Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 32

Archive 25

←

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Unsustainable energy use

Mining bitcoin uses about 24 TWh during 2017 and is rapidly increasing. Single bitcoin transfer consumes approximately 200kWh. This indicates that it is unsustainable and causing significant environmental damage, especially CO2 emissions. This topic is increasingly in news, in technical bitcoin websites usually promoting it, and in investor sites. Solution to mining energy use has been known for years, but has not been implemented. I have not seen any proposal to reduce energy use of transfers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:20C0:5570:210D:47FB:B904:6866 (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The entire article seems to suffer from a bizarre whitewashing, whether intentional or not. The entire "Criticisms" section consists of three sentences. Smite-Meister (talk) 13:38, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Re "whitewashing" - indeed, the consumption claim uses a totally nonstandard "as much electric power as the whole of Ireland" instead of standard ISO units. The energy use is described in the Bitcoin network subarticle citing more serious sources, and using standard ISO units. The other claim in the "Criticisms" section is poorly sourced too. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Why not refer to the original source of the Guardian article? https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption FolkertMuller (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

How about: "Because it is not a WP:IRS, just a hobby site?" Ladislav Mecir (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Smite-Meister: I see you have re-added the digiconomist hobby site content here [1]. Just because the Guardian cites it, doesn't make it an WP:RS, at least not to my understanding or what Ladislav is saying above. Looks like WP:TENDENTIOUS to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

No, I re-added well-referenced Guardian content consistent with WP:RS after you removed it without any good reason, like my edit message states. You misunderstand what Ladislav is saying above. If you feel the information is incorrect, I'm sure you can find another reliable source that provides a contradicting figure, and then we may try to get a consensus on the actual number, or mention them both. Smite-Meister (talk) 18:50, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

The guardian is citing a blog, hence WP:PRIMARY applies. The economist source says the same content 'bitcoin uses lots of energy.' This extra bitcoin is bigger than x country dialogue, citing a blog, is not adding anything to the article. Your edits are not cooperative. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what you mean. Here Digiconomist is the primary source, and the Guardian article (the one we're citing) a secondary one. This is how it's supposed to work. There's nothing wrong with the Economist article but it's three years old, and since then the energy consumption has gone up by an order of magnitude. To ease your concerns I added another reliable source that cites numerous other experts, all arriving at roughly comparable figures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smite-Meister (talk • contribs) 19:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

@Calton: i reverted your edit. this content is being discussed here in this section. Digiconomist is not an WP:RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:57, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I do not doubt the claim that the consumption of the bitcoin network was estimated. That, however, is not what we intend to add to the article. What we want to add to the article is a reliable estimate, which is not what the digiconomist hobby site offers. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Digiconomist website states here [2]: "Digiconomist was created at the start of 2014 by Alex the Vries (born 1989) as a hobby project". Digiconimist is thus a WP:BLOG. Note there are existing claims in the article from The Economist that already goes into bitcoins huge energy consumption. What more does this blog offer to improve the sourcing? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: Please notice that the paragraph you keep reverting now has two sources. The WaPo one cites numerous experts, not just Digiconomist. No matter how you feel about Digiconomist the other experts seem to roughly agree with him, so either way the paragraph is well sourced.

RS Noticeboard

I posted this Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#digiconomist. Feel free to comment. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

New source

@Smite-Meister: and @Ladislav Mecir: and @Calton: I Came across a new source [3] today at Politico for electric usage. Might be useful as quite a good mainstream RS in the face of some of the non mainstream blog level conjecture we see here on this subject. Here is a quote:

Still, even supporters acknowledge that that glorious future is going to use a lot of electricity. It’s true that many of the more alarming claims—for example, that by 2020, bitcoin mining will consume “as much electricity as the entire world does today,” as the environmental website Grist recently suggested—are ridiculous: Even if the current bitcoin load grew a hundredfold, it would still represent less than 2 percent of total global power consumption. (And for comparison, even the high-end estimates of bitcoin’s total current power consumption are still less than 6 percent of the power consumed by the world’s banking sector.) But the fact remains that bitcoin takes an astonishing amount of power. By one estimate, the power now needed to mine a single coin would run the average household for 10 days.

Feel free to comment. I might try to incorporate a little content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Quintillion

I think the use of the term quintillion in the Mining section is misleading.

Between 1 March 2014 and 1 March 2015, the average number of nonces miners had to try before creating a new block increased from 16.4 quintillion to 200.5 quintillion.[57]

In USA and Canada a quintillion is the number represented by 1 followed by 18 zeros. In Britain, France and Germany a quintillion is the number represented by 1 followed by 30 zeros. Significantly different.

Which one is intended here?

Lucas Bendix (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

The smaller one, i.e. the former. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:41, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Anyway, not only was the British version a Victorian novelty that the US did not adopt, but the general trend in the UK and Commonwealth by now, for better or for worse, is to revert to the so-called American notation.

Actually the term was invented by the French and first used in the UK in the 1600s. In non-English countries the original (non-American) value is often still the norm. (q.v. international usage) Lucas Bendix (talk) 14:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that it's unnecessarily confusing and misleadingly grandiose. The numbers are large enough (and problematic) without the ambiguity. rags (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC) rags (talk) 04:39, 29 March 2018 (UTC)i

Energy consumption

I believe some minor mention of energy consumption should remain on the Bitcoin main article page. This is balance of POV, if nothing else. If the premise is falacious, I would love to know it, as it is one issue holding me back from investing. Pros and cons can be presented, as is normal in a balanced article. As a subtext of a subpage, energy consumption is somewhat buried on the last page, so to speak. Beneficial to investors, probably, but not transparent. I believe it has been introduced as a negative on this page more than once, and reverted immediately, possibly indicating an editor with a conflict of interest. rags (talk) 07:15, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

To change symbol from UTF8 to image in some cases.

I think it would be convenient to change from ₿ (UTF8 char) to (picture), because Bitcoin's UTF8 character isn't yet installed in the fonts of many computers, it's very recent¹.

Example: "Bitcoin (₿) is a cryptocurrency and..."

Exceptions:

1. If the symbol ₿ indicates a redirection of a url, then it must be its UTF8 character, example: "₿" redirects here.
2. Mention about the UTF8 character itself, example "Its Unicode character is ₿." GonzaloFernandez (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

I do not think it is practical to do that. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Using an inline image will not be supported on all platforms in the same way, so we should wait until UTF-8 support is updated, which will be supported more universally. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:34, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC on reinstating deleted history information

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.

---

Edit [4] introduced a reliably sourced claim (see The New York Times article citation below) that up until July 2017, bitcoin users maintained a common set of rules for the cryptocurrency (i.e. that the Bitcoin Cash split was actually the first one). The wording of the last paragraph of the section was

Up until July 2017, bitcoin users maintained a common set of rules for the cryptocurrency. On 1 August 2017, a change of rules was introduced. Since the new rules are not recognized as valid by the old software, the change is referred to as a hard fork. The cryptocurrency following the updated rules is called Bitcoin Cash. Bitcoin Cash has a larger block size limit and had an identical blockchain at the time of fork. On 12 November another hard fork, Bitcoin Gold, was created. Bitcoin Gold changes the proof-of-work algorithm used in mining.

References

Should the information be reinstated? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Survey

• Support Since the information is reliably sourced and since it describes an important aspect of the history, it should be reinstated. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
• Strong support. I'm surprised to see so little in the article on forks of Bitcoin. It's not obvious why this RfC was needed. Some of the resistance I see in the page above is because the concept of "fork" was inadequately explained; but the wikilink to hard fork addresses that. Some may be from PoV editors who believe "there is only one true bitcoin, all forks should be ignored." Maproom (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support. Of course information about Bitcoin forks should be included in an article about Bitcoin. Bradv 21:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I support including info on the forks, but oppose this text formulation as poorly sourced, with one sentece lacking any sources. Is this an RFC to input unsourced content? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:26, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Note Normally, it is not required to add sources to all sentences in the text. I can add more sources as explained in the discussion below. The fact is that the reliably sourced claim about the Bitcoin Cash fork being the first bitcoin fork that caused a durable split was deleted repeatedly, which is the main subject of this RfC. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose (summoned by bot) The problem is that the paragraph is trying to do two things at the same time. It tries to explain what a hard fork while also explaining why BCC is a hard fork. After reading the NYT article I agree with Jtbobwaysf that the addition smells like WP:SYNTH. Dryfee (talk) 19:29, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support - summoned by bot - the statements appears to be neutral, accurate and properly sourced. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
• Strong oppose – this information is completely incorrect. The assertion that "Up until July 2017, bitcoin users maintained a common set of rules for the cryptocurrency." is just an utter falsehood. There have been many changes to bitcoin's rules throughout its history, and many (most) nodes currently on the network do not follow the newest ruleset (Segregated Witness). One of the first big change of rules (the addition of a new standard transaction format, Pay-to-Script-Hash), occurred in 2012 [5], and resulted in several blocks being orphaned by miners not following the updated rules. Thus, it is quite obvious that they were not following a "common set of rules". This is most certainly not the only addition of new rules in bitcoin's history (random example). And even if you start moving the goalposts and say that soft forks don't count here, there was an incident in March 2013 which caused a hard fork with earlier clients, leaving them stranded on their own network. Again, not a "common set of rules". And let's not forget the 2010 incident where there where two separate chains for a period a time. Laurencedeclan (talk) 12:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Note "There have been many changes to bitcoin's rules throughout its history, and many (most) nodes currently on the network do not follow the newest ruleset (Segregated Witness)." - this sentence does not falsify the claim - the Segregated Witness was activated after July 2017, and the fact that the rules changed throughout history also does not falsify the claim that the users were able to maintain a common set of rules up until July 2017 (even though the rules were changing). Also note that the claim is confirmed by an independent reliable source, while your "falsification" is just a WP:OR. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
    • You should read again what I said. I gave empirical evidence of blockchain forks caused in the past because of the use of differing rulesets. See March 2013. Obviously not WP:OR. Laurencedeclan (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
      • March 2013 rule change was reversed, i.e. the common rules were maintained. You should read the sources. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:11, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• Comments
• I will seperate my comments into a few sections since I think there are different subjects to cover.
  • First, these investopedia sources you cite are user-generated content not WP:RS, and have no business in this RFQ.
  • Next, this proposal is an apparent mixture of WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR. For example, you propose "Bitcoin Cash has a larger block size limit and had an identical blockchain at the time of fork." This is not supported by the techcrunch source (the sole RS for the sentence) which says "So all past transactions on bitcoin cash’s new blockchain are identical to bitcoin core’s blockchain." Clearly, it says the transaction history is identical, not the blockchain. Next, this sentence is wholly unsourced saying: "Since the new rules are not recognized as valid by the old software." This WP:OR old/new software, do you have a source for this? My understanding (my OR) is that different blockchain clients are concurrently running many different old and new software versions.
  • Last, there is no real need to get into a large discussion of Bitcoin Cash on this page, as it is not the subject of this article, we can discuss Bitcoin Cash on that separate article. This type of controversial change will just later bring in WP:NPOV issues as various editors on either side of this political debate begin to argue about which blockchain is newer, better, older, etc. We have been through similar issues where Ethereum and Ethereum Classic POV editors attempted to introduce content to disparage each other, no reason to start this here now.
  • This sounds a bit like a discussion Talk:Bitcoin_Cash#RfC_on_split_notion_use_in_the_article that you and Laurencedeclan (talk · contribs) were having previously. What was controversial about this edit that you sought to do an RFC about it right away (as it looks to me that you introduced the content)? Is it the fork vs split nature (previously discussed), or the poorly sourced content and some other editor reverted it (I didn't see the revert if someone reverted this content)? If I am off base here, please let me know and I can just strike this section.

Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Re Investopedia sources—note that they are always used in combination with other sources.

In case of bitcoin and general cryptocurrencies, the use of "blockchain" instead of "transaction history" is not a WP:OR. It has been confirmed by many independent reliable sources.

Regarding the explanation of the hard fork jargon term in the text—there is no shortage of sources defining the term. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:04, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

This is a really strange RFC, it appears you added content and then did an RFC for it (was anyone challenging this content, with user generated content as a source and one sentence unsourced.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:28, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

"was anyone challenging this content"—No. The content was deleted immediately, without any challenge. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

There is so much going on here that I can't tell if this RfC is closed or active.

• Strong Support of preserving history, but is that what is happening? There seem to be several different arguments involved here. I would say that this discussion should be closed, probably by someone more conversant with this topic, and with RfC's in general, and if there is a need (probably, imho), a new RfC, with a clearer statement of ONE controversy, be opened. Jus sayin ... rags (talk) 05:11, 29 March 2018 (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 25 April 2018

Change: Malkavian (talk) 10:43, 25 April 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. NiciVampireHeart 10:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2018

Suggestion: Remove `explorer.bitcoin.com` right next to `Block explorer` label, because it is designed to be mislead its visitors. When someone clicks on its dropdown menu, it lists Bitcoin as "Bitcoin Core (BTC)" and Bitcoin Cash as "Bitcoin (BCH)." This is not just incorrect, but it can result in various fraud schemes, like the following: A scammer can use this site to prove he/she sent Bitcoin to the recipient, but in reality he/she only sent Bitcoin Cash. Because the site tries to mislead its users, the recipient would mistakenly verify the payment and get scammed.

If a third block explorer is needed I suggest SmartBit: https://www.smartbit.com.au/. It is easy to use, reliable and long operational.

Context: The above change was made previously by Eggishorn, however Apastuszak undid the change. Nopara73 (talk) 13:37, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

 Already done. The unexplained reversion was undone. « Ryūkotsusei » 18:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 April 2018

Change: | block_explorer = {{URL|blockchain.info}}, {{URL|blockexplorer.com}}

To: | block_explorer = {{URL|blockchair.com}}, {{URL|explorer.bitcoin.com}}

Why: Block explorers linked only let you explore Bitcoin Core (BTC) blocks, and not Bitcoin Cash (BCH) blocks. These others let you search in the two Bitcoin chains. Malkavian (talk) 10:55, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment: There's no issue with using trackers that display multiple blockchains, the issue is specifically with the tracker `explorer.bitcoin.com` which defaults to the forked BCH chain and also labels it as 'Bitcoin'. Whilst individual websites are allowed to do as they please, this particular deviation could be used to scam users by fraudulently presenting transactions on the much less valuable BCH chain as 'Bitcoin' transactions. The vast majority of users would expect 'Bitcoin' to refer to the original BTC chain, and so should not appear on the Bitcoin wikipedia page. I recommend denying this edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharklasers7 (talk • contribs)

Not done. Also, see section Bitcoin explorer below. Blockchain.info would be the only one listed unless otherwise discussed. « Ryūkotsusei » 22:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Bitcoin explorer

First, I note a Reddit thread on the block explorers.

I see no need to have three of these, apart from promotion/spam. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:21, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

As a semi-neutral party here, I would strongly resist making this list grow. If anything, even adding a second block explorer is something that likely should be removed but you can argue perhaps who that second one is.

blockchain.info is the granddaddy of all blockchain explorer sites and dates back to 2011 for its first appearance in archive.org. If there is any website that ought to be used, it is that one and I would argue sticking with it for now as it is even used as a reference elsewhere on this page. That website is technically older than this Wikipedia page.

Wikipedia should not and cannot be used to promote every brand new website and alternative block explorer. As a point of contention and being an edit war, leave it alone. If there is a better way to determine just who should be listed, I would welcome some civil discussion about the matter but otherwise let this issue drop. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Davidswiki, Ladislav Mecir, Laurencedeclan, ([6], [7], etc) please discuss before altering the block explorer parameter again. « Ryūkotsusei » 22:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

r/Bitcoin subreddit is not a valid source of any info, since it has strong censorship since 2015. Just search about it at google. -- Malkavian (talk) 11:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

As the person above stated, Reddit and even more so r/Bitcoin is not a valid source of information. Not only does Wikipedia frown upon using Reddit as reliable sources, the r/Bitcoin Reddit has had massive censorship for 3 years now. | Example 1, | Example 2 Simply put, other reliable sources need to be cited here for this to be taken seriously. I also commented in here on why I don't agree with this overall change. Clearly something fishy is happening here and I'm not sure if you're part of it or not. - Davidswiki (talk) 13:47, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment
  • The above linked Reddit discussion is no proof of anything.
  • All explorers list the same data, the difference between them being just the user interface.
  • The reason why to list at least two explorers is to allow the reader to look up the data even if one of the explorers happens to be temporarily out of order. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem that happens when you allow something like this to grow with no objective criteria for inclusion is that it tends to grow unchecked and turns the article into "List of....". I stated my reason for inclusion of blockchain.info so far as it is a genuinely notable site and has stayed out of the blockchain forks and battles for the most part. I accept that it might be generally useful for readers of this article to have access to a second explorer, but I am asking for you or anybody who wants to include another website to come up with a rationale that can be generally agreed upon.

I've had this problem on other Wikipedia articles, and culling such lists is a real pain. The alternative could even be simply eliminating this entry in the infobox altogether if it is causing too much contention and edit warring. Yes, I realize that such a move may be seen as having the trolls winning the day, but fighting over something this insignificant is also not in the best interests of Wikipedia.

As for the Reddit link, I should point out that the prevailing policy here is WP:CANVAS, which applies doubly so for that subreddit. They are hardly a neutral discussion forum and indeed that particular subreddit has a history of banning users for simply raising an alternative voice or even questioning the actions of the moderators. So the notification there of being a mass posting, biased, and partisan already checks three of the four boxes indicating an improper canvassing effort and private messages flying around checking the forth box of the canvassing effort too. As a vote isn't taking place right now, it is sort of irrelevant but that means you need to weigh the arguments a whole lot more too and filter out those who aren't familiar with Wikipedia as well. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2018

Change Request: Remove `explorer.bitcoin.com` right next to `Block explorer` label. Reason: The site is misleading. If one clicks on the "Currency" dropdown menu, it lists Bitcoin as "Bitcoin Core (BTC)" and Bitcoin Cash as "Bitcoin (BCH)". A scammer can use this site to prove he/she sent Bitcoin to the recipient, but in reality he/she only sent Bitcoin Cash. Because the site tries to mislead its users, the recipient will verify the payment and get scammed. Suggestion: SmartBit is a well established block explorer, if three block explorer is needed to be shown, it may be replace the current, fraudulent one: https://www.smartbit.com.au/ Nopara73 (talk) 19:01, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done I removed the explorer site added with no source whose reliability has been challenged. Three block-chain explorers are likely not needed in any event. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:55, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't agree with this change. Who is the authority on how many block-explorers are needed? Bitcoin.com's blockchain explorer (especially with Advanced View turned off which is default) is the easiest to use for people new to Bitcoin. My mother uses Bitcoin.com's blockchain explorer which I found for her after she found blockchain.info confusing. I personally use blockchain.info as I don't support Roger Ver or BCash, however non-partially I must state he produces the easiest to use block explorer for new users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.244.249.97 (talk • contribs)

I don't agree with this change either and this fake 'scam' scenario is completely irrational and illogical. The block explorer in question clearly labels each chain differently, one as "BCH" and the other as "BTC". They also have different URLs for each blockchain instance. In addition within the BCH protocol they built specific address prefixes labeled "bitcoincash:" (called CashAddr) so it's impossible to send something other than BCH and think it's BTC. There is no scam here and I must also point out that I noticed that the person that removed this and opened this talk blatantly went on social media |to brag about it and get trolls to come and vandalize this wiki page. I've also used the blockchain.info explorer and wallet they now too support BCH so are you saying to remove that explorer also to avoid this fake "confusion"? The point here is the entire cryptocurrency system is a network of multi-currency coins, there are hundreds of them and it's extremely bias and unfounded to start discriminating against certain websites because of someone's disdain for them. This goes against everything that Wikipedia is and stands for. Davidswiki (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

> The block explorer in question clearly labels each chain differently, one as "BCH" and the other as "BTC".

This statement is disingenuous at best. (Anon) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.182.240 (talk) 10:29, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Lack of representation for competing implementations

Bitcoin Core isn't the only implementation of Bitcoin and it shouldn't ever be referred to as a "reference" implementation. Bitcoin is decentralized and the leading implementation can change based on user preference. Competing implementations include Bitcore, Bitcoin UASF, Bitcoin Unlimited, several others and, arguably, Bitcoin Cash clients like Bitcoin ABC. Competing implementations should probably have more exposure on this Wiki. dhjw (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

BitcoinCore.org as the official website of implementation

Why isn't BitcoinCore.org used instead of bitcoin.org? As far as I'm aware, bitcoin.org is not owned or maintained by a Bitcoin Core developer(s)? Fortibus (talk)

Bitcoin Core specifically refers to, and is the name of, the reference client. Bitcoin.org is the consensus network / protocol's website. Though, the term "bitcoin core" is used throughout both sites, it is sometimes maliciously used to separate "bitcoin core" from being "bitcoin." Bijalba (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

For a decentralized cryptocurrency there's no such thing as a reference client - there is just a current leading client that may change. dhjw (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Citation needed. If there is a group out there that is widely being perceived as the stewards of the protocol, even if just de facto, then whatever this group calls a reference client is in fact a reference client, leading or not. Note that there are plenty of reference implementations for various and sundry technologies that are neither very leading nor even very useful. I know this is difficult for many bitcoin fans to accept, but merely describing something as "decentralized" does not magically make it so. The observable reality of the blockchain world is somewhat at variance with its advertised doctrine in quite a few respects. Kramler (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Suggesting Deletion Of In Popular Culture

Bitcoin is mainstream enough that its been in countless productions. Listing 4 examples is odd given the frequency Bitcoin has been brought up in countless cable TV and digital media. TangleUSB (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2018 (UTC)TangleUSB (talk)

TangleUSB, your suggestion seems to make sense to me. I suppose when bitcoin was more fridge a mention in media was notable, but today it gets mentioned often. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

"bitcoin was more fridge" - I guess that bitcoin never was "fridge", in fact. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Ladislav, trying to score points by deriding the other guy's spelling and grammar is considered bad form. Also, as someone who just wrote "the relevance of these informations" in literally the same comment you're kind of sitting in a glass house. You don't have to be insulting in absolutely every message to absolutely every other contributor. Kramler (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

My preference is to not keep the section in the article, taking into account that the article is getting unreadable due to its size and the fact that the relevance of these informations is questionable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Exchange rate and market cap

It bothers me that the article specifies a "price" and a "market cap" for bitcoin as though the values cited were documented objective reality.

Everybody knows that the bitcoin "market" is heavily manipulated. Exchanges actively encourage wash trades. Exchange operators actively trade on their own exchanges, front running their customers. [8] The prices the exchanges advertise are simply fiction under these circumstances. [9] Adoption as a medium exchange continues to be effectively zero and speculative investment has crashed together with the bubble; it is very likely that a solid majority of positions are spoofs. [10][11][12][13] It is also likely that a solid majority of the volume is wash trades. [14][15][16] The pump and dump is so incessant and so screamingly obvious [17][18][19] it has spawned its own genre of jokes, complete with its own bitcoin-only chart pattern. [20][21] There is a Twitter bot with 21k followers [22] that does absolutely nothing but point out instances of marks being punked by scammers; some hapless investor or other is being taken for a ride every couple minutes. [23][24]

Legitimate economists with no skin in the game apparently believe that the true value of a bitcoin is currently about $20. [25]

The market cap is clearly fiction too. Nobody can cash themselves in for their bitcoins even now because major exchanges have no actual money and no bank accounts; no withdrawals are possible until some new deposit can be attracted to match it. Judging from the Bitfinex subreddit, the median withdrawal takes about three months right now, and even that only if the sum involved is sufficiently trivial. No matter what the true price is now, any attempt by any significant fraction of the market to leave would cause it to drop to near zero. Remember the "cap" in "market cap" is supposed to stand for "capitalization". A value that could never be realized even in theory is not a market cap.

Specifying a "price" and a "market cap" in a way that implies these numbers are cold, hard, indisputable facts is encyclopedically improper. The numbers should be removed from the infobox or at least annotated with the appropriate caveats. Kramler (talk) 04:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

"Exchange operators actively trade on their own exchanges, front running their customers. [26]"—anonymous tweets are not acceptable as citations in Wikipedia. The same applies to all other twitter references.

"Legitimate economists with no skin in the game apparently believe that the true value of a bitcoin is currently about $20."—Actually, not. There are many that claim that the true value of bitcoin is zero as already cited in the article and its subarticles. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:05, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that we use anonymous tweets as citations, I used them as casual examples to an talk page to illustrate widespread public awareness of the problem. The tweets document exchanges between people that are happening. The screencaps of the price and volume charts document manipulation that went down. In any case, one of my links leads you to an actual book. We can use that book as a source for starters. It sells well and has glowing reviews. It's definitely a better source than the Coindesk blogspam certain other people around here like to use. I know the $20 are not consensus either, it's just that the lack of consensus is my whole point. The article is a WP:RS we actual credentialed economists go on record saying the prices quoted by the exchanges are gaga... which is all I said it was. I notice you're not actually denying either point.

It's been almost a week now and nobody has rebutted my point so far. Are there any WP:RS anywhere that says the exchange prices are real and are not being brazenly manipulated in the way that Gerard and others have documented? Any legitimate, disinterested third parties with reputations to lose? Kramler (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

"We can use that book as a source" - Per WP:RS we cannot use a self-published book as a reliable source. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Meh, its says we "mostly" cannot use a self-published book as a reliable source. It's not a black or white thing; WP:RS is pretty sophisticated about that. Gerard ticks all the right boxes: "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"; "expert"; credibility in the field; multiple positive reviews from other domain experts... All in all, the book is certainly a better source than the self-published blog posts we're usually using in this area.

Also I note you're still avoiding the actual issue. The onus is on you. I want to remove an unsourced statement; you want to keep it. Can you provide a WP:RS that confirms the claims the price information in the article makes, both the express and the implied ones? Kramler (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Price LEVEL aside, what about the PRECISION? The article always shows a price with 4 significant digits. This is batshit. Prices at different exchanges diverge by HUNDREDS of dollars even when there is no drama and volatility is low. When there is any volatility it can be THOUSANDS of dollars! RIGHT THIS MOMENT cryptocompare.com shows prices ranging from 9020-9050 (DSX, Poloniex, Kraken) to the 9500s (BitFlip, LakeBTC). There are outliers at 8890 (Coinroom), 11000 (Abucoins) and 12180 (LocalBitcoins).

The tickers just show the arithmetic mean of the last handful of transactions. They're not even trying to hide this. RIGHT THIS MOMENT, Bitstamp has prices around 9080 and Bitfinex has prices around 9060. Based on Bitstamp and Bitfinex, the roller coaster guy shows prices around 9075-9076. The ticker shows a price that, according to the ticker itself, nobody is actually paying!

The bitcoin price is not knowable with 5 digits of precision. Whoever puts this sort of number into the article is either not paying attention or is editing in bad faith, trying to make it look like bitcoin has a mature global market with no bad arbitrage opportunity when that is not the case. 151.237.18.43 (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the precision used: I assume that the precision in the article is the same as the precision used by the cited sources. Am I wrong? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you are wrong. The source the article cites for the exchange rate is Live Coin Watch. Live Coin Watch gives you a list of exchanges whose prices it uses to compute its average: Bitfinex, Binance, Okex, CEX, Huobi, and so on, and so forth. I made a screenshot of the top 100 prices a few minutes ago. The lower end was a bit over 9200. The upper end was around 9800. This means 1 (one) digit of precision. Live Coin Watch would not OPENLY SHOW this range RIGHT THERE ON THE LANDING PAGE if they were trying to fake 4+ digits. The source is alright, the article is just lying about what it says. 151.237.18.43 (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 May 2018

In the info box on the right side it says Implementation(s) suggesting there could be more than one. Only one is listed so I suggest adding btcd which is an alternative implementations of a full node. It is being used a lot in relation to running lightning network nodes Simernes (talk) 00:23, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Weight

@Blue Matt: & @Ladislav Mecir: you both have been editing the section about weight. Matt has been saying it should be 4 million, and Ladislav is saying it should be 4MB. Can we discuss the issue here on talk? For me, I dont know what 4 million means, and I somewhat follow bitcoin, so I cant imagine what the average article reader would think when reading 4 million unexplained units. Is it 4 million bytes, 4 million gigabytes, 4 million transactions, etc? We need to be clear on this. I am hoping one or both of you know more and can find a source so we can explain it properly. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

The maximum block weight is 4 million "units". The number of "units" is the size in bytes of the witness data plus 4 times the size in bytes of non-witness data. By non-witness data they mean the old-school transaction data stuff like ID, sender address, recipient address, amount, old-school signatures. The witness data is the data used internally by the segregated witness mechanism. Once the block is confirmed, the witness data gets thrown away. Only the non-witness data goes onto the actual blockchain. The non-witness data is guaranteed to fit into one single transaction block because, as per the above, its size in bytes is guaranteed to be less than 1/4th of 4 million, i.e. less than 1 million bytes.

In case this sounds pointless and roundabout to anyone, remember that the point of segwit is not to increase the block size but to close a security hole.

Blue Matt is correct; weight is not measured in megabytes. Weight is related to size but not directly proportional to it, and you can't predict the former from the latter without looking at the actual messages and their compositions, i.e. their semantics. Kramler (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Excellent description. Do you have any sources for this? I think it might be useful for us to update the article to better explain it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks mate! You can verify everything I said using the 3 inline citations directly following the sentence we're talking about. One of them links to a github page with some lower-level engineering background.

I went ahead and tried to clarify the paragraph. The way I'm seeing it, the "weight" and the "unit" are just a kind of internal legal fiction of the SegWit code. SegWit does not "change the definition of a block" and does not get you "increased block size" (like the SegWit page is claiming). Blocks are still blocks and still have the same maximum size. So I decided to just forget about the "weight" and the "units" and simply describe what is actually going on. Let me know what you think. Kramler (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you need to have citations, at least in priciple, for your claims. That, however, is not the case. Your claim that "Only the non-witness data goes onto the actual blockchain." remains unconfirmed. That is why I revert your edit. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the sources are already in the article, as I already pointed out in my last comment:

• From Understanding Block Weight, currently footnote #94: "The first thing to know is that SegWit introduces a new transaction format. In SegWit-transactions, signatures are put in an extra space. Old nodes only see placeholders, while nodes upgraded to SegWit are still able to see and validate the signatures. [...] SegWit data can be pruned very easily, which means that you delete it from the blockchain, while non SegWit-data is harder to prune."
• From Segwit Activated, #96: "Firstly, there is actual transaction data, such as the address the coins are being sent to. Then there is the witness data, which is all the information that is only needed when the transaction is confirmed, and then that data is essentially never used again. [] Once the transaction is confirmed by the network, the not needed witness data will be pruned off the blockchain, to save storage space and decrease bandwidth use."
• From Segregates Witness, #97: "SegWit is the process by which the block size limit on a blockchain is increased by removing signature data from Bitcoin transactions. When certain parts of a transaction are removed, this frees up space or capacity to add more transactions to the chain."

Emphasis mine.

I restored my edit, although I modified it slightly because you inadvertantly did make a good point − "the blockchain" has no well-defined universal storage format; the standards are wire standards. I'm replacing "not written into the block but is thrown away upon successful confirmation" with "is not sent to non-SegWit nodes and therefore does not form part of the blockchain as seen by the existing ecosystem". I'm not super enthused by my new version because I think it is too technical for this article, but there it is. I'm offering it in the spirit of compromise. Kramler (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for giving it a shot, I cleaned it up a bit. Noting more clearly that SegWit is (obviously) a block size increase, and cleaned up some strange references (eg, the "witness data is only used during verifiying" claim is kinda strange...the entire blockchain is only used when verifying, its just a way to synchronize a database in a verified way, after all). Blue Matt (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup; your version is much better than mine. Kramler (talk) 00:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the "4 million unexplained units" issue: indeed, as Jtbobwaysf observes, the edit deleting the unit specification deletes a substantial part of the information leaving the reader at odds which units are used. The fact is that the source already cited in the article mentions the maximum weight to be "4000 kilobytes". The same article also mentions the maximum weight to be "4 MB". These informations do not contradict each other, since 4000 kilobytes = 4 megabytes, which means that we are free to use any of the specifications from the cited source, or both of them, if we wish so. Since the unit specification is contained in a source already cited in the article, it is unconstructive to delete this information. That is why I propose to revert the deletion to WP:STATUSQUO. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

You're quote mining. The one source you're mangling is sloppily edited but it does unmistakeably say the weight is not a storage size.

In fact, the very paragraph you were quote mining from directly links to the revelant github design document! Dude :D :D :D

The source you choose to ignore says the same thing:

• "Remember blocksize isn’t even a metric any more. It’s been replaced by blockweight, the new limit of which will be set at 4,000,000 'units.'" See? "Units", not "bytes". Because it's not a storage size; different types of bytes represent different amounts of burden.
• "Now let’s say in each of the transactions, 400 bytes is witness data and the other 600 bytes is transaction data. The 600 bytes for transaction data is now worth 2,400 units, while the witness data is now worth 400 units giving the whole transaction a weight of 2,800 units. All of these transactions together will only take up 2,800,000 of the 4,000,000 units, leaving room for more transactions."

Matt is still correct − weight is not measured in bytes, it is neither a sum of nor otherwise cleanly proportional to anything measured in bytes. It's the result of a computation in which different types of byte count factor in at different factors. It's no big deal. It's a minor detail. You misspoke, whatever. Not worth it being butthurt about this. Just let it go. Kramler (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

"weight is not measured in bytes"—per the cited source the maximal weight is either 4000 kilobytes or 4 megabytes, i.e. it is measured in kilobytes or in megabytes.

"at 4,000,000 'units.'"—this is highly problematic as Jtbobwaysf correctly noted, because it leaves out the unit description, not informing the reader which units are used.

"the weight is not a storage size"—Nobody claims it is. The cited source claims that the maximal weight can be expressed as either 4000 kilobytes or 4 megabytes, which is perfectly possible, since both expressions are clearly the same.

"Matt is still correct − weight is not measured in bytes"—note that neither Matt nor you can be cited as an independent source in this case and that the source that informs about the units used specifically mentions maximal weight as 4000 kilobytes or 4 megabytes. That is why I revert the text to WP:STATUSQUO, knowing that you obviously do not cite a reliable source claiming otherwise. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the formulation changes as made in this edit—in comparison to the WP:STATUSQUO,

• the edit deletes specific information about the maximal weight (specifically the information that the maximal weight is 4000 kilobytes or 4 megabytes)
• the edit claims that "Transaction records traditionally contain a certain amount of data that is mostly only used while confirming the block in question;"—this formulation is unclear. The fact is that the data called "witness" is signature data. In comparison to the WP:STATUSQUO, the edit deletes this information.
• the edit claims that "does not form part of the blockchain as seen by the existing ecosystem", which contradicts the cited source claiming that the witness data are available to "nodes upgraded to SegWit". It is known and confirmed by WP:IRS that such nodes exist.
• the formulation "This lowers the size of the average transaction" is misleading. The fact is that it can lower only the size of a SegWit transaction, and only as seen by the nodes that are not upgraded to SegWit. The size of a SegWit transaction seen by SegWit nodes remains unaffected.
• the edit introduces a nonsense "hark fork" term, which is not really encyclopedic

Due to all the misleading parts and deletions of useful and reliable information you do not have any consensus with editing the discussed text in this way. Until such a consensus is reached, the best alternative is to revert the formulation to WP:STATUSQUO. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you want to switch to Usenet debate format. OK, it's been a while but I think I still remember :D

> per the cited source the maximal weight is either 4000 kilobytes or 4 megabytes

The maximal weight is "4,0000,000 units" per the cited source. [27] The cited source then goes on to explain "the way the new unit system works", specifying how "the number of units" is calculated.

I quoted this exact sentence in my previous comment. The "4,000,000 units" one. I reminded you of the source in my previous comment. I pointed out to you that the engineering document endorsed and relied upon by your own source contradicts you. I pointed out to you that the rest of your own source contradicts the paragraph you are quote mining from.

I'm still trying to assume good faith, but you're making it increasingly difficult. You're trying to WP:BLUDGEON me with what increasingly looks like an intentional misreading of a single paragraph in a marketing blog post that was clearly not copy-edited by technical people.

> Nobody claims it is

You do. Nobody has ever used bytes, kilobytes, or megabytes as units for things that were not sizes.

> note that neither Matt nor you can be cited as an independent source

We didn't say we could. Stop strawmanning.

> knowing that you obviously do not cite a reliable source claiming otherwise

Careful there. You're coming veeeeeery close to admitting to bad faith now.

> the edit deletes specific information about the maximal weight (specifically the information that the maximal weight is 4000 kilobytes or 4 megabytes)

It isn't. It's 4 million units, not bytes. A unit is anywhere from 1 to 4 bytes in size, depending on where it is and what it means. The fact that different bytes contribute different amounts of weight is in itself proof for the fact that weight cannot be measured in bytes.

> the edit claims that "does not form part of the blockchain as seen by the existing ecosystem", which contradicts the cited source claiming that the witness data are available to "nodes upgraded to SegWit".

By "the existing ecosystem" I obviously meant the older, non-SegWit-enabled nodes. You know, the ecosystem as it existed before SegWit. I'm updating the article accordingly, just on the off chance that you were actually honestly confused and not misreading things intentionally.

> the edit introduces a nonsense "hark fork" term, which is not really encyclopedic

You know what, forget it. You are misreading things intentionally.

TL;DR: You appear to be really, seriously, gravely unhappy because some dude called Matt with a red username has fixed a trivial copy-editing glitch in a paragraph that probably shouldn't be in the article to begin with. It's been keeping you fuming since April 29. Kramler (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I've read the comments above and will reply in general.

1. I have seen some very large blocks on the blockexplorers over the past few months, so it is a shame to say the limit is 4mb, when it seems to be much higher in certain circumstances.

2. It seems that there are 3 people in favor of making a change to weight (Bue Matt (talk · contribs), Kramler (talk · contribs), & me), and one against it Ladislav Mecir (talk · contribs). I think this pretty much rules out the statusquo arguement.

3. I think for purposes of sourcing we could use 2 good source (to establish fact/notability) and 2-3 primary sources that explain it better.

Comments? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

"1. I have seen some very large blocks on the blockexplorers over the past few months, so it is a shame to say the limit is 4mb, when it seems to be much higher in certain circumstances." - Do you really have at least one example? (I do not mean example of a block greater than 4mb, but an example of a BTC block greater than 4 MB would do) Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:48, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Please note (see the Metric prefix article) that there is a difference of almost 10 orders of magnitude between 4 mb and 4 MB. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

You must mean "mB". "b" is not an SI unit. Just saying. Kramler (talk) 09:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

No, I do not mean "mB". I cite what Jtbobwaysf wrote. If you think the cited text does not make sense, I will not disagree with you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:04, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

I do not have an example of a block larger than 4MB, I was going from memory here. I could easily be wrong or confused. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Community authorized discretionary sanctions proposal

A proposal to impose community authorized discretionary sanctions on all articles related to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, broadly construed, is currently being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#General_sanctions_proposal. Your comments are appreciated at that discussion. MER-C 16:35, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

NPOV edits

ad ban text

@Smallbones: you added the following text to the article in the lede.

Bitcoins and other cryptocurrencies are controversial and advertisements for them are banned on Facebook, Google, Twitter, Bing Snapchat, LinkedIn and MailChimp. Chinese internet platforms Baidu, Tencent, and Weibo have also prohibited bitcoin advertisements. The Japanese platform Line and the Russian platform Yandex have similar prohibitions.

First I moved it out the the lede section for WP:WEIGHT into the regulation section. Subsequently I looked at the sources and noted that these sources are referring to a cryptocurrency advertising ban, not a bitcoin advertising ban, thus they are not relevent on this article. Thus I deleted it entirely. This article is about bitcoin, not bitcoin and cryptocurrency. Imagine the length this article would have if it also was a catchall for cryptocurrency. I think this content should be added at Cryptocurrency where we have already been discussing it at Talk:Cryptocurrency#Some things that a "Controversy" section might want to discuss. Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:34, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

References

trading investigation text

@Smallbones: Your edit [28] was quickly reverted by another editor that also found this edit to not belong in the lede. These crypto articles already have a WP:SOAP issue from the promoter side, lets not start doing it from the anti-crypto side (both sides doing it doesn't create NPOV, it just makes a mess). I think it would be more suitable to discuss in detail all the drama around crypto in a dedicated section or even an article as I mentioned above. But jamming it into the lede here on the Bitcoin article and also something similar over Cryptocurrency here [29] and [30] and [31] is not the correct approach. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Wallet text

@Smallbones: I believe this edit [32] shows a pattern of WP:SOAP. In this edit your edit summary stated "minus advertising for money laundering services". The text you deleted was university and wired magazine cited (both RS), so what is your justification for deleting it? Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Our text essentially said "if you want to launder your cryptocurrency, you can use these laundering services." WP:SOAP (part of WP:Not) says

...Wikipedia is not for:

1. Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.

The sentence I removed is clearly recruitment and therefore prohibited. Since it is recruitment for a potentially illegal activity it's even worse IMHO. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The sentence you deleted I linked to in this section. Your summary of it to make it somehow promotional is a continuation of your SOAP on this talk page. There is no place for this at wikipedia. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2018

Include Art of the Problem's new documentary on Bitcoin (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKwqNgG-Sv4) Puppers90 (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done - This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it.- MrX 🖋 11:34, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Forks Section

I think we need some consensus on what the fork section should be about. I've tried to write a good summary that is objective and unbiased, but it continues to be deleted with people arbitrarily talking about two forks: Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Gold. Here were my goals for the section:

• Briefly summarize what a fork is and the reasons for them
• Talk about the first fork because this is historically significant
• Summarize some other notable forks

This is exactly what I did and the section was deleted. So we need to decide what the section should be. I think it goes without saying that the section should be fair and unbiased, not focusing on specific projects arbitrarily. Fortibus (talk)

Among the problems with your version include:

• Litecoin was not a blockchain fork.
• Bitcoin Cash is, by "market cap", clearly the most important fork

A fork is different from an "altcoin". If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be making dramatic changes to this article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Response (Fortibus)

• You said the burden lies on the person adding material to find consensus, especially in an area with WP:GS due to promotion and anti-promotion of Bitcoin Cash. I did not add material, I reversed the deletion of my content that was done on May 25th without explanation. This was the note I made in my comment when I made the edit. My content has been on the page for at least a month. For example, see the page as of one month ago: https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Bitcoin&oldid=839074745#Forks. So, respectfully, you're incorrect that I added new material. (I did add the notable forks as a compromise with the edits that deleted mine, but I'm fine deleting that).
• Litecoin is a fork of the Bitcoin Core client. So perhaps you're right that it's not a fork of bitcoin itself, but the most popular implementation of bitcoin. I do think Namecoin should be mentioned because it was the first fork, and therefore an interesting historical point.
• There's no need to be condescending. I provided two sources for the altcoin definition. Bitcoin was the first blockchain and remains the highest market cap - that's a fact. Both sources define altcoins as every coin that has existed since then, since by definition they are derivative in some sense.

So where does that leave us? Can I revert to the content that has been on the page over a month now? Fortibus (talk)

I'd prefer you wait to let other people comment (and to follow WP:1RR), but I have no objection to your adding this material under a new subsection titled "altcoins", immediately before the "forks" section. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:35, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I've (somewhat) done this. Feel free to make constructive additions and copy-edits, but don't remove the existing "forks" section without some consensus, it would be edit-warring. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:38, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the logic in your edit. You've now created two very short subsections that could easily be combined. It's not edit-warring to combine unnecessary subsections. You can't just arbitrarily define "edit-warring" to make a section of the article off-limits. For example I can't say "Nobody edit the introduction or else you're edit-warring me".

It seems biased to call out two forks arbitrarily. What is your reasoning for mentioning only Bitcoin Cash and Gold? Why not mention all forks, so we aren't accused of selectively promoting one fork over others? Fortibus (talk)

There is a difference between an "altcoin" and a "fork". An altcoin is any blockchain, often ones based on the Bitcoin codebase (such as litecoin). A "fork" also includes a certain part of the original Bitcoin blockchain. The first (and commercially most successful) fork is Bitcoin Cash, and it should be mentioned by name if we're discussing "forks". I have no strong opinions about Bitcoin Gold. As a final note, I'm not the only editor to have reverted your changes. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

As you said yourself, the burden lies on the person adding material to find consensus, especially in an area with WP:GS due to promotion and anti-promotion of Bitcoin Cash

You are the one adding material. I reverted to content that has been on the page for over a month. If you want to create a new section which only calls out Bitcoin Cash, you should be building consensus for that. That seems like blatant promotion of Bitcoin Cash to me and we should be remaining unbiased in this article. So I think we should mention all the forks, or none of them at all.

By the way, Bitcoin Cash is absolutely not the first fork of bitcoin. Namecoin was. Fortibus (talk)

You seem to have ignored my comments about "forks" v "altcoins". It may not be standard usage, but you're being deliberately obtuse. Also, the material I restored was removed by you in April, and had been restored by two other editors before I did so. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:21, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

As an attempt to compromise while improving the article, I have fleshed out the section considerably and kept both of our content. I've tried to give a brief summary of the history of forks and their rationale. Most forks have occurred because of differences in opinions about how to scale bitcoin, but also Segwit was a contributor. I think by giving a higher-level view of the issue it makes the article more objective. Bitcoin Cash is mentioned, but so are predecessors that led up to it. Fortibus (talk)

All this fork content is good stuff, but can it go in List of bitcoin forks instead? This article is about bitcoin, not cryptocurrencies in general. Bradv 21:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm open to ideas. How do you think the fork section of this article be set up? Since we're talking about the history of bitcoin I would imagine we give at least a very small idea of what a fork is and when they've occurred. And then they should be elaborated on the List of bitcoin forks article.

If we simply delete the forks section, somebody is going to add it back trying to promote their fork, so I think we have to have something there. Fortibus (talk)

Forbes source

@Greyfell: I agree that forbes contributors are generally not reliable for everything, but [33] is 3 wallet CEOs giving their expert opinion on non-controversial subjects (such as wallet mechanics). Also this you revereted was a staff writer [34] and likley an RS. I agree with Ladislav Mecir (talk · contribs) on some of this. I haven't read it all though. Let's discuss. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The Hill source slipped through the cracks, but I don't think the rest should be preserved, at least not without much, much better attribution. For questionable sources, the burden here should be on inclusion. This article has a lot of subjectivity problems, and the flimsy sources don't help, but are not the main culprit. For simplicity here are just a couple of examples:

Saying something is Acording to Forbes... when it is merely a comment from one contributor is badly misrepresenting the source. This is for a point that seems like back-door editorializing anyway. This article was not a direct response to Mark T. Williams, and the current wording is indirectly implying that it is while also presenting it as equal in authority. This is not true, and is a subjective opinion of Timothy B. Lee (not that one), so it should not be presented as a direct rebuttal. If we do not have a reliable source stating this, it should not be here at all.

As for the wallet experts, I should've removed the entire line A better way to describe a wallet is something that "stores the digital credentials for your bitcoin holdings" This is sloppy attribution because we are quoting him without explaining where the quote came from. Nobody, not even bitcoin CEOs, are such vaunted experts that they don't need attribution. The quote is from someone named Will O'Brien (not these ones) who was, at the time, CEO of BitGo, but his name was removed completely from that article in 2015. Perhaps you know why, but I don't, and this seems like the kind of thing that would cast even more doubt on an already obscure, flaky source. The quote is not at all being presented as an alternative to the other description sourced to Mother Jones, making its use here a problem. The claim itself is fairly routine, but it is still a subjective call being presented as objective. The current phrasing is implying that this obscure interview is "better" than the Mother Jones sources, which isn't appropriate encyclopedic writing. It is also picking one non-neutral interview in an unreliable outlet and giving that precedence over a more reliable, uninvolved source. There are a lot of problems with that, which are hopefully obvious. Grayfell (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

I do agree with the deletion of articles by Forbes contributors from the sources. That said, a sweeping deletion justified by a claim that it deletes articles by contributors while letting Forbes staff "slip through the cracks" looks nonneutral to me. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I am saying this was a mistake on my part, in case that wasn't clear. If you feel this was inappropriate in some way, either make yourself clear and explain why, or keep it to yourself and let it go, but don't cast aspersions over something so trivial. Grayfell (talk) 05:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for not explaining thoroughly what I had in mind. By a "nonneutral edit", I meant especially this edit, which was not really justified or justifiable in its entirety. Thank you for the corrections you made, and, of course, one error is both tolerable and easily correctible. I certainly do not assume you did not want to improve the article contents. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I see. I misunderstood what you were saying, and I appreciate the clarification. thank you. Grayfell (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you both (except for the non-neutral claim). Let's cointinue to clean the content and sourcing up and WP:AGF in the process. Happy editing Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Anything under Forbes.com/sites is user submission regardless if they're a Forbes staffer or not. It's not a reliable source. Full stop. Q ^{T C} 08:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC) Q ^{T C} 08:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

The disclaimer "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." appears only at contributed articles, not at the Forbes staff-written ones. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I tend to fall on Ladislav's side on this one. It seems that if we are going to view forbes staff writers as contributor content (non-RS) this should be discussed in a broder forum such as RfC or RS noticeboard. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Revert - Why?

@Amorpisseur:‎ Please see this revert [35]. The material I previously inserted is obviously true and well documented. It is also hugely important and covered in a section in the text below. I'll revert it back in until I see some serious justification for its removal. Please remember the 1RR restriction on this page. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC about the Segregated Witness block weight maximum

The consensus is that the information that the block weight maximum is 4 megabytes should not be restored.

Cunard (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

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 information that the block weight maximum is 4 megabytes be restored? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Survey on block weight

• Support The source citing bitcoin expert and computer scientist Joachim Hoenicke claims that the block weight maximum is "4000 kilobytes" and also that it is "4 MB". Since 4000 kilobytes = 4 megabytes, it does not matter which of the formulations is used. I propose to preserve the formulation that the maximum is 4 megabytes. Another source that supports the claim that the block weight maximum is 4 MB is this article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Some would say that 4096 kilobytes = 4 megabytes. Maproom (talk) 06:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Transaction weight is related to but distinct from transaction size, just like physical weight is related to but distinct from mass. Transaction weight is not measured in bytes the same way physical weight is not measured in kilograms. It's easy to find sources that describe a carton of milk or a bag of flour as "weighing" one kilogram, or that use metric tons to talk about the "weight" of coal shipments or aircraft carriers. These sources are taking a terminological shortcut because they are trying to be succinct and accessible to a general audience. They are not trying to claim that physicists use one and the same SI unit for weight and mass. Some evidence:
  • The technical specification due to Lombrozo, Lau, and Wuille [36] consistently uses the word "bytes" when talking about block size but never when talking about block weight. Most notably, this is true for the section called "Transaction size calculations", the heart of the document.
  • Jimmy Song, a widely respected expert, educator, and venture partner at Blockchain LLC, does the same thing in his essays. [37] He measures block sizes in bytes. He never measures weights in bytes.
  • The Bitcoinist explanation [38] cited in the Bergmann article (!!!) specifically states that weight is not measured in bytes. It says "numbers of units" when talking about weight and "numbers of bytes" when talking about storage size. It says the maximum block weight is "4,000,000 'units.'" It contains multiple examples that confirm and expand on this.
  • The Bitcoin wiki has a page on "Weight units" that decribes how units are not bytes. [39]
  • There is at least one Reddit thread that makes clear the distinction was already well established in the wider bitcoin community about a year ago. [40]
  • The bitcoin stack exchange agrees: [41] "Blocks used to be limited to 1,000,000 bytes (1MB). Since segwit they are limited to 4,000,000 weight units."
  • Same thing at segwit.org, in an article without byline, i.e. speaking as an organization. [42] It starts right in the first paragraph. "Segregated witness replaces the block size limit with a new block weight limit, counting each byte of witness data as 1 unit of weight and UTXO transaction data as 4 units;"
  • Same from bitcoincore.org. [43] "Segwit updates the 1MB block size limit to a 4M unit block weight limit, counting serialised witness data as one unit, and core block data as four units." Later in the same article: "Segwit updates the 1MB block size limit to a 4M unit block weight limit, counting serialised witness data as one unit, and core block data as four units."
  • Same from cryptocompare.com, also editorial voice. [44] First: "Instead, Segwit updates the 1MB block size limit into a 4 million unit block weight limit, counting serialised witness data as one unit and core block data as four units." Later: "This change, however, only affects witness data and each non-witness byte is still counted as 1 byte towards the maximum block size limit (1MB) or as 4 units towards a maximum block weight of 4M units."
  • I could go on for a few dozen more bullets. (Tons of Google hits! − see what I did there?) But I shouldn't have to. The design documents are unambiguous. The preponderance of the secondary sources makes it unambiguously clear that bitcoin community members with technological knowledge or mathematical inclinations are following the documents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kramler (talk • contribs) 9:53 10 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment
    • The technical specification [45] never says that the maximum block weight is 4 megabytes, but it also never contradicts the claim.
    • The [46] never says that the maximum block weight is 4 megabytes, but it also never contradicts the claim.
    • The Bitcoinist explanation [47] states that weight is measured in units, but it never specifies what these units are, nor that they are distinct from bytes.
    • The Bitcoin wiki is unreliable and confusing.
    • The Reddit thread is unreliable.
    • The stack exchange is unreliable (and it does not contradict the claim, in fact).
    • Medium articles are not reliable in general.
    • Bitcoincore.org mentions units but never specifies what the units are.
    • Also note that Kramler deleted the information specifying the maximal weight, knowing that without specifying the unit, the information is worthless for Wikipedia readers.
    • "Transaction weight is not measured in bytes the same way physical weight is not measured in kilograms."—consult WP:OR, please. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:12, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. Two manchildren with too much spare time are fighting each other over two words. Both of them are deeply suspect. Kramler is some kind of law-talking guy and presumably has no formal training in computer science. Ladislav Mecir is a single issue bitcoin advocate who is making no contributions to Wikipedia at this time except attack everybody who touches this article, regularly resorting to ad hominems and occasionally moving goalposts. Kramler may well be talking out of his posterior. Ladislav may well need some more emotional distance to the subject. Neither cites any true WP:RS. They both argue mainly from blog posts and other low quality sources, although to be fair, bitcoin being bitcoin, there may not be much else to argue from. How about we ignore the reams and reams and reams of slapfight and just look at the article itself again. THERE IS NO CLEAR AND PRESENT REASON THE ARTICLE NEEDS TO MENTION THE 4-MILLION WHATEVER LIMIT. The page is a general overview article about a huge topic touching everything from central banking to kiddie porn darkmarkets to the future of the welfare state. It contains a short intro paragraph on SegWit that aims at explaining the MOTIVATION behind SegWit and the BASIC CONCEPT of SegWit to interested layfolk forming a first overview impression. The maximum block weight is just trivia in this context. The place for this kind of technical detail is the SegWit article. The current version of the SegWit section in this article seems to be fine. There is no good reason to add the 4-million limit just so somebody can win an internet throwdown. 151.237.18.43 (talk) 08:51, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - (invited randomly by a bot) Bitcoin block weight is way too technical for an overview topic and ironically fails WP:WEIGHT policy. I think it's unlikely to stand alone as its own topic as well. I recommend dropping this question. Jojalozzo (talk) 01:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree with the change made in this diff. "4 megabytes" is needlessly confusing here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose - Yeesh, I mean really I dont think it matters /that/ much, but the reality of writing an article about Bitcoin is there are a *ton* of really, really, really terrible sources out there - most of them masquerading as some "cryptocurrency news site" where they are either pushing an adgenda or just cobbling together random text to get ad buys. Due to the lack of really good "cryptocurrency news sites", they often get a good bit of coverage, sadly.

Threaded discussion on block weight

I thought I would add some background since it wasn't added in the RfC orginally. Hopefully others will add to this background as well, as I am concerned uninvoled editors summoned by bots will be left in the dark about this RfC otherwise. There has been a discussion here recently on this talkpage about the blocksize increase that was part of Bitcoin's SegWit upgrade. The sources we found seem to indicate that the blocksize increase is to somewhere between 1.8-4mbMB from the original size of 1mbMB. The issue we editors are facing is that there seems to be a change in the units used to measure blocksize from megabytes to some new obscure (at least to me) unit of measurement called units. Bue Matt (talk · contribs) and Kramler (talk · contribs) advocate for a change to units. I too have read in sources that the change to units is supported by sources. Ladislav Mecir (talk · contribs) states that high quality sources do not mention units and rather state megabytes. I have somewhat been on the fence thus far as it seems we do not want to make incorrect statements on the article, and we should follow sources. I think there are some primary sources that state units (as Ladislav has pointed out above), leaving us with the better quality sources stating megabytes (even it appears from our own WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY that it might be incorrect). Hopefully this provides some background and others will add more. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

An information on units and their symbols supplementing and correcting the claims made by Jtbobwaysf above. The lowercase character b is a symbol for a bit recommended by the IEEE 1541-2002 and IEEE Std 260.1-2004 standards. Bit is a portmanteau for a binary digit, the basic unit of information. In contrast to that, the symbol recommended by the IEC and IEEE for a byte is the upper case character B. SI prefixes are used to specify the multiples, which means that, e.g. 1 megabyte can be written as 1 MB, but never as "1mb", which would be 1 millibit, i.e. a quantity smaller by almost 10 orders of magnitude. To understand the block weight definition I recommend every interested reader (not just the participants in this particular discussion) to consult the explanation citing a bitcoin expert and computer scientist Joachim Hoenicke, since it discusses the matter in an informative, comprehensive and independent way. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

References

---

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.