs does nothing but confuse the reader. I also think that the TechCrunch source is more reliable in this case. Forbes claims that bitcoin “split”, but the original blockchain was unaffected by the fork. It is more correct to say a copy of bitcoin was created with different consensus rules. Referring to bitcoin as “classic bitcoin” and the “core blockchain” would confuse readers who only know about the incumbent bitcoin. Giving Bitcoin Cash the same weight as bitcoin by implying the two are both “derivatives” is, IMO, non-neutral and undue considering that Bitcoin Cash has a far smaller and less used blockchain with less total PoW. I would suggest something like this:

On 1 August 2017, Bitcoin Cash was created by copying bitcoin’s blockchain after a community disagreement about scaling bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash limits the blocksize to 8 megabytes, allowing for more transactions and cheaper processing fees.

Thoughts? Laurencedeclan (talk) 20:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

"the sources contradict each other" - if they do, which I do not dispute, our duty as Wikipedia editors is to neutrally reflect all sources instead of presenting just a particular point of view.
"we should a) explain the motivation for the fork" - This has been done, I see such a claim in the text.
"b) explain how the fork copied the ledger and past transactions" - this is what neither of the sources claims, in fact. That is why you have got my disagreement as far as this claim is concerned.
"c) detail the differences between Bitcoin Cash and bitcoin (“larger blocksize” is probably enough)" - This has been done, I see such a claim in the text.
"It is unusual to specifically name a source (“Forbes says X”)" - actually, this is what is required by WP:NPOV if opinions of different sources differ. We have to neutrally present all relevant opinions as opinions, i.e. not in Wikipedia voice and attribute the opinions to their respective sources.
"I also think that the TechCrunch source is more reliable in this case." - I am sorry, but I cannot agree that Wikipedia should present only the opinion you prefer.
"Forbes claims that bitcoin “split”, but the original blockchain was unaffected by the fork." - Wikipedia should be neutral and not prefer one of the opinions, unless one is clearly an insignificant minority opinion. That does not seem to be justifiable in this case, considering that there are just two sources. The overwhelming majority would require both sources to agree.
"Referring to bitcoin as “classic bitcoin” and the “core blockchain” would confuse readers who only know about the incumbent bitcoin." - I am sorry but here you describe what both souces do. Forbes uses the classic bitcoin notion, while TechchCrunch uses the core blockchain notion. I do not think we can "correct" both and remain neutral.
"Giving Bitcoin Cash the same weight as bitcoin by implying the two are both “derivatives” is, IMO, non-neutral and undue" - that would be undue only if an overwhelming majority of sources claimed that, but an overwhelming majority of two is not less than two.

I hope this explains why the treatment of the available sources you propose above is nonneutral and not acceptable per WP:NPOV. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

The main point I was trying to make is not about the neutrality of sources but the language used and how easily a reader can understand what is being written. We are writing the article for readers, not for ourselves. Imagine you have no knowledge of bitcoin or its forks and you read this: "Forbes claimed that on 1 August 2017 bitcoin split into two derivative digital currencies". What does this mean? Was there a split, or did Forbes just claim there was one? What does a split mean? Does the original bitcoin still exist? (the answer is yes, but you wouldn't reach that conclusion after reading that) The language is incomprehensible. Then this: "bitcoin split into two derivative digital currencies, the classic bitcoin (BTC) and Bitcoin Cash (BCH)". The reader now wonders which one this article is about? Why is bitcoin now being referred to as "classic bitcoin", or is that some other bitcoin? Then: "Techcrunch described the same event so that on 1 August 2017". The reader is even more confused. They are wondering why TechCrunch and Forbes are claiming different things. If the narratives contradict each other, then only one can be correct, so which one is it? Then: "Up until the event, Bitcoin Cash used the same transactions as core blockchain". Hang on, didn't the article just state that Bitcoin Cash was created Aug 1? How could it be having the same transactions as bitcoin if it didn't exit? And now what does "core blockchain" mean? Is that bitcoin? Also, you didn't address the size concern. There is now two paragraphs to explain something which could be done in one sentence.
In regards to "Wikipedia should be neutral and not prefer one of the opinions, unless one is clearly an insignificant minority opinion.", this is irrelevant if one of the sources is provably incorrect. If CNN published a piece that claimed 2+2=5 we would not start claiming the same thing in articles. Forbes claims that bitcoin "split", but the bitcoin blockchain was unaffected by the creation of Bitcoin Cash. If the blockchain did not change, then what exactly split? Why do you disagree with "the fork copied the ledger and past transactions"? If Bitcoin Cash did not duplicate (copy) the blockchain and change the consensus rules, then what exactly happened? The only way this claim could make sense would be if you believed that Bitcoin Cash was somehow the "real bitcoin". Laurencedeclan (talk) 23:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
"The main point I was trying to make is not about the neutrality of sources" - What we have to make neutral is not the sources. What we have to make neutral is our treatment of the sources.
"They are wondering why TechCrunch and Forbes are claiming different things." - Per WP:NPOV we should represent all relevant opinions, so there is no way how we can omit one of the relevant opinions in this case.
"If the narratives contradict each other, then only one can be correct, so which one is it?" - This is what we cannot tell in Wikipedia voice when striving for neutrality. If the narratives contradict each other, then we can only say that they are different opinions.
'Then: "Up until the event, Bitcoin Cash used the same transactions as core blockchain". Hang on, didn't the article just state that Bitcoin Cash was created Aug 1?' - this information comes from TechCrunch. You seem to claim that the TechCrunch source does not look consistent. You may be right, but we are not allowed to correct the source.
"How could it be having the same transactions as bitcoin if it didn't exit?" - another observation related to TechCrunch source. You seem to claim, again, that the source is inconsistent. Even if you are right, we are not allowed to correct the source.
"There is now two paragraphs to explain something which could be done in one sentence." - as explained in WP:NPOV, we must explain and attribute both relevant opinions, not just one of them, the one you or I prefer.
"this is irrelevant if one of the sources is provably incorrect" - we are allowed to use only the sources. If using the sources, we can observe that they contradict each other, but we cannot tell which one is incorrect.
"If CNN published a piece that claimed 2+2=5 we would not start claiming the same thing in articles." - of course not, since the overwhelming majority of sources would claim that 2+2=4, CNN being the insignificant minority in such case.
'The only way this claim could make sense would be if you believed that Bitcoin Cash was somehow the "real bitcoin".' - It does not matter what I believe. What does matter is what sources state. You seem to be uncomfortable with both, but that does not give us any right to "correct" them. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
WP:NPOV does not mean we should include material in articles that we know is incorrect. That is why we have editors. If we just copy text from sources, as has been done here, we might as well simply turn this website into a mirror for news articles. You haven't addressed my point about making the article accessible to readers. If the average person cannot understand what is written and is simply confused by it then there is no point in having the material at all. The passage does not actually explain what Bitcoin Cash is and its relation to bitcoin. Anyway, if you insist on being led by sources, I have found many that define Bitcoin Cash as an alternative cryptocurrency, or fork. Forbes calls it an offshoot, Investopedia calls it a fork with larger blocks, Bitcoin.com calls it a "hard-fork split", another website calls it a "hard fork" that "broke off from bitcoin", I could go on. I think that is a large enough collection of sources for us to write what I suggested above, that Bitcoin Cash is a fork of bitcoin, instead of insisting that the original bitcoin chain split based on one misinformed source. Laurencedeclan (talk) 01:37, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
"WP:NPOV does not mean we should include material in articles that we know is incorrect." - How can we "know" something is incorrect without using the overwhelming majority of sources and without resorting to WP:OR? I am sure that study of WP:NPOV would help you in this case. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
If an overwhelming majority of sources claimed that 2+2=5, we would still know that is not the case. Also, original research implies that I have arrived at a conclusion based on my own primary research. It doesn’t apply to discriminating between the opinions of sources. Laurencedeclan (talk) 08:18, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The core issue that I see on this subject is that we should stay away from judgements about which is faster, better, smarter, etc. A similar discussion took place on the Ethereum talk page a few months ago, essentially how to treat the new brother/sister chain. As soon as the treatment starts partisian actors on both sides show up and start to disparage the other side, and it gets ugly. I think it is better to just state the obvious, that a fork occured, and then point to bitcoin cash. This wikilink should be prominent, probably in the lede, and have a small section on the page (where we can say a little). But I am quite opposed to comparisons of what is better, faster, etc as it is all speculation. FYI, bitcoin.com is owed by Roger Ver who is a big Bitcoin Cash booster, and thus is not an RS for this type of comparison. Imagine if the Ferrari and Lamborghini articles had comparisons of which car is better, faster, a shorter lead time, etc. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:13, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I’m in 100% agreement with this. We should say a fork occurred (not that the original chain split), say what changed (the blocksize), and move on. That’s not really what is being disputed here, though. I am suggesting we should condense the two paragraphs that say “X source claims Y” into one statement. I don’t believe Bitcoin Cash should be mentioned in the lead. In that case, why not Bitcoin XT/Unlimited/Gold? Laurencedeclan (talk) 07:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC) Now that I think about it, why is Bitcoin Cash mentioned in this article and other bitcoin forks aren’t? Perhaps there should be a separate section dealing with bitcoin derivatives. Laurencedeclan (talk) 07:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
"FYI, bitcoin.com is owed by Roger Ver who is a big Bitcoin Cash booster, and thus is not an RS for this type of comparison." - did anybody use bitcoin.com as a source? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
"I am suggesting we should condense the two paragraphs that say “X source claims Y” into one statement." - you claim that the sources contradict each other. That means we cannot make one statement from them, if we want to remain neutral. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:42, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
My understanding is that Bitcoin XT and Bitcoin Unlimited never came to actually exist on the blockchain, and where only variants of the client software that failed to get traction and thus didn't actually cause a fork. I suggest Bitcoin Gold also should be listed in the article along with Bitcoin Cash. Yes, I agree with you there is no difference from this articles perspective between cash and gold, meaning if we include one we should include the other. Sure cash seeems to have more traction, but that is my WP:OR and thus we should include both for WP:NPOV. Others have comments? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
"My understanding is that Bitcoin XT and Bitcoin Unlimited never came to actually exist on the blockchain" - as I see it, those are client software variants. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree, they are client software variants, and should be listed in that section. Bitcoin cash is a variant/fork of the blockchain and I think should be given a little more priority in the article (access to the lede) and some treatment in a section due to its overwhelming coverage. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Disproportionate length

In terms of word count, the two paragraphs about Bitcoin Cash take up 22% of the word count of the history section. The history section doesn’t even mention Mt. Gox or Silk Road’s use of bitcoin, both very important historical events, presumably because the article is too long, but we can dedicate a fifth of the entire section to a single fork with debatable notability? Laurencedeclan (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree. Indeed, there are several sections which are much too long/fragmented/trivial and not at all useful to the encyclopedic reader. Cpaaoi (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
As mentioned in the talk archives and pointed out in the article, the contents of the History of bitcoin section were moved to the History of bitcoin article. Only the summary is kept in the main article. I do agree that we should weight carefully what is in the History of bitcoin summary, but it is not true that the Bitcoin Cash fork is not notable:
“Bitcoin Cash has got its own Wikipedia article” means nothing. Wikipedia is not a reliable source or indicator of notability. To my surprise, Bitcoin Gold has an article.
“Bitcoin Cash fork is the first case causing a durable chain split” is a very subjective measure of notability, certainly not enough to justify dedicating so large a section to it at the expense of e.g. Mt. Gox. It is also not entirely correct. The developers had to change the difficulty algorithm to avoid chain death. Laurencedeclan (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
'"Bitcoin Cash fork is the first case causing a durable chain split" is a very subjective measure of notability' - that is not a measure of notability at all. The existence of the article is, however, since you can check the sources cited in Bitcoin Cash article, which can directly confirm the notability. On the other hand, the first durable chain split is something that did not occur for 9 years, so it surely is extraordinary and supports the inclusion to the summary. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:51, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Ladislav and I think that having its own article is a good measure of notability that editors can use, I use it all the time.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not disputing that it should be included in the article. Anyway, we are going off-topic now. I have quoted four sources above (one of which is Forbes) that refer to Bitcoin Cash as a "hard fork". This is clearly a majority of sources that do not refer to it as a split as that single Forbes source does. Does you have any objection to the following?

On 1 August 2017, Bitcoin Cash was created as a hard fork of bitcoin.

Better wording is welcome. Laurencedeclan (talk) 23:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

"I have quoted four sources above (one of which is Forbes)" - I somehow missed the sources you mention, and I would prefer to also see the source you want to use to confirm the claim to be able to judge the claim as a whole. Thank you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Quoting myself: ‘I have found many that define Bitcoin Cash as an alternative cryptocurrency, or fork. Forbes calls it an offshoot, Investopedia calls it a fork with larger blocks, Bitcoin.com calls it a "hard-fork split", another website calls it a "hard fork" that "broke off from bitcoin"‘. The lead of the Bitcoin Cash article you mentioned earlier uses this same definition. Laurencedeclan (talk) 19:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree with the text to call Bitcoin Cash a hard fork, there is widespread coverage to substatiante that. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:05, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

backups s/might/would/ have prevented the loss

on the current 17/12/06 sentence with the 51st ref/cit, there is a sentence that 'backups might have prevented this'. If I could edit (semi-protected), I would change the 'might' to 'would'. I think that would be more educationally correct in an important enough way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:48F8:9004:B2F:6627:37FF:FE53:4705 (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Laurencedeclan (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Is a transaction fee required?

The article claims that paying a transaction fee is optional. Since v0.9.0 Bitcoin Core apparently requires a minimum fee to propagate transactions, presumably as an anti-spam measure (https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide#transaction-fees-and-change; https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/release-notes/release-notes-0.9.0.md). Laurencedeclan (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the article claims that paying a transaction fee is optional, citing a WP:IRS (actually academic). The source you mention does not claim the opposite. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
It very clearly claims the opposite:

As of Bitcoin Core 0.9, a minimum fee (currently 1,000 satoshis) has been required to broadcast a transaction across the network.

Laurencedeclan (talk) 08:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
What you say is claimed only for Bitcoin Core 0.9.0, i.e. not for other clients. Moreover, there is no claim that other clients cannot be used. Even for the specific client it is claimed that the minimum fee is adjustable, and it is not clear whether it is adjustable to zero or not. If you want to claim that there is no client that allows zero fees, you must have a different source. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:53, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Considering the vast majority of nodes run Bitcoin Core [6] and the vast majority of blocks are apparently mined using it [7], it is disingenuous to claim that a fee is not required. Even in the extraordinary case that a large mining pool has adjusted their mempool fee threshold to zero – which they have no incentive to, as they earn nothing from feeless transactions – the transaction would likely be dropped from memory after being unconfirmed for two weeks with the large network backlog. Have you successfully sent any zero fee transactions recently? You would note that most clients do not allow you to. Laurencedeclan (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
"Have you successfully sent any zero fee transactions recently? You would note that most clients do not allow you to." - To be able to edit, I do not need to send any transactions. What I do need is to respect WP:IRS. In this case, it is you who is trying to delete a citation of an academic source without having a reliable source that could confirm the opposite. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The supposedly reliable source is from 2013, long before average fees started to cost $3. The claim does nothing but mislead users, who would after reading it believe that they don’t need to pay a fee. This assumption is incorrect if they want their transaction to confirm in under a month, if ever. Perhaps the sentence could be expanded to say that it is theoretically possible, but highly impractical. Laurencedeclan (talk) 09:55, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
"The supposedly reliable source" - why such relativization? If you have got a reliable source that could confirm something else, I do support to include it. Why not try to find one that could be used in the article to confirm that it is impossible to send transactions without mining fees now? Let me just note that the source you mention does not claim that. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I used that wording because the source is from 2013, before software changes and network congestion. I found this: [8]. “No-fee transactions today, on the other hand, may never be confirmed in the Bitcoin blockchain at all.” and that’s from May. Laurencedeclan (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. The claim: "As of May 2017, no-fee transactions may never be confirmed in the bitcoin blockchain at all." looks reasonable, but I am having problem with reliability of the source. I wonder whether we are able to find something having provable reliability. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:55, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
Even a primary source would be fine to state bitcoin requires a fee, as bitcion having a fee is non-controversial. Saying bitcoin fees are optional is clearly controversial, and thus that would require many RS. I think depending on the statement we can adjust the level of source required, and I think this approach is supported by Wikipedia policy. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
"Even a primary source would be fine to state bitcoin requires a fee" - but we do not have even a primary source stating that. What we do have is an academic WP:IRS stating the opposite and a primary source - one specific client description - stating that the specific client and its specific version uses a minimal fee which is adjustable by the user.
"...as bitcion having a fee is non-controversial" - I understand it so that this is non-controversial for you, but that does not suffice for the Wikipedia - see Wikipedia verifiability standards. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:02, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Here is a source for bitcoin requiring a fee: [9] It says: "To get your fortune, use Electrum's Send function and paste the website's Bitcoin address into the Pay to field. In the Amount field, specify 0.1 mBTC (if your units are set to BTC, enter 0.0001; change the default units by choosing Tools4Preferences4Base Unit). Bitcoin transactions also require a fee."

Bitcoin for the Befuddled Paperback – November 23, 2014 Product details Paperback: 256 pages Publisher: No Starch Press; 1 edition (November 23, 2014) Language: English ISBN-10: 1593275730 ISBN-13: 978-1593275730 By Conrad Barski, Chris Wilmer

- Here [10] is a second source that says that fees are not required, but advisable. It says "It is possible for a miner to accept any valid transaction without a fee. However, the majority that require a fee can delay or ignore transactions that bypass the fee structure."

Learning Bitcoin Paperback – October 30, 2015 by Richard Caetano (Author) Paperback: 236 pages Publisher: Packt Publishing - ebooks Account (October 30, 2015) Language: English ISBN-10: 1785287303 ISBN-13: 978-1785287305

I take back what I said above where I implied it is obvious that bitcoin requires a fee, as apparently it does not, and my ignorance is in fact contradicted by the sources (I love it when that happens). Maybe we need to be more careful about how we treat this topic, as it seems that indeed a fee is not technically required by the system, but is in practice generally necessary. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

The mean transaction fee is now $7 USD [11]. To get a transaction confirmed in the next block costs $15 [12]. The graph on the first link shows how a source from 2013 (or even 2015 for that matter) can no longer be considered reliable on this topic. Stating that “fees are optional” is misleading and semantics. I did propose it be changed to say “Fees are technically optional but in practice necessary.” Laurencedeclan (talk) 23:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
I support your proposed change. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Ponzi Scheme Content

There were a couple of reverts (specifically https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Bitcoin&oldid=797124270) relating to moving some ponzi scheme content to the history page. I support and agree with @Ladislav Mecir:'s delete to move off the page to reduce the article length. My logic is that the content does not really have widespread coverage to generate sufficient notability on this type of page that has huge coverage and thus generates a lot of content vying for coverage. Its like if the consul of estonia said Madonna was a bad singer, it also wouldn't end up staying on the Madonna page. @Aoidh: and @AHMED SHETA: and feel free to comment.

Sources:

This whole section is really left with one notable person calling it a Ponzi. A very weak section indeed. Maybe a feeble attempt at some sort of NPOV, like a critism section, but it is a week section indeed and deserves to be blanked.

Those are my thoughts... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Agree Due to the article size, and per WP:MOS, many sections were moved to subarticles. The necessity to move the information to subarticles was discussed here, see the archives. Knowing that it would increase the size of this article to 109,646 bytes, moving this specific section back does not have any consensus, and should be reverted to the WP:STATUSQUO. The argumentation calling the History of bitcoin and Economics of bitcoin articles "obscure" is not acceptable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I completely agree that the content should revert to the status quo. However, that status quo was to have this content on this article, per the previous RfC as you are aware. You've been attempting to whitewash this article for a few years now, with this content in particular a constant fixation. Despite several RfCs to remove it, not one consensus has been to remove it. Hiding it neatly into a subarticle seems to be the next best thing, however you've presented no cause for it; it's a very small couple of sentences, so size isn't an issue. - Aoidh (talk) 19:58, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
Full agreement with Aoidh. I am suspicious of the false claims about the article being too long - a) it's not that long and b) there's plenty of trivial material that could readily be removed on grounds of length but which is always left untouched or is re-included following attempted deletion. I am also suspicious of the constant efforts to hive perceived negative information to sub-pages. I do not believe these tendencies are improve the encyclopedic content here. Cpaaoi (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
  • See WP:RS and the previous RfCs on the topic. Being a blog is not the same as being a blog on a reliable site. The reason the sources have been so paired down is because Ladislav has been pairing down the sources for a few years now. The sources, paired with the length of the content, are in keeping with WP:DUE and the previous RfCs on the content. They should not be blanked, especially if you don't know whether or not something is an RS. - Aoidh (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I never saw the RFC on this, but I have only been editing this article a year or more. Please post the old RFC here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:25, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
One RfC is Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 27#RfC: Should the "Ponzi scheme dispute" section be deleted?. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4881554/Jamie-Dimon-Bitcoin-fraud-blow-up.html 109.156.38.168 (talk) 03:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I added some more content to the section, two good recent news events with notable people calling it a fraud, worthy to add it to the section. I am not taking a position on the deleting of the sub-page or adding it, just adding some content, as the section is sparse. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your addition, but the goal of moving the information to the subpage is to shorten the main page to readable length. You should read on that in the WP:MOS. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of the efforts on this article to reign in the size. What happended to the ponzi sub-article. Has it been deleted? Do you think there is a enough content now to warrant a sub-article, or shall we just leave it and wait for some more ponzi conent to come into the news, then move it after? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:34, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Jtbobwaysf. As far as I am aware, there never was a "Ponzi" subarticle. The economic details were moved to the Economics of bitcoin article. The subarticle is in no way "obscure", as Aoidh misleadingly claims. Specifically, there is an Economics of bitcoin#Ponzi scheme concerns section where I put your newest additions as well. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
@Ladislav Mecir: I support moving most of the content to the sub-page to reduce article size. I added a link in the section to the sub-article. Guess just need to discuss what should remain on the main page (I think limit to two sentences), maybe one about some people making ponzi claims, and a second sentence disputing it (essentially there is lack of consensus if bitcoin is a ponzi or not). Then readers can go the sub-page if they care to read more. Maybe like this: "Various individuals such Eric Posner, Jamie Dimon, and Howard Marks (investor) have called bitcoin a ponzi scheme. Organizations such as the World Bank and the Federal Council (Switzerland) have disagreed, stating bitcoin is not a ponzi scheme." Anyhow, just wanted to give a sample text to create a discussion, open to suggestions. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I disagree with the oversimplification. I think that it makes sense to move the whole section, and that is what I did. I can start a new RfC to find out whether there is a consensus on that. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
I think that the section (greatly reduced) should remain for WP:NPOV, and we can move most (nearly all) of the content and leave a summary which is standard procedure for other sections. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
@Ladislav Mecir: Do you have another suggested summary? If you are opposed to the summary in general, then we should delete the main page link I added (as the page is simply linking to duplicate content). There is already opposition above to section blanking this off to a sub-page. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
Opposition that bases its opinion on the false claim that the Economics of bitcoin subarticle is "obscure" does not mean a consensus on the move to subarticle cannot be achieved. Also, if you check the subarticle, you will find out that other sections were moved too. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Well there is no consenus as of now. I only see you wanting to move it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
I would reject all efforts to move the Ponzi material to a sub-article. What is this obsession with sub-articles? I have never yet seen this anywhere else on Wikipedia. What guidelines are you basing this on? Cpaaoi (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
See WP:SIZERULE and archives of this talk page. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:12, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
WP:SIZERULE: 100 kB Almost certainly should be divided. Firstly, this is not defined as a requirement. Secondly, why the concern with reducing and removing only perceived negative points; why does this noble quest in pursuit of brevity not extend to the reduction of the 19 subsections of badly explained technical detail? I wonder, indeed. Cpaaoi (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Ultimately I think a balance can be found between moving all the content and keeping all the contnet on page. This page is indeed too large and Ladislav is constantly moving off page to keep under control. @Cpaaoi:, these subjects that you are advocating can be covered in detail on a sub-article, and the summary can be linked on this main article. Then everyone is happy (unlikley, but good enough)... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Disagree The page is not too large. In any case, if length is a concern - a large portion of all the unhelpful and badly-written technical detail stands to be heavily reduced. And we don't have any issue with a subsection devoted to an episode of the Big Bang Theory? Do me a favor. Control, indeed. Cpaaoi (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Lead balance

Currently, the lead doesn't mention any criticism. Since there are concerns as adequately covered in the article proper, the lead should reflect this with at least a sentence or two for balance. Sincerely, —E:2606:A000:4C0C:E200:CCFA:802A:8BDD:BA79 (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

This is being discussed above on this talk page Talk:Bitcoin#Bubble/Ponzi/Illegal see there. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Distiction between the usage of Bitcoin and bitcoin

According to Blockchain.com and StackExchange, they state the the usage of Bitcoin is typically associated with Bitcoin the protocol and payment network. bitcoin is is usually associated specifically with bitcoin as the currency.

Yes, while there are no concrete and definite rules to the capitalization of Bitcoin, what should we follow? The differentiation of Bitcoin for the protocol and payment method and bitcoin in reference to the currency or follow WSJ, AP, and other sources stating to use 'bitcoin'? Aviartm (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

You should read the article, in particular the "Terminology" section citing WP:IRS supporting the use of the bitcoin term in the article. You should also have a look at the talk archives, where you can find that this has been discussed several times, and where the majority (actually 100%) of editors agreed to use the convention described in the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
Ah. Ok. I figured it has been discussed numerous times. Just more of a distinction on how people think it should be typed. That's why I asked. Thanks Ladislav! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviartm (talk • contribs) 20:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
In general, it is practical to always use lowercase. (Similarly as it would be practical to always use uppercase.) Any rule that is more complicated than that looks ugly (cAMEl) and has boundary cases where it is virtually impossible to determine which alternative shall be used. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Energy Consumption

Working on the basis that recent well-sourced clarifications on the energy consumption and pollution of bitcoin will be immediately redacted by this page's regular inhabitants, I'll save time by here proposing in advance to keep them - no doubt in preparation for opening an RfC about it. Cpaaoi (talk) 22:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

only 7 transactions per second ?

i know nothing about BC I read recently that the BC network, or system, has a hard global limit of 7 transactions per second if this is true, it is a serious issue and should be explicitly called out in language non techies can get thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:4701:BE80:30A6:67AF:AB5A:1BAB (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2017

103.199.121.223 (talk) 15:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
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. You have not made any request. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:37, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Infobox proposal

I propose we use the cryptocurrency infobox template once it has been sufficiently developed. The currency infobox is hardly sufficient to describe something closer to software than a traditional currency. The new one should be better at handling redundancies shared across most cryptocurrencies, such as hashing algorithm, consensus method, and block time/reward. This also reduces obvious properties of most cryptocurrencies that are not necessarily shared by physical counterparts, such as a decentralized structure and global access. — Kjerish (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

See Template:Infobox cryptocurrency/testcases

@Ladislav Mecir: Thanks for your help. I'm going to apply it to more test cases to see if any more fields are required, and will pull the trigger on Jan 1st. — Kjerish (talk) 22:57, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
  • @Kjerish: I like the infobox, but I'm not sure about the development section. Should the section include a field for the name of the reference implementation (e.g. Bitcoin Core)? What happens when there is multiple implementations? For example, Bitcoin Cash has Bitcoin ABC, Bitcoin Unlimited, and other development teams. Would these all be mentioned (including their release dates, etc.) in the infobox? There are also other full node implementations of bitcoin, "btcd" for example. Laurencedeclan (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
@Laurencedeclan: Those are different currencies. Their software has forked from the software this page describes in a change of consensus. There are many developers involved, but the most obvious focus should be bitcoin's flagship repository. — Kjerish (talk) 07:46, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Kjerish, you seem to have misunderstood Laurencedeclan's question. He uses Bitcoin Cash as an example of a cryptocurrency and asks whether there should be an implementation field, specifying an implementation or, eventually, several implementations of the cryptocurrency. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
As far as I am concerned, I think that this is not the proper place to discuss changes to the infobox template, though. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
@Laurencedeclan: Oh, okay. Yeah that's fine, the developers field should be optionally plural. — Kjerish (talk) 08:06, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

White paper field contents in the cryptocurrency infobox

Hi all. Laurencedeclan used an external link to refer to the white paper. Per Wikipedia policies, it is preferable to use a citation template instead of an external link, since:

  • the white paper actually is an article, i.e. the citation template is relevant
  • the fields allow to specify not just the title, but also:
Citation templates are for citations. This is not a citation. The template documentation says "link to white paper". Laurencedeclan (talk) 09:11, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Discussion of the cryptocurrency template implementation or its documentation is off topic here (I notice that you wrote that part just several minutes ago). The topic is whether the citation template shall be used or not, which is directly related to the article contents. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
The template is obviously relevant, as the link is in the template. Not in the article body. Perhaps you should read what I said again – citation templates are for citations, and this is not a citation. There are other external links in the infobox, such as the "block explorer" section. Laurencedeclan (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Article is too technical

This article is full of techy terms that make it impossible to understand for the average reader. In particular the system of blocks and verification of blocks should be explained in plain English.Wwallacee (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Agree This is an encyclopedia, not a documentation site. The technical material ought to be heavily condensed and clarified, and the absurdly numerous subsections reduced to a sensible handful. Cpaaoi (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Disagree with Cpaaoi. The design is a significant part of describing what it is. Significant majority of sources, especially the academic ones, describe the design. The Wikipedia policy is to use wording that is as simple as possible, but to not remove such information from the article. See also the wording of the "Technical" template. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I’m not sure how much more this article can be "dumbed down" without WP:OVERSIMPLIFYing. This is an inherently technical topic and such topics as block validation cannot be simplified without compromising factual accuracy. If you want to justify the tag, please supply some specific examples where language could be made easier to understand while keeping the information correct. You should look at some mathematics articles on here if you think this is difficult to understand. Laurencedeclan (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I simplified the wording of the lead section per WP:BRD, removing a part making the text unnecessarily complicated and not supported by the cited source. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:24, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I don’t think that was a very good change. Removing five words is hardly simplifying, and the statement was a good description. At the beginning of the lead we state that bitcoin "is a cryptocurrency" but we don’t mention why it is classsified as this or talk about cryptography anywhere else in the lead. Obviously transactions are done with the use of cryptography and digital signatures and there are many sources that confirm this: [13] "Whenever you spend a Bitcoin, you cryptographically sign a statement", "every aspect of the currency is confirmed and secured through the use of strong cryptography."; [14] "The integrity and the chronological order of the block chain are enforced with cryptography."; We should put the text back. Laurencedeclan (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Please see WP:BLUDGEON Cpaaoi (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Please order your posts chronologically, instead of putting them on top of other editors'. Laurencedeclan (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Disagree, it was not really a good part of the sentence. If you want to refer to Cryptography, you can add the information to the subsequent sentence, where such claim would naturally fit. Also, do not use bitcoin.org as source in the article, it is not a WP:IRS. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Please see WP:BLUDGEON Cpaaoi (talk) 04:33, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
@Cpaaoi: thank you. WP:BLUDGEON nicely fits the quantity of your messages at this talk page. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for that insightful contribution. I note that you aren’t even a part of this discussion. Are you going to reply to everything someone says on this talk page with that link? Slightly ironic, isn’t it? Laurencedeclan (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
What about reading at least some sections, then? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2018

Change: The network verifies the signature using the public key.[1]: ch. 5 

To: The network verifies the signature using the public key.[1]: ch. 5  The signature algorithm is the secp256k1 variant of ECDSA. Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page). Nettijoe96 (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Nettijoe96. Thank you for your proposal. I see one problem with it, though. To confirm that the signature used in bitcoin network is secp256k1, we need a source that confirms the claim, not a source that describes secp256k1. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Ladislav Mecir. I have a link to the source code as a ref. I don't know how to format this correctly because this is my first time editing wikipedia. Are you able to see it?

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Antonopoulos2014 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. The refernces are not working and even if they word they would not qualify as WP:RS\a reliable source. Please see that link for identifying reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2018

Hello, I would like to add relevant information on this page on the legal subject. Thank you. Tambisagar (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

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. — IVORK Discuss 04:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bitcoin/Archive_30&oldid=1142379633"