Talk:Bitcoin

"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)