Jump to content

Talk:Bitcoin buried in Newport landfill

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

Bitcoin coverage

[edit]
List of sources used for article creation

2013

2017

2021

2022

2023

2024

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by AirshipJungleman29 talk 15:12, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Created by CommunityNotesContributor (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

CNC (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Given that both hooks seem rather complicated, I wonder if we could just truncate both hooks at "2013", though the final decision could be left to the reviewer. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have added ALT2 for a shorter version. I think the £495m needs referencing as 8,000 Bitcoin is a meaningless number/value to most people, unless this is the purpose of an intriguing and deliberately vague hook though? Not sure. Have amended link placement, but happy for reviewer to tweak and improve as needed. Hooks are not my strong suit, thanks. CNC (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great topic, good hooks, but copyedits to the article are needed. We don't do "overview" sections (that's what the lead is) and many of your sections duplicate material, indicating a disconnect between the various sections. Why else would you say "James Howells, a Welsh computer engineer from Newport" in a totally different section after already telling us this in the previous one? Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed the Overview section, totally get your point, and never thought it like that. Have also removed two other use cases where not one of dozens of experienced editors saw it as an issue for reference sake.[1][2] As for the example, I'm not seeing it. Working in IT does not imply you are a computer engineer, nor does working at Bowman communications system (do we know he wasn't just a reception/admin guy there?) as the source doesn't specify his role. I'm not saying it's not better suited to the section above, done, only that I'm not seeing a major duplication here for a description not used in another section, unless I'm missing something here. CNC (talk) 11:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you; the problem wasn't the meaning of the info, the issue was that it was reintroducing Howells to us as if we hadn't previously read about him. This is a common format in articles about crime that have the biography merged into larger topics about crime, so I think this was a relic from a similar crime-related template, which you've now fixed. Reading through now... Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can go shorter with the hook: "...that a Welsh man lost a hard drive with Bitcoin worth £495m in a landfill?" Or variations on that theme, such as "...that a Welsh man lost £495m worth of Bitcoin in a landfill?" (58 characters) Viriditas (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done CNC (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, but try not to link to words before you main hook. The best hooks with the most views have the least number of links, especially links that occur before the main linked article. If you look at the DYK page right now, you'll see this style is dominant for this reason. Viriditas (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have gone less linky. If that's what editors are into, it's there now. CNC (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Still doing copyedits. Viriditas (talk) 11:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


General: Article is new enough and long enough
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation
QPQ: None required.

Overall: Moved from draft to mainspace; new and long enough. I just spent several days going through this article and everything checks out. I did fix one minor issue with Earwig, and I found lots of grammar issues, mostly having to do with commas where there should be periods and stultifying passive voice. All of my copyedits were minor, although there were quite a few of them. All the hooks check out, but I favor the shortened ALT3 version. One minor problem that shouldn't hold up this review: the amount of Bitcoin fluctuates over time. In the hook, you have it listed at £495m, but the sources you cite in the hook up above use £220 million in 2021 pounds (The Times) and £500 million in 2024 pounds (BBC). The cited BBC source says: "The hard drive reportedly contains 8,000 Bitcoins – worth around at the time it was binned, but now worth more than £569m since the recent Bitcoin surge." While you should fix that up above (unless you are going with the current price now), that line from the BBC might be an even better hook to consider. Perhaps something that accounts for his initial lost £4m in Bitcoin from 2013 compared to its increase in value to £569m today? Whatever you choose to do, you should look at the £495m figure in the hook to see if it is still supported. Viriditas (talk) 11:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Have changed to "over 500m", as it's suitably vague and that's what the BBC source states (at over 569m), as well as to factor in fluctuating prices etc in order to remain accurate for the time being. CNC (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have also added ALT4 for "approximately 600m", in case it's intended to appear sooner than latter. CNC (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Containing the private keys or private key for 8,000 Bitcoin ?

[edit]

The 8,000 Bitcoin are here https://bitinfocharts.com/bitcoin/address/198aMn6ZYAczwrE5NvNTUMyJ5qkfy4g3Hi

There is only one private key not many private keys to this address (account)

I have therefore changed

"In mid-2013, James Howells disposed of a laptop hard drive containing the private keys for 8,000 Bitcoin"

to

"In mid-2013, James Howells disposed of a laptop hard drive containing the private key for 8,000 Bitcoin" Brkic (talk) 19:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to verify that this address is the private key in question? After searching for this address, I found no reference to reliable sources, I have therefore reverted the edit. CNC (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, James Howells is looking at the address at 1:23 in this documentary
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZr97E5PgzQ
https://i.ibb.co/hdnBwbL/address.jpg
I have therefore reverted the edit. Brkic (talk) 13:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Bitcoin buried in Newport landfill" ? "hard drive containing Bitcoin" ?

[edit]

There is no "Bitcoin buried in Newport landfill" it's not a "hard drive containing Bitcoin" It's a hard drive containing the privat key necessary to move the 8000 Bitcoin from one address in the blockchain to another address in the Bitcoin blockchain. The 8000 Bitcoin have not moved since 2009 when James Howells generated the 8000 Bitcoin by running the program Bitcoin Core on his laptop from 2009-02-22 to 2009-04-26 Brkic (talk) 21:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bitcoin_buried_in_Newport_landfill&oldid=1265622808"