Jump to content

Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 40

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 35←Archive 38Archive 39Archive 40Archive 41

Lead again

@A455bcd9: I propose that the WP:LEAD be updated to properly summarize the article, I thought I would make a new section here. We previously discussed this Talk:Bitcoin#"Excessively_dated"_content_in_the_lead.

I propose that the lead have 4 paragraphs, an into paragraph and then one paragraph each for each of the articles three main sections. I will provide a very general proposal below, as I think that might be the easiest way to start.

  • Intro: "Bitcoin (abbreviation: BTC or XBT; sign: ₿) is the first decentralized cryptocurrency. Nodes in the bitcoin network verify transactions through cryptography and record them in a public distributed ledger called a blockchain. Based on a free market ideology, bitcoin was invented in 2008 by Satoshi Nakamoto, an unknown person" -I just copied from existing text....
  • Bitcoin#History. 'Bitcoin started in x year, a few things happened along the way, and today we are at the most recent event.' -We can just summarize what we have in the body here.
  • Bitcoin#Design. 'Bitcoin is designed in x way and does y. "Its proof-of-work algorithm for bitcoin mining is computationally difficult and requires increasing quantities of electricity, so that, as of 2022, bitcoin is estimated to be responsible for 0.2% of world greenhouse gas emissions." The environmental effects of bitcoin are also substantial.
  • Bitcoin#Economics_and_usage Use of bitcoin as a currency began in 2009, with the release of its open-source implementation. Bitcoin started as a Austrian economics ideal. In 2021, El Salvador adopted it as legal tender. Bitcoin is currently used less as a medium of exchange and more as a store of value. It is mostly seen as an investment and has been described by many scholars as an economic bubble. As bitcoin is pseudonymous, its use by criminals and rogue governments has attracted the attention of regulators, leading to its ban by several countries as of 2021.

Anyone care to expand from there? Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Your proposal seems good to me, although the devil is in the details :) Feel free to be bold and implement it. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:28, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
"Use of bitcoin as a currency began in 2009, with the release of its open-source implementation. Bitcoin started as a Austrian economics ideal. In 2021, El Salvador adopted it as legal tender." => this should go in the "History" paragraph btw. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
@3df: would you like to expand on the design paragraph? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't think there needs to be a design paragraph in the lead, as long as the first paragraph covers that bitcoin is a peer-to-peer decentralized cryptocurrency using a new type of ledger called a blockchain. I think these are all covered nicely. We could use this paragraph to cover the environmental effects instead. 3df (talk) 16:23, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
We do have a need to summarize the article as best as we can. I will add a sentence or two in the lead about design then. It would be undue to ignore the design and only cover the design's externalities. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf I agree with @3df that the design is already well summarized: we mention that it is decentralized, pseudonymous cryptocurrency secured by an energy intensive process called mining, with a ledger called blockain, and that the whole is open source. What else can be said?! a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Your right, I also dont see much to add. Maybe this: A new block is created every 10 minutes on average, updating the blockchain across all nodes without central oversight.
Any other comments? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
The reader has no way of knowing what block means in this context without looking ahead at the article. I don't think that sentence is needed 3df (talk) 04:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
@3df Yes and the 10 min delay is useless and irrelevant in the lead. We could add "peer-to-peer" (with link) before "bitcoin network" and add the word "consensus" somewhe. That's it. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Draft 1

Please feel free to edit below. (We will delete the wikilinks at the beginning of each paragraph and the bullet formatting (they are just there for organizational purposes) Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how the lead you suggest is an improvement from the current one. Who cares about the 2 pizzas or Silk Road in the lead?! Why is there twice "Based on a free market ideology" and "Bitcoin started as a Austrian school of economics ideal."? Where does "rogue governments" appear in the body? (I've just added peer-to-peer + consensus btw, poke @3df). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I'd like to help with this, but I'd say the current lead is much better than this draft as it is now. The pizzas definitely don't belong in the lead. I don't think we need to mention SR or the Austrian economics. Actually, I don't think anything in the History paragraph of the draft needs to be in the lead. The one-paragraph-per-section model might not be the way to go here. 3df (talk) 08:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
It seems there is not support for this (proposed change to lead), so i will drop. Appreciate both of your feedback. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Intro: "Bitcoin (abbreviation: BTC or XBT; sign: ₿) is the first decentralized cryptocurrency. Nodes in the bitcoin network verify transactions through cryptography and record them in a public distributed ledger called a blockchain. Based on a free market ideology, bitcoin was invented in 2008 by Satoshi Nakamoto, an unknown person"
  • Bitcoin#History. In 2010 Bitcoin was used for the first commercial transaction, two pizzas. Beginning in 2011 Bitcoin was used extensively on the Silk Road, a dark web marketplace. In 2013 various governments began to take notice and both China and the US placed restrictions on Bitcoin's use. In February 2021, Bitcoin's market capitalization reached $1 trillion for the first time.
  • Bitcoin#Design. Bitcoin uses a blockchain and is designed as a peer to peer network. "The proof-of-work algorithm for bitcoin mining is computationally difficult and requires increasing quantities of electricity, so that, as of 2022, bitcoin is estimated to be responsible for 0.2% of world greenhouse gas emissions." The environmental effects of bitcoin are also substantial.
  • Bitcoin#Economics_and_usage Use of bitcoin as a currency began in 2009, with the release of its open-source implementation. Bitcoin started as a Austrian school of economics ideal. In 2021, El Salvador adopted it as legal tender. Bitcoin is currently used less as a medium of exchange and more as a store of value. It is mostly seen as an investment and has been described by many scholars as an economic bubble. As bitcoin is pseudonymous, its use by criminals and rogue governments has attracted the attention of regulators, leading to its ban by several countries as of 2021. Several economists have reported that bitcoin is in a bubble.

=piping

Please reduce or limit the use of piping in the lead per WP:NOPIPE. Especially where text states bitcoin and links to cryptocurrency. This might have been mostly resolved, but wanted to document this policy. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:40, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

history

@A455bcd9:, you reverted to re-add this the article, which I had moved to the sub-article so we have at least two sentences in the 2023 section. Are we going to duplicate content on the main bitcoin article? What is your explanation of which history remains on the main article and which history stays on the sub-article? Is this content you reverted particularly WP:DUE for some reason? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Are we going to duplicate content on the main bitcoin article?: yes, of course, that's how Wikipedia works: The most important content from the subarticles is repeated in the main article.
You did not provide any reason for removing this sentence, that's why I reverted you. Why do you think it should be removed? It's sourced in a good academic journal. And Ordinals are, I think, one of the biggest news events of 2023 for BTC (see Sotheby's recent auction and Bitcoin NFTs now above all other chains in sales volume. Of course these are not RS, just FYI.) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Environment effects in the first paragraph

@Grayfell: In response to your revert, my concern is not with the proportion of the greenhouse matters discussed, it is with its placement in the first paragraph. The first paragraph should be reserved for a basic explanation of what bitcoin is. Any remarks about mining or the environment feel tangential to bring up that early. They should be in the second or third paragraph in the lead. TarkusABtalk/contrib 08:58, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Per many prior discussions, the environmental impact is a major factor which defines how sources discuss bitcoin. To put it another way, few, if any, reliable sources provide an overview of the larger topic of bitcoin which do not mention this issue. Per reliable sources, being environmentally wasteful is part of the basic explanation of what bitcoin is. Grayfell (talk) 23:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Grayfell your position on this is false and you have had many editors complaining about this. This is in violation of MOSLEAD Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Like @Grayfell: said this is important information to include and could be emphasized even further in the Intro. Recent research emphasizes this:
"The Environmental Footprint of Bitcoin Mining Across the Globe: Call for Urgent Action", https://doi.org/10.1029/2023EF003871 Uninspired Username (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
One of countless such studies. That particular study has been covered by a couple of science-journalism outlets, such as Discover Magazine. Grayfell (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Your personal opinion is irrelevant, as you already know. Reality isn't decided by the complaints of a handful of editors, and from past experience, most of those editors are citing unreliable pro-cryptocurrency nonsense for their sources -again, as you already know. Saying that this is "false" is ignoring what reliable sources are saying. Pretending this isn't a defining problem for bitcoin is neither appropriate nor wise. Grayfell (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't think anything you suggested is false, Grayfell. I don't know what the history is here, but my concern was only with its mention in the first paragraph. First paragraphs are defining in Wikipedia's tone, so when I read the paragraph before, it felt like it was pushing some kind of POV. One can succinctly describe bitcoin without remarking on environmental effects, just as one can describe soft drinks without bringing up obesity, or tobacco without mentioning cancer. I think the current state is fine, though could use some re-org. TarkusABtalk/contrib 01:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Its not my personal opinion, we follow MOSLEAD, and this content has no business in the first paragraph. Your position that it belongs there is false. We are not debating the environmental content in the article body in this section, we are discussing your position relating to the weight you want to apply to it in the LEAD. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I'll bite. From the MOSLEAD page:
"It should identify the topic, [...] and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies."
While the environmental impact is established, it is certainly controversial and is only referenced once else in the article, which seems low. Uninspired Username (talk) 03:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
If you ask me, it's goofy to give this such precedence How many industries, hobbies, or activities exist where we give their power consumption/CO2 emissions/etc in the lead? Video games? Pornography? Football? How many kilowatt-hours, tons of CO2, and/or gallons of water have sovereign states spent on shooting each others' citizens to death this year? Should that be in the lead of war? jp×g🗯️ 10:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Fair point... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
This is not a fair point, it's silly whataboutism. Bitcoin and other proof-of-work cryptocurrencies are designed to waste electricity as self-licking ice cream cones. Video games and pornography, by contrast, exist to meet a real-world demand. If you want to link to Environmental impact of war in the lead of war, go right ahead. Grayfell (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
There's a real-world demand for bitcoin. Whether this demand is "good", "moral", or "useful" is another question. But people do use bitcoin, to speculate, buy drugs, fund crime, or hedge inflation, do cross-border payments, store value, etc. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
WP:NOTADVOCACY applies to this comment. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 January 2024

Add to history section,

In 2021, a Bitcoin Futures ETF, BITO, from Proshares was approved and listed. [1]

References

  1. ^ https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-bitcoin-etf-is-almost-here-what-does-that-mean-for-investors-11634376601

207.96.32.81 (talk) 20:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Added. Thank you! Vgbyp (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 January 2024

Add to history section,

In 2017, the first futures on Bitcoin was introduced in the CME. [1]

References

  1. ^ https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/17/worlds-largest-futures-exchange-set-to-launch-bitcoin-futures-sunday-night.html

207.96.32.81 (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. Vgbyp (talk) 09:50, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 January 2024

Change 'bitcoin' throughout the article to 'Bitcoin' because it is a proper noun and deserves to capitalized. 218.149.60.143 (talk) 00:40, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

 Note: While I agree with the IP, I also believe that first, we must change the titles of the linked articles (such as Environmental effects of bitcoin). M.Bitton (talk) 12:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
See Bitcoin#Units_and_divisibility: No uniform capitalization convention exists; some sources use Bitcoin, capitalized, to refer to the technology and network, and bitcoin, lowercase, for the unit of account. The Oxford English Dictionary advocates the use of lowercase bitcoin in all cases. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
 Not done: per the above. M.Bitton (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Decentralized?

According to our cryptocurrency article:

An October 2021 paper by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that Bitcoin suffers from systemic risk as the top 10,000 addresses control about one-third of all Bitcoin in circulation.[1] It is even worse for Bitcoin miners, with 0.01% controlling 50% of the capacity. According to researcher Flipside Crypto, less than 2% of anonymous accounts control 95% of all available Bitcoin supply.[2]

References

  1. ^ "Bitcoin Is Still Concentrated in a Few Hands, Study Finds". Time. Retrieved 3 March 2022.
  2. ^ "Bitcoin's price just passed a huge milestone". Fortune. Archived from the original on 3 March 2022. Retrieved 3 March 2022.

Saying Bitcoin is "decentralized" is a bit misleading because it implies that the bitcoin network is democratic and fair to its users, but really it is not the case. I think it would be better to say "trustless" or something like that. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Bitcoin is described by RS as decentralized, so we describe it like this. However, there decentralization is a continuum and centralization challenges you mention are addressed in this subsection: Bitcoin#Scalability_and_decentralization_challenges. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
There are three kinds of decentralization in bitcoin: decentralization of stock (highly centralized, but mostly through exchanges and wallet services), decentralization of mining (highly centralized, but mostly through pools), and decentralization of network nodes (highly decentralized). When the article says that bitcoin is a decentralized cryptocurrency, it means it in a sense of network, because neither control of stock nor control of mining gives control over the protocol. We could try finding RS for each sort of decentralization and discuss them in more detail in the article, of course. Vgbyp (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

RFC on energy use estimates in the LEAD

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to remove the statement from the lead. There was consensus that the study being cited has been subject to criticism and thus that its conclusions should not be stated in wikivoice, and that this is not significant enough to include in the lead per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. However, there was rough consensus to retain information regarding the study in the article body, with attribution and discussion of the criticism and controversy surrounding it. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


Statement

Shall we including this statement diff in the LEAD: "and was responsible for 0.2% of world greenhouse gas emissions."[1] (or similar)? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

Note, the statement (and other similar and often cited statements related to digiconomist.net) are anchored by a group of mostly students that seem to promote themselves as climate activists and influencers related to this position.

  • Alex de Vries: operator of often cited digiconomist.net. He is PHD candidate and his linkedin refers to himself as "Global influencer"
  • Ulrich Gallersdörfer: Lecturer at Technical University of Munich and founder of the "Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute" according to his linkedin.
  • Lena Klaaßen: PHD candidate at ETH Zurich according to her linkedin and her school website
  • Christian Stoll: seems to be a "former student" according to MIT. Do we have an actual position for this person?

Are we contributing to these students fame by citing it with this weight? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:RFCNEUTRAL, this should have been brief and neutral. Casting aspersions against these academics is not neutral and not appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
The journal Joule is published by Cell Press, which is itself an imprint of Elsevier. The editor-in-chief is Philip Earis, who previously ran several publications for the Royal Society of Chemistry. If you have some policy-based reason these specific academics are so unreliable that they disqualify the journal itself, you should present that instead of whatever this is. It is, of course, possible for lecturers, graduate students, and former students to be the authors of reliable sources, especially when published in reputable journals.
As for Christian Stoll specifically, I don't know who he is either, but he's contributed to comments published in Nature. To vaguely imply that he must be unreliable because you cannot find a job title is downright petty and silly. Grayfell (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
This discussion section (that you have also contributed to) is a discussion section, not part of the RFC proposal, and thus not subject to RFCBRIEF. In fact, the more discussion and contributions in an RFC the better. The Nature source you provided (which was not part of the RFC) is titled "COMMENT", it appears it is something similar to an an op-ed. I find it odd that we are talking about the published work of a student, but if you think that helps, carry on. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Grayfell, but I have one concern, the source (Revisiting Bitcoin’s carbon footprint) is a "COMMENTARY" and Commentary articles may not be subject to peer review, at the discretion of the editorial team. (see Article types). If you go to "Publication history" in "Article info" it only says "Published online: February 25, 2022". On the other hand, for "Articles" and "Reports", subject to peer-review, you can see the timeline of the peer-review process, for instance:
So the source was NOT peer-reviewed. But it's more than a WP:PREPRINT as Article types says: Commentary articles will usually be single-author articles commissioned by the editorial office, but unsolicited contributions and multi-author contributions (for example from a coalition of experts) will be considered. So there's some sort of editorial control.
Conclusion: I still think that it is RS, because it is often cited, but it is not that strong. And probably not strong enough to be cited in the lead.
I also agree with JPxG's comment above. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
You did the citation search incorrectly -- you have to use "Advanced Search". I count 20 citations maximum -- hardly "often cited".
It's also a single paper, not a meta-analysis/review, and so hardly represents any wider consensus on a long-studied issue of Bitcoin (one challenge being tying a precisely defined acceptable number to it).
Ironically, if it were a peer-reviewed study, then it would still be highly questionable for citation as it is a WP:PRIMARY source (unless, again, it is a review or meta-analysis).
The reputability of the authors and the journal are not under objection here. This is not a suitable RS for a unique claim in the lede (or a unique claim anywhere, frankly) because of how existing policy on academic literature works. And on this topic, I'd be shocked if you can't find an actual suitable RS. SamuelRiv (talk) 20:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Adding to the debate, this recently published paper Promoting rigor in blockchain energy and environmental footprint research: A systematic literature review mentions that de Vries' analysis "has been widely criticized for its oversimplified view of mining operations and dependence on anecdotal examples to back the assumption". They explain further in the article what they consider are weaknesses of de Vries' estimate. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
The main issue we are facing here is one of due weight. For wikivoice we would want to see rough consensus among a wide range of well respected authors (we dont have this) and for lead we are summarizing the body WP:MOSLEAD. What we have is controversy, and that gets cited well in the press, and at wikipedia we need to be critical in our judgement of sources to determine what we are looking at and the due weight we apply to those sources. A couple editors claimed this lead content is a placeholder for expanding the article body, however there is nothing holding editors back from expanding a whole section(s) on the bitcoin environmental claims and this RFC doesnt cover that, it narrowly covers this 0.2% digiconimist claim in the lead. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
As I said, I came to agree with you that for wikivoice in the lead, we need high-quality RS. Anyway, this RfC ended @Jtbobwaysf: do you plan to extend it for another 30d? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 10:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I dont think it needs to be extended, do you? I think it just needs an uninvolved party to close it, appears to be rough consensus to remove it from the lead. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf I don't know the process that well but per WP:RFCEND now that this RFC ended and isn't listed anymore I don't see how any uninvolved party could be aware of the existence of this RFC and has an incentive to end and close it. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I have requested a close by an uninvolved editor. Nemov (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know that was the way to do it. Actually Jtbobwaysf had already done it. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:27, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I missed that. I'll remove my request. Nemov (talk) 14:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Polling

  • Remove from WP:LEAD and maybe remove from body, as poorly cited for such as a claim in WP:WIKIVOICE. If included in body, needs to be re-worked to state something like 'often cited research report by PHD students have claimed that Bitcoin uses 2% of world's electricity (or just delete entirely). As it is currently the text is WP:PROMO of WP:SOAP for theories by a group of students seeking to further their career. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Remove per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY this isn't mentioned enough in the article to justify due inclusion in the lead. Nemov (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Retain. Jtbobwaysf's dismissal of this as "student activism" is wrong. This information should be included in the body, per many, many sources both already cited in this article and at Environmental effects of bitcoin. This is, per countless sources, a defining issue with bitcoin. Past attempts to proportionately summarize this have repeatedly been frustrated via wikilawyering and similar. Local consensus should not be abused to push the WP:FRINGE perspective that bitcoin is not harmful to the environment. Grayfell (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Neutral tending towards remove: per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY + per JPxG (yes it's whataboutism, but still) + the source is not super strong (non peer-reviewed commentary). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 06:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC) => Update: the lack of rigor in the analysis pointed by this recent paper is the final nail in the coffin of a claim that was already weakly-sourced by a non-peer reviewed commentary. I think it can and should still be mentioned in the article, but with all the necessary caveats and in any case, not be featured in the lead as WP:WIKIVOICE. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Remove Not from peer reviewed source and not WP:SIGNIFICANT207.96.32.81 (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Neutral the thing that really matters the most in this and any page is how the information is covered at all. It is eternally a possibility that a statement is true even being sourced to one reputable academic even if some other additional sources are students. But however this comment may still be trivial even if it is true since 0.2% is very small especially when you consider that every calculation of this type has a margin of error. Therefore there is very likely to be a better way to cover the climate impact of this and whether it should be covered in the lead. Jorahm (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Retain in some form, though possibly with minor tweaks. This is a major aspect of the topic and has received massive amounts of coverage. Common sense is needed when evaluating sources; the specific one used here has been cited 90 times, which is a massive amount for a paper from 2022; and other sources have said similar things (I added another one just now; note that it does not cite the paper in question.) If there are objections to relying on that paper, look over some of those 90 citations and add them as secondary sources, tweaking the wording to reflect how they summarize it if necessary. If it's not covered enough in the body, expand the body. Additional sources might require minor tweaks to summarize all of them. But none of these things are arguments for removal when something has this degree of coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 11:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
The CNBC citation you added cites the White House, which in turn cites digiconimist. This 0.2% claim does all seem to loop back to that digiconimist source. The wider claim about the fact that bitcoin's energy usage is large & controversial is already in the LEAD and is not part of this RFC (this RFC addresses this 0.2% claim only). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ de Vries, Alex; Gallersdörfer, Ulrich; Klaaßen, Lena; Stoll, Christian (16 March 2022). "Revisiting Bitcoin's carbon footprint". Joule. 6 (3): 498–502. doi:10.1016/j.joule.2022.02.005. ISSN 2542-4351. S2CID 247143939.
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.

XBT lol?

absolutely no one calls it that, and any references to it are basically dead. XBT most definitely doesn't deserve to be the 5th word on the Bitcoin entire page.

googling XBT, 8 of the 10 results are for a scam shitcoin called XBIT with the symbol XBT , so youre also helping a shitcoin make money scamming.


no one calls BTC XBT

whatever scammer from XBIT got y'all to put that up there is living a better life because of the free exposure.

141.151.92.241 (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I've changed the note to show only Bloomberg as the current user of XBT. I would like some input from other editors as to whether listing the XBT code so prominently makes sense these days. It's not even close to popularity with the BTC code. Vgbyp (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I also think it is odd, it is a very old term that is no longer used (I dont have a bloomberg terminal). I think everyone uses BTC and we should drop the jargon that bloomberg is using. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

NYSE ETF rigged

Why is there no section on how the ETF whales are rigging the price since January 10. Since the Jan 10 approval of ETFs, the NYSE is forced to keep it high to sell ETFs to customers. ABNs (all but New York) push the price down every day after NYSE closes. NYC is the biggest whale so they correct the price when NYSE opens. Zindra Lord (talk) 09:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

That can be added to the article if there are RS reports on this. Do you know any? Vgbyp (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Moving the price right at the market close is common in mark to market positions as it changes the cost for the market makers overnight, particularly the short interest fee. I doubt you are going to find WP:RS for this, but if you can, please let us know. My WP:OR musings certainly are not ok for inclusion the article, I just point them out to let you know they are not unusual. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

"Spergerrand" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Spergerrand has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 15 § Spergerrand until a consensus is reached. Duckmather (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2024

Please remove this sentence: 

In September 2021, the Bitcoin Law made bitcoin legal tender in El Salvador, alongside the US dollar.[4]

and replace it with this one: 

In September 2021, the Bitcoin Law made bitcoin legal tender in El Salvador, alongside the US dollar,[4] and required businesses to accept it.[113]

Legal tender is anything that must be accepted when there's a debt, but as that article says, In some jurisdictions legal tender can be refused as payment if no debt exists prior to the time of payment (where the obligation to pay may arise at the same time as the offer of payment). For example, vending machines and transport staff do not have to accept the largest denomination of banknote. However, source 113 says that this isn't the case in El Salvador: According to this law, not only bitcoin must be accepted as a means of payment for taxes and outstanding debts, but also all businesses are required to accept bitcoin as a medium of exchange for all transactions. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is really needed because the third sentence after that one in the same paragraph states: "businesses refused to accept it despite being legally required to." I don't think it makes sense to repeat this twice inside the same paragraph. Vgbyp (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. PianoDan (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

RfC on changing article variant to Oxford spelling to align with whitepaper

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
(non-admin closure) There was a relatively low turnout to this RfC. However, the numerical majority (4:1) is clearly in favor of retaining the current engvar. Those voting yes did not explicitly cite a policy but their arguments echo MOS:TIES whereas those voting no primarily cited MOS:RETAIN. I find that there is consensus to maintain the current engvar (American English). If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Should this article's ENGVAR be changed to Oxford spelling? Getsnoopy (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Context

It seems like the article variant was arbitrarily set as American English in this edit, which could've been confused been confused with Oxford spelling because of its widespread use of the -ize suffix at the time. Moreover, given that Satoshi used Oxford spelling in the original Bitcoin whitepaper, it would be a good homage to have this article match that to symbolize Bitcoin's international nature (akin to Oxford spelling's international nature, as it is used by the UN & ISO, for example).

Polling (English variety)

That edit from back in 2017 didn't appear to have been arbitrary at all. Such templates are commonly added to document existing consensus, per MOS:RETAIN.
Further, this is not formatted as a proper WP:RfC.
Lastly, Wikipedia articles should absolutely not be an "homage", and non-neutral proposals like this are not appropriate, per WP:RFCNEUTRAL
Grayfell (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
My point is that it could've easily been argued that the consensus was Oxford spelling at the time. Getsnoopy (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Fixed the formatting. Getsnoopy (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Do not insert your comments into the middle of someone else's, as your edits removed the signature and made it impossible for other editors to know who said what without going into the page history. Talk pages are intended to be a record of the conversation. If strictly necessary, you can use quotes to respond to specific points. See WP:INTERPOLATE. Grayfell (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
The RFC does probably also fail rfcbrief as well. However, I do support the change. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Fixed the formatting, so it's OK now. Getsnoopy (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
No - (Summoned by bot) Simply haven't seen any real argument why it should change. Not enough of a connection between this subject and a particular location to override what's been in place for at least 7 years. To be clear, if it were a different template and someone proposed adding the American English template, I'd also oppose. Fighting over WP:ENGVARs is not a good use of time IMO, except when there's an obvious connection. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 11:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
No - (Summoned by bot) there are no strong ties between Bitcoin and any national variety of English so there is no reason to change a stable article - and this would apply regardless of what variety was stable. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
No - (Summoned by bot) I don't think there are sufficient MOS:TIES to British English to override MOS:RETAIN. TheSavageNorwegian 17:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
No — Per previous comments, MOS:RETAIN applies. Grayfell (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2024 (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.

community tab on right side under bitcoin

There should be a community tab somewhere. Should link to bitcointalk.org, reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/ and any other big communities. Bc1q03jr3zcvjerg72xl36ddyreerm2dzwev4p964u (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

See WP:LINKSTOAVOID. WE don't link to social media, discussion forums etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Should have treasuries tab somewhere

Should include Bitcoin Treasuries tab by listing them all Bc1q03jr3zcvjerg72xl36ddyreerm2dzwev4p964u (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

No. See WP:LINKSTOAVOID. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
I removed the link, maybe an SEO link. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

"...requires increasing quantities of electricity"

This passage is misleading: "Consensus between nodes is achieved using [...] mining, that requires increasing quantities of electricity". Its reads like the increasing electricity consumption is a requirement of the protocol, which is false. It requires electricity, the demand of which is increasing due to factors outside the protocol. I don't know how to reword it. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

checkY This was addressed. Thank you! TarkusABtalk/contrib 06:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
@TarkusAB: I think that we should probably do it without piped in text in the lead, given that it seems the statement still is there about the increasing quantities of electricity. Maybe there is a way to re-word the sentence and just link without the piped in text? I did this diff to eliminate the piped in text. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
@A455bcd9: you reverted the edit with your editor summary stating "The topic is important and should be linked in the lede. It could be linked in a different way though." Please note that I didnt remove the link, I just removed the piped in text. Please offer something else. You have two editors here that are/were concerned about the piped in text claim. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't the current version solve the problem? (if there was any) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
It does, thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of XBT

Hello,

The currency code XBT was removed from lead and infobox back in February because… a random unregistered editor never heard of it and "absolutely no one calls it that" (but mainly because links to citations were rot).

This is false, this paper explains that

To allow Bitcoin to enter the database tables used by MasterCard, PayPal, SWIFT, Visa, an ISO currency code is needed as regulated by the ISO 4217:2018 that defines alpha-numeric codes for the representation of currencies. Bitcoin in this standard may have the first alpha code as ”X” used for supranational currencies, procedural purposes, and several precious metals which are similar to currencies (ISO 4217:2018). In this case, the code for Bitcoin may be the “XBT” and finally, Bitcoin can enter the existing networks, trading and software accounting systems and other clearing networks rely on.

This other paper explains :

The popular ticker name ‘BTC’ violates ISO 4217 because it conflicts with Bhutan’s currency which is BTN [Bhutanese Ngultrum]. For that reason, some people use the alternative ticker name “XBT” which is not official).

By the way, there are 795 other scholarly papers that mention the XBT symbol.

It becomes clear that certain platforms and entities that must use ISO 4217-compliant currency codes (banks, governments) use the XBT symbol for Bitcoin, not only Bloomberg (and their terminals).

Here some examples:

Also, XBT is mentionned in a lot of books about Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies. Thibaut (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It was removed after this discussion: Talk:Bitcoin/Archive_40#XBT_lol?. The article mentions XBT. It's just not in the lead and in the infobox and it's OK to me. But I'm also OK with adding them back. The two sources you used seem quite weak to me. Don't we have anything better? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I also dont support inclusion of the XBT code at this time, as I dont think it is widely used, certainly not in the WP:LEAD first sentence. We could mention it later in the article, maybe in some more in depth discussion of this currency code issue. This source that was provided by Thibaut120094 (talk · contribs) Bitcoin ETF seems to be an ETF called "XBT Provider Bitcoin Tracker One ETN BITCOIN XBT". I am not sure what that is, but it should be discussed first. We also have ETFs that use IBIT, GBTC, FBTC, etc. I think that we are somehow confusing the user by providing this XBT in the first sentence of the LEAD in bold, as it is not widely used. I only really know of the use of the code BTC. Lets try to understand if this is a US government naming convention, an ETF by a similar name, or if the whole world is using it before we consider to give it undue weight in the lead. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Well it should at least be in the "BTCcode" footnote. Thibaut (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I moved the "BTCcode" footnote to the main part of the text as I didn't see any reason to keep it as a footnote. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Btw, could Bhutan one day apply for "BTC" as the code for bitcoin? Given how Bitcoin-friendly the Kingdom is I wonder why they haven't done it already :) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
I dont see how Bhutan is related to this discussion. We already have coverage of XBT in Bitcoin#Units_and_divisibility. We dont need it in the LEAD as we are unable to confirm if this is a suitable WP:ALTNAME for the WP:LEAD. To me common sense says it is not, as BTC is the correct ALTNAME. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
In the financial industry, the XBT symbol is used to comply with international standards for currency codes like ISO 4217.
Because of that, XBT is mentioned as an alternative symbol in 797 academic papers and 465 books, it seems to me than this is more than enough for it to be mentioned in the lead and infobox or at least in a footnote as a compromise. Thibaut (talk) 06:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
(I mentioned Bhutan as a joke/question :) )
"XBT is mentioned as an alternative symbol in 797 academic papers and 465 books": this is original research. We need an RS that says that XBT is a code for Bitcoin and that this code conforms to ISO 4217 though not officially part of it. Do we have this? This source only says In this case, the code for Bitcoin may be the “XBT”: this is pure conjecture by the authors. And it says nothing about how often this code is used. Another paper could well say "the code for Bitcoin may be XBB" or "XBC" or whatever. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Salut Antoine,
How it is original research? WP:SOURCETYPES says: “Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.” Thibaut (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm strongly against including XBT in the lead or mentioning it as a common abbreviation. XBT was used more commonly a few years ago, but its current use seems to be very limited. Additionally, there is a circulating cryptocurrency of dubious reputation using the XBT code. This might lead to confusion among unsophisticated readers, resulting in potential monetary losses.
Of the use cases mentioned by you, it's important to filter out the ones that use XBT to refer to something different (not Bitcoin). For example, the CBOE futures contract uses the XBT code, but it's the code used for the futures contract, a derivative, not the Bitcoin itself. The same with the ETF product you mentioned. As for CNN, they stopped referring to Bitcoin as XBT since the beginning of 2022. Vgbyp (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
@Thibaut120094: it's original research when you say "XBT is mentioned as an alternative symbol in 797 academic papers and 465 books", as this is you doing your own query and counting this and using this as an argument. What we need is a reliable source (one is enough) that says that 1/ XBT is an alternative code for Bitcoin and 2/ This code conforms to but is not part of the ISO standard.
And I agree with Vgbyp that many of the links you provided are not for Bitcoin itself but for related financial products.
We need to stick to reliable sources. I checked Google Scholar and I couldn't find anything recent of value unfortunately. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
@Thibaut120094: just seen that you added this source, which is a good one. But even this one does not say that XBT is the currency code for Bitcoin, they only write: The tick size is 0.0005 BTC and the minimum order size is 0.1 option contract on 1 BTC. We use the XBT acronym for an arbitrary bitcoin price and BTC for the Deribit index. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @Thibaut120094: there is a long standing consensus in place to only use very high quality sources on cryptocurrency genre. We are not using lower quality sources (academic is probably included in many cases, depending the quality of academic) on controversial topics. It appears to me there is opposition in this talk page discussion against using this XBT in the LEAD. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Models

"Nakamoto's paper was not peer reviewed and was initially ignored by academics, who argued that it could not work, based on theoretical models, even though it was working in practice." What was their argument for why it wouldn't work? Benjamin (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I trimmed it a bit per your comments. Do you think better now? Probably too much weight on one paper also. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Ideally a better source could be found, because this seems like good information to include if true. Benjamin (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
The theories it might not work is pretty much WP:CRYSTAL although past tense coverage of any notable opinions might be due. The earlier part of the sentence that states it was largely ignored is clearly encyclopedic and I think broadly recognized. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 June 2024

Please add the text given at the bottom, which aims to clarify a bit the Bitcoin's volatility aspect. I would suggest you to add it under the section "Use for investment and status as an economic bubble", where there are already some texts about Bitcoin volatility. You may put it immediately after this text: "According to research published in the International Review of Financial Analysis in 2018, Bitcoin as an asset is highly volatile and does not behave like any other conventional asset.[136]". Following is my proposed text:


"Measuring standard deviation of Bitcoin’s daily price between Jan 2012 till Jan 2019, suggests that Bitcoin volatility has decreased over time; whereas measuring median absolute deviation of Bitcoin daily price counteracts the former and suggests that Bitcoin volatility has remained relatively constant over time (during the same timespan) [1]" Azarboon (talk) 05:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not rely on blogs. Retimuko (talk) 06:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Blogs are not reliable. (WP:BLOG) '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:29, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://jpkoning.blogspot.com/2019/06/is-bitcoin-getting-less-volatile.html

Satoshi Nakamoto founders

Three early bitcoin founder also the developer of XRP Ledger. 49.146.40.15 (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

"The Bitcoin blockchain from space. No internet required." - Bitcoin not only available trough the internet

Should include somewhere "The Blockstream Satellite network broadcasts the Bitcoin blockchain around the world 24/7 for free, protecting against network interruptions and providing areas without reliable internet connections with the opportunity to use Bitcoin." as of unknown. This is the very best possible feature of bitcoin today. It was very difficult for me to find it. This is a very important feature of blockchain and cryptocurrency. No other forex can do that, unless you are an oil sheik or even then. https://blockstream.com/satellite/ THANKS Lasermoons (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

You appear to have mistaken Wikipedia for a provider of free advertising space. It isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Okay, so let's just include "and satellite" somewhere with an.. with a reference that fits. Whatever, otherwise the link is not correct? I can still modify it. It wouldn't be bad if she/he who get access got into it somehow. It's just a satellite cryptocurrency after all. Not just, it's. Lasermoons (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
We need WP:RS to include things at wikipedia, and on cryptocurrency articles we are only using high quality sources such as wsj, nyt, fortune.com, etc. We are not using a blockstream blog post or marketing info. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Okay, lasermoons acknowledges that satellite service is initially attributed to one person. Do you see Adam Back as a garage band or a local company? I think it isn't an advertise in this way. https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Blockstream Lasermoons (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
No. This isn't a reliable source, and these claims are extraordinary and promotional. Stop trying to add spam to Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
What about this source? https://interactive.satellitetoday.com/blockchain-the-next-big-disruptor-in-space/
I agree that the rest is trash. Not worth mentioning? Last message, I don't spam anymore. Lasermoons (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
satellitetoday.com is owned by a marketing company. [1] The article is marketing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @Lasermoons:, sometimes you need to filter out the bad sources and you can still find a good source or two. This here can show you how to do the search, you note I manually remove the crypto sources so that there are less to read through. Remaining we have forbes, futurism (I am not sure if this is an RS, but maybe), vice, decrypt (not sure about decrypt, looks like a crypto source), IBT, forbes. I think you should be able to find content in these articles to say something, not sure if it will be WP:DUE on this bitcoin article (a whole different discussion), but I suspect you easily could add it to the Blockstream article. Last, I am not sure the nuance here, as if it is internet from space or internet (eg starlink), from a landline (eg fiber), from mobile (eg 5G), then what is the difference? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
    Both satellite TV and Starlink transports data however not both are for internet access. I think same logic can be applied for this. Throat0390 (talk) 14:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request: Bitcoin Flag on Mount Everest

I propose adding that on May 20, 2024, a Bitcoin flag was raised at the summit of Mount Everest. This event was covered by major crypto media like Cointelegraph, though not yet by mainstream legacy media. Source 1, Source 2, Source 3

Despite the lack of mainstream coverage, the event is significant within the Bitcoin community and represents its cultural impact. I believe it should be included in the "History 2020–present" section. Lustigermutiger21 (talk) 06:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Lustigermutiger21 1. This sources are not considered reliable on Wikipedia. We can ONLY use WP:RS sources. 2. Even if a single WP:RS would mention the event, I'm not even sure its importance would be significant enough to be mentioned here per WP:UNDUE. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the feedback!
Will not do any edits. Lustigermutiger21 (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
To help you understand we are not using cryptocurrency sites as RS on wikipedia. Try to find something mainstream like nyt, wsj, bloomberg, ft.com, etc Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
This non-exhaustive list can also help you: WP:RSPSS. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:38, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you also for the feedback @Jtbobwaysf! Lustigermutiger21 (talk) 15:14, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
You are welcome. Sometimes you can also look at forbes. But we are not using WP:FORBESCON on cryptocurrency articles (nor any contributor sources for that matter). You will sometimes see the word contributor next to the author's name, and if you do, it isnt kosher here. Sometimes you will see Forbes Staff (or something like that) and then it is ok to use. Also no blogs, no binance, no coindesk, etc. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Missing additional node implementations

While Bitcoin Core is the primary node implementation, there are a couple additional such as btcd (written in Go) and Bitcoin Knots that are in consensus. Is there a reason these are not included? Before making the change, figured I'd write a quick post to get feedback. If no disagreements, I can add in a couple other Bitcoin node implementations. Thanks! ILoveFinance (talk) 01:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

@ILoveFinance: I think the issue might have been lack of WP:RS, or maybe nobody bothered to add them. Please see if you can find some. Might want to look through Andreas Antonopolous (and others) in google books, those should be fine. We are not using cryptoblogs, coindesk, theblock, etc. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
In such a case, I would imagine primary sources such as the websites/githubs of the actual node implementations (since this is not an opinion-based thing, simply a matter of existing) should be enough? https://bitcoinknots.org/ https://github.com/btcsuite/btcd https://github.com/block-core/blockcore
At least for Bitcoin Knots even Bitcoin.org has mention to it: https://bitcoin.org/en/wallets/desktop/windows/bitcoinknots/ ILoveFinance (talk) 12:16, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
@ILoveFinance No we need independent reliable sources. For instance a research paper published in a reputable academic journal. Or a mainstream news article. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
To preface, I am in no way attempting to be argumentative here, but from a consistency standpoint, Bitcoin Core lacks any reference to any mainstream news article or research paper, at least in the footnotes that I have seen. The only reference is to the Bitcoin Core GitHub (footnote 3).
https://river.com/learn/terms/b/bitcoin-knots/ -- this I assume isn't enough for Bitcoin Knots? Lopp's and Dashr's websites wouldn't be hence me not including them here. ILoveFinance (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
@ILoveFinance A corporate website such as River.com is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. If something is not mentioned in what the English Wikipedia considers a "reliable source" then, from the perspective of Wikipedia, it does not exist and cannot be added here. Dura lex, sed lex... a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Yep, as was my assumption. But then again, Bitcoin Core lacks any source other than a reference to its own repository, which would appear to be contradictory to the standard.
Standards aside, Bitcoin Core should obviously be mentioned here and cited and the reference to its repository makes sense. But the point I am trying to make here is that there is not a consistent standard in terms of citing node implementations.
Maybe this just means we should add a RS as a Bitcoin Core footnote? This is one of the few I have been able to find: https://www.wsj.com/articles/bitcoin-core-maintainers-crypto-7b93804 ILoveFinance (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
We already have reliable sources for Bitcoin Core. See also the dedicated article Bitcoin Core. Feel free to add this WSJ article as a source if you think it's needed. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Pyramid schemes (Bitcoin) illegal in NZ

There is a world map showing NZ as 'permissive' but prosecutions here have been successful recently. The map needs updating.

The NZ Fair Trading Act states that Pyramid schemes (of which Bitcoin is one, and NZ court found Ethereum tokens also to be) are illegal "whether or not they provide a product or service, or both". 122.102.109.173 (talk) 07:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Please provide recent reliable sources explaining that bitcoin is illegal in New Zealand. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hi, would be great if a few editors could join in some discussions over at Talk:Bitcoin Cash. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:01, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Bitcoin Price Chart

Bitcoin price in US dollars

@Vgbyp You claim that a source is provided. Where is the source provided? There is no sourcing for where the data originated from. If you want to have a price chart, it should come straight from a WP:RS source, not original work with no source specified. However, since crypto-related sites are not to be used as WP:RS, I still do not think it meets the requirements to have original work even with the source specified. You would need to pull the image directly from a WP:RS. ILoveFinance (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Per WP:OI: Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the "No original research" policy. (emphasis in original). Where is the published source? Grayfell (talk) 18:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
The image details clearly mention blockchain.info as the source for the data. The price data is accessible here: https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/charts/market-price. Building a chart based on available price data isn't WP:OR. Vgbyp (talk) 09:01, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, data coming straight from crypto-oriented sites is not allowed on Wikipedia at this time. They are not considered WP:RS.
I don't like it either, but that is the standard set forth at this time. ILoveFinance (talk) 13:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
There is no strict Wikipedia policy that forbids the use of crypto-related website for anything at all. It's just not recommended for cases when the pro-crypto bias usually present in such sources makes them incompatible with factors that make a source reliable. There is nothing controversial in using cryptocurrency exchange as an RS for price data. Vgbyp (talk) 12:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the use of this source is clear at all. The image details on Commons mention blockchain.info, but this doesn't appear on Wikipedia (at least not via my browser). While this is, technically, verifiable, it's very far from best practice for attribution.
Further, and more importantly, it is not a reliable source.
Additionally, the chart seems to get updated whenever the uploader feels like it. The current version of the chart ends at May, which appears to be arbitrary. The caption made no mention of this, and this isn't clear from the chart itself.
On a related note, the image information at Commons had been vandalized back in July, but nobody seems to have noticed until now. That is a good demonstration of why these charts need to be supported by reliable sources. It's far, far too easy for errors, vandalism, and misinformation to slip past. This has happened on Commons, and it gets messy very quickly when these images are spread across multiple projects. Grayfell (talk) 21:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
The way the website is cited doesn't warrant removing the chart. The same goes for the data period. Every price chart has to end at some date. The latest version of that image has the prices ending in May because it was created in May. Yes, the caption could be clearer on that. As for the vandalism, I don't think it has anything to do with the issue at question. Vgbyp (talk) 12:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Blockchain.com is perfectly reliable for a price chart. And the practice of citing the source on Wikimedia Commons is the standard. It has its own issues (such as people changing the file on Commons and watchers on the various Wikipedias can't see it) but this is unrelated to this article: it's a general problem on all Wikimedia projects. So let's put back the chart. (To avoid starting an WP:DR#RfCs...) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
What you and @Vgbyp are missing is that crypto sites themselves are not allowed as WP:RS as a broad rule. Blockchain.com, blockchair.com, etc. Even though I would agree that they are generally reliable, the current standing rule is that they cannot be used. Using Blockchain.com would actually be WP:PRIMARY -- yes, primary can (typically) be used if properly cited and no analysis of the data is made, however, crypto entries are not allowed to use them. I long debated this myself as I feel some key details will be missed, but the rule is the rule.
Keep in mind, price charts would need to be specific in referencing what source provides/displays the price chart. Each and every exchange will have a different price chart, as those charts represent the price from that very exchange. Yes, the prices will generally be in-line with each other, but never the same. The reason they are in-line is because of market makers arbitraging across platforms when prices differ. This is how uniformity exists. ILoveFinance (talk) 14:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Nonsense. Should I start an RfC? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
(btw, if needed, the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis has this index: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=IGpc, from Dec 2014 only though.) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:28, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
@Grayfell @Jtbobwaysf -- would data coming from FRED count as WP:RS? ILoveFinance (talk) 22:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Granted, these prices are pulled from Coinbase. So there is no real independent verification but FRED is a generally trusted source as well. So curious as to y'all's thoughts ILoveFinance (talk) 22:38, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

There are a few related issues here. As I see it, there are two steps to resolving this, or at least resolving enough of these problems to restore the chart.

The first is to cite a reliable source on this page (such as in the caption). Let's just say that both Coinbase and blockchain.info are debatable. Calling it "perfectly reliable" is not persuasive. Instead of burying an undated plain-text domain name to a dubious outlet on Commons, place a verifiable citation in the article. For example, a ref template with "work=[[Coinbase]] | via= [[Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis]]" or similar.

The second, equally important step is to date this chart in a way which is clear and obvious to readers at a glance. Explain in the caption that this chart goes to May. This is not clear from looking at the chart itself, so to omit this context is misleading. Obviously this isn't expected to include real-time data, but a little bit of context is cheap and easy. Grayfell (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I think we need to have strict sourcing guidelines in this genre. Our guidelines should be more important than any particular piece of content on any particular article. Its a general principle of wikipedia, we generally dont flex on MEDRS guidelines nor BLP guidelines (hopefully) just because we think something is 'important' to include on the article. The reason we adopted these guidelines in this genre was we were dealing with so much pushing of questionable content/sources (generally supporting that the said investment product was about to moon), and this was contrary to the objective of building a quality encyclopedia. So we made standards tighter knowing full well that this restriction would reduce the depth of crypto genre article content. What we have lost a few percentage points in depth we have gained by orders of magnitude in quality and NPOV (my opinion here). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

You are right that not using crypto sources in articles has its costs and its benefits. What makes sense, in my opinion, is that we weigh the perceived benefit of using price data from crypto exchanges vs. the cost of doing so. In my opinion, the benefit is clear while the cost is minimal. There's no trustworthiness issue here because price data is largely the same (at least for the purpose of the low resolution charts we are talking about here) and, eventually, all price data we could cite in crypto articles would boil down to crypto exchanges. Even if we use CME futures data, it's still based on a reference price index sourced from exchanges. At worst, what do we lose here? Cryptocurrency articles getting flooded with price charts? In short, I don't see any issues in using crypto sources for noncontroversial technical data. Vgbyp (talk) 07:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Crypto sources are not allowed to establish WP:NOTABILITY. Read WP:COINDESK: "There is consensus that CoinDesk should not be used to establish notability for article topics, and that it should be avoided in favor of more mainstream sources. Check CoinDesk articles for conflict of interest disclosures, and verify whether their parent company at the time (previously Digital Currency Group, now Bullion) has an ownership stake in a company covered by CoinDesk." A price chart is not about notability and crypto sources can perfectly be used. What's more, according to WP:RS: "The policy on sourcing is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations." Is anyone challenging that the chart is incorrect? No.
So we can use Coinbase, Blockchain.info or whatever crypto sources that are reliable FOR THE PRICE (but not for something like notability to add new information to the article about something). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:23, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Right now, the chart is not accurate. This is why I say the date needs to be included, because the chart is out-of-date, but doesn't indicate this. Further, I don't accept that these websites are and will remain reliable for basic information.
This is why I said that there are several related issues. Rhetorically, why is this chart being included at all and not a chart of trading volume, or liquidity, or some other metric? For this chart to be informative to a disinterested reader, it needs at least a little bit of context, and that context needs to come from a reliable source. Further, it needs to come from a WP:SECONDARY source. The use of a primary source from an unreliable outlet to present out-of-date information is, at best, a bundle of WP:SYNTH issues.
As I said, provide at least a tiny bit of context in the article itself. Grayfell (talk) 19:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps @Vgbyp could propose adding context to the article, pull a price chart from a recent article (I'm sure there are plenty), be clear about the date range, and hopefully such a price chart would also include volume on a secondary y-axis.
With at least the first three, I think it would be fine to add back. ILoveFinance (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Lead sentence sourcing

Is there appropriate RS to support this statement in the Lead?

"Bitcoin is currently used more as a store of value and less as a medium of exchange or unit of account."

Bitcoin proponents surely view it more as a store of value and less as a medium of exchange, plenty of RS to support that statement, however for "used" I do not know if adequate sourcing exists. ILoveFinance (talk) 06:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

This sentence aims to sum up this section: Bitcoin#Economics_and_usage. Bitcoin proponents = bitcoin users, so what they "view" is the same as their "use". a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 13:27, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
It should then reflect what is explained in the section, that it is "viewed more as" rather than "used." ILoveFinance (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
"Use" is the term used in the section. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
We could add this RS btw: "Citing bitcoin's $700 billion market capitalization, compared to the around $2.6 trillion worth of gold owned as an investment, Goldman Sachs said that the cryptocurrency currently has a 20% share of the "store of value" market." https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/goldman-sachs-says-bitcoin-will-compete-with-gold-store-value-2022-01-05/ a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
That would certainly be a good line and RS to add to the Bitcoin#Economics_and_usage section. ILoveFinance (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Adding to the prior comment: great find!
However, reading through that section again, it does not appear to describe what is currently listed in the Lead. There is commentary regarding Bitcoin's use in commerce, and commentary regarding its use related to storing value, however it does not commentate on whether it is used more as one or the other.
Either this line should be re-written, or should be removed. ILoveFinance (talk) 15:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
"As of 2018, the overwhelming majority of bitcoin transactions took place on cryptocurrency exchanges.": this means it's used more to invest than to purchase stuff. That's the comparison. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Other RS: https://www.bloomberg.com/professional/insights/trading/gold-or-bitcoin-store-of-value-debate-rages-as-bitcoin-grows/ "Bitcoin is already a store of value within the world of cryptocurrencies and could be embraced on a wider scale." a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Good find. I might be missing it but is this source included on the page yet? ILoveFinance (talk) 16:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
To me, investing and storing of value are not necessarily one and the same. The line should reflect the word "invest" in that case, I would imagine. ILoveFinance (talk) 16:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I've just added these two sources to the article. I removed the sentence from the lede, not needed. Ideally we should find data looking at bitcoin usage: what's the % that is related to purchases? It's probably impossible to tell as many transactions (especially small-ish amounts for payments) are done off-chain on Lightning. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Actually we have data here for crypto in general. I assume it's the same for BTC but we can't add it to the article:
tl;dr: 1–2% of people have used crypto to pay over the past 12 months, and 20% of crypto users use crypto to pay for goods and services (the other 80% just use it to speculate/invest/store value). There's also 20% using it to send money, and there's some overlap so it doesn't add up to 100%. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
This is a source discussing usage of different cryptos in commerce, but only describes of businesses surveyed that accept crypto, how many accept Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Bitcoin Cash: https://www.dbusiness.com/from-the-magazine/is-crypto-the-next-bubble/ ILoveFinance (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
"32 percent of small business owners and top-level executives said their business currently accepts cryptocurrencies.": that's way too high to be true (outside of El Salvador). a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 17:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
On that line, absolutely agreed. Might have been unclearly written, though, as the article references a Skynova survey, so that number could be of survey respondents. ILoveFinance (talk) 17:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
If not already included in the Cryptocurrency article, it could make a lot of sense to include those there! Great resources. ILoveFinance (talk) 17:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
My point is the existing wording is fine and do not support the change suggested by Ilovefinance. I was saying there is no need in the lead to get into nuance of used in finance (as investment) vs used in a supermarket in El Salvador. We dont do that level of nuance in the lead. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
The change was already made, though, by Antoine. It before was getting into the nuance. Not sure what's unclear here. ILoveFinance (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

"Guarantee security" should be revised to "secures"

The sentence in the LEAD ending in "...guarantees the security of the bitcoin blockchain" does not accurately represent the whitepaper nor the one source (cited later in the article) for the claim.

The whitepaper itself does not use the word "guarantee" anywhere, rather, uses probabilistic terms to explain why the odds of a successful attack would be low.

The whitepaper states as follows:

As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers.

The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes.

Note the mention of "as long as" - the network is secure contingent upon "honest nodes" controlling the majority of the PoW.


Later, the same word "guarantee" is used and sourced. However, reading the paper that is cited (A review on consensus algorithm of blockchain), that statement is not made.

Per the paper:

If anyone wants to tamper with the blockchain, he needs to control more than 50% of the world's hashing power to ensure that he can become the first one to generate the latest block and master the longest chain. The gains from tampering can be much greater than the cost. So the PoW can effectively guarantee the safety of the blockchain.

The word "effectively" is used, and is critical language. Also to note, this is referencing blockchains using PoW as its security mechanism (in relation to other security methods such as Proof of Stake, Delegated Proof of Stake, Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance, and Raft, rather than bitcoin specifically, though of course this would apply to bitcoin as it uses PoW.

The paper also states:

The system is stable as long as the longest chain is guaranteed by the honest nodes.

The source is not stating that bitcoin's security is "guaranteed," rather, it is stating that the security of a blockchain using PoW is "effectively guarentee[d]," using contingencies reflected in the whitepaper itself: "as long as".

Also to note, the Summary/conclusion is the following:

Blockchain has the characteristics of decentralization, stability, security, non-modifiability and so on. With the development of technology, the blockchain is attracting more and more attention in different areas. This paper makes a systematic review of the usual consensus algorithms used in the blockchain. Consensus algorithm is the core technology of blockchain, but current research of the consensus mechanism is still in its infancy. The consensus algorithm specially designed for different scenarios is still very rare. How to make the blockchain performance better in a particular scenario? We still need further research.


All in all, the paper is not specifically about Bitcoin, but different security mechanisms. The current language is making a conclusion not supported by the singular source.

I would propose to alter the two sentences as follows:

LEAD: "Consensus between nodes is achieved using a computationally intensive process based on proof of work, called mining, that secures the bitcoin blockchain."

Design>Mining: "The high cost required to reach this level of computational power "effectively guarantee[s]" the security of the bitcoin blockchain."


ILoveFinance (talk) 06:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I would agree with this. No blockchain has security guaranteed, no matter how much mining power is required to pursue a 51% attack, which did in fact happen to Bitcoin as well, with the party who had 51% hashing power needing to willingly dial back amidst community concerns. This is something that cannot even be disputed - it very literally happened and it proves that security is not guaranteed - this is even mentioned on the BTC article itself under source [94] @ https://techcrunch.com/2014/07/16/popular-bitcoin-mining-pool-promises-to-restrict-its-compute-power-to-prevent-feared-51-fiasco/ Artem P75 (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
We would not be using the whitepaper for statements like this in wikivoice anyhow. Key point is what the RS say, the whitepaper would not be an RS for something like this. Agree that guarantee is probably not an encyclopedic term. You should propose more clear changes, such as change a to b. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Lead:
Current: "Consensus between nodes is achieved using a computationally intensive process based on proof of work, called mining, that guarantees the security of the bitcoin blockchain."
Proposal: "Consensus between nodes is achieved using a computationally intensive process based on proof of work, called mining, that secures the bitcoin blockchain."
Design>Mining:
Current: "The high cost required to reach this level of computational power guarantees the security of the bitcoin blockchain."
Proposal: "The high cost required to reach this level of computational power "effectively guarantee[s]" the security of the bitcoin blockchain." ILoveFinance (talk) 13:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
We don't write quotes like "effectively guarantee[s]" without attribution on Wikipedia. All of this discussion just to change "guarantees the security" to "secures". WOW! What a damned waste of time. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
I would disagree that it is a "waste of time." But let's not waste time discussing that!
I will make the changes. ILoveFinance (talk) 21:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bitcoin/Archive_40&oldid=1258985692"