Talk:History of bitcoin

Bitcoin faucet was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 August 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into History of bitcoin. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of bitcoin article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Cryptocurrency Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptocurrency, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cryptocurrency on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptocurrencyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptocurrencyTemplate:WikiProject CryptocurrencyWikiProject Cryptocurrency articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cryptography: Computer science Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (assessed as Low-importance).

Economics Low‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Finance & Investment Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing: Software / Free and open-source software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software.
	This article is supported by Free and open-source software (assessed as Low-importance).

Internet Low‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Internet culture Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Internet culture To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles
Expand : Pick an article from here or here
Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images
Stubs : All stubs are located here
Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}
- See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Adam2us (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Proof of work#Reusable proof-of-work|reusable proof of work]] The anchor (#Reusable proof-of-work) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

History of mining

The article should mention the evolution of mining technology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.167.237.98 (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Bitcoin

Could someone please add Wikipedia:WikiProject Bitcoin to the list above? Chris Arnesen 00:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge section "2013 bitcoin prices" into "History of Bitcoin"

I propose that History of Bitcoin#2013 bitcoin prices be merged into History of Bitcoin#Prices and value history. Any objections? Chris Arnesen 02:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Study retracted

retraction for the paper suggesting a link between Satoshi and DPR: http://money.cnn.com/2013/11/27/technology/bitcoin-silk-road/ 27.33.43.226 (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Satoshi Nakamoto is (probably) Nick Szabo

Done

Could somebody add Bitcoin's prehistory as Nick Szabo’s “bit gold” and LikeInAMirror's textual analysis of this claim? --dbabbitt (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of it. --dbabbitt (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

new york times mentions bitcoins as early as 2006

KLA-Tencor Buys ADE for $488 Million

Winner of Bitcoin Auction, Tim Draper, Plans to Expand Currency's Use ... Winner of Bitcoin Auction, Tim Draper, Plans to Expand Currency's ...

February 24, 2006 - By DEALBOOK - Business Day

Enel Prepares Financing for Suez Bid

Venture Capital · Winner of Bitcoin Auction, Tim Draper, Plans to Expand Currency's Use ... Single Winner of All Bitcoins in U.S. Auction ...

March 07, 2006 - By WRITER - Business Day

how can that be?

Maximilian (talk) 21:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

just received this message from the support team at the nyt:

"Thank you for writing to NYTimes.com. This is a known error and we are currently working on a solution to get it fixed. The reason you are seeing "Bitcoin" in these 2006 articles is that it is picking up links to other most emailed or recommended articles on those pages. I appreciate your patience while this is resolved. I apologize for the inconvenience."

so, we can forget this issue. no bitcoins in 2006. Maximilian (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is MtGox?

The article refers to the "shutdown of MtGox" and it seems it affected the price of the Bitcoins. What is the MtGox? Some kind of computer or algorithm? I do not understand why this term is used when there is no explanation for what it is. Not even a red link either. --Ysangkok (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Mt._Gox, which is linked in the article a couple of times. ikesham (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All time high is wrong

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kitconews/2013/12/10/2013-year-of-the-bitcoin/ has a higher value; $1242. ikesham (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"paper was posted on the internet"

That is very vague. Wasn't it published on http://www.metzdowd.com (of Metzger, Dowdeswell & Co) QuentinUK (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Potential Fork

Should we add a part about this? http://motherboard.vice.com/read/bitcoin-core-devs-in-civil-war-insist-were-not-getting-the-whole-story I don't really want to edit it myself not being good with Wikipedia etc. 68.195.47.32 (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

and see Bitcoin XT article for some more possible references about the situation. -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 07:40, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to rename the article

Per a group of reputable sources, and a consensus among editors (Talk:Bitcoin/Archive_16#moving_the_stuff_on_capital_Band_small_b_bitcoin_in_lede) the main Bitcoin article as well as this article use lowercase bitcoin in article text. Since the title of the article is supposed to be in sentence case, I propose to change the title to: "History of bitcoin". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This Page Should Be Renamed

The word 'bitcoin' should be capitalized, as it's in a title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.102.80.150 (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Per WP:Article titles, titles are written in sentence case. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Cash

This fork seems like a major development. It's covered in today's NY Times.[1] I don't see anything about it here or in the main Bitcoin article. TimidGuy (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Price and value history section suggeston regarding live market data

It would be wise to add some sort of live data feed that shows live market data that shows latest Bitcoin price as per CoinDesk as per Wiki template at time of page generation with purge link and timestamp, as that should go to the bottom of the table. The timestamp goes under DATE category with the time to nearest second in UTC, the latest price value in USD : 1 BTC and "Latest price from CoinDesk" and links to additional info, Wikipedia article and/or to the template itself whereas the template contains disclaimer information. Ryan (talk) 01:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin value history

I believe that we should add entries to this table only when reputable sources write about price movements. I suggest removing all entries with no references. If there are no objections, say, in a week, I am going to do just that. Retimuko (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Limited cleanup done: I removed just a few recent entries with no citations and added a recent all time high of $17900 citing Reuters. Perhaps, more cleanup should be done. Retimuko (talk) 18:39, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Verification failed

This statement has no valid reference: Also Bitcoin investment platform BitConnect – which has long been suspected of running a Ponzi scheme – has officially announced its platform is shutting down.<ref>Shane, Daniel (17 January 2018). "Bitcoin lost a third of its value in 24 hours". CNN. {{cite news}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)</ref>:

The reference already existed before the statement, it's unclear what it is supposed to show.
The reference uses a title for a money.cnn article written by Daniel Shane, published 2017-12-27, not today.

–84.46.52.152 (talk) 18:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

– Already fixed by Retimuko, thanks. –84.46.52.152 (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First bitcoin transaction

The article states that Hal Finney was involved in the world's first bitcoin transaction (with Nakamoto) and the reference states that this was January 12, 2009. What about Dave Kleiman, Craig Steven Wright, and "two others" who also traded the same day (ref. see Kleiman)? Was this the same transaction? Ekem (talk) 23:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ekem: The source says On January 12, 2009, Craig, Dave, and two others sent each other bitcoin transactions recorded on the blockchain. (Ex. 1 at 31)., but this is just an allegation by the Kleiman estate and has yet to be proven as fact. If a reliable source says it the same transaction then we would follow. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Washington Post it was a claim by Hal Finney that he was the first recipient of a bitcoin transaction. I see no difference here. Ekem (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are we both looking at [2] ? This source seems to report it as fact and so it is not just a claim. And I apologize about my information regarding the transactions, the Kleiman estate is referencing this article [3] (free registration required to read the relevant quote) where it says There from the beginning was Hal Finney, who would receive the first bitcoin transaction, on block 9. This was a key moment for the new cryptocurrency: block 9 for ever shows that Satoshi sent Finney ten bitcoin on 12 January 2009 – it is the first outgoing transaction we know to have come from Satoshi. Satoshi also sent four other transactions on the same day. I asked Wright who the recipients were – who the four addresses belonged to. ‘Hal, Dave, myself,’ he replied. ‘And another I cannot name as I have no right to do so.’’, this would mean that the transactions were separate. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Thanks. Ekem (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wei Dai redirects here

Wei Dai is an important figure in the development of Bitcoin, and currently the wikipedia page wei dai redirects to bitcoin. Shouldn't we have a separate article for the Wei Dai and his academic contributions?

Also, how much can we bring from this wiki page? https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Wei_Dai

Xinbenlv (talk) 06:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Wei Dai article does exist. Retimuko (talk) 21:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overreach in claim about security

In this revision, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/855882397, a change I had made twas reverted, with the statement that the text does not claim unknown vulnerabilities do not exist.

That's not true, though - the phrase "only major security flaw found and exploited in bitcoin's history" explicitly says we know there were no other major flaws.

That's why I made the edit in the first place. I'm inclined to make it again but I'm starting with this comment in hopes of avoiding an edit war. NateEag (talk) 12:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"explicitly says we know there were no other major flaws" - no, it just says that we know that no other major flaw was found and exploited. Specifically, it does not claim that no other major flaw exists. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And how do we know no other major flaw was found and exploited? That could absolutely have happened without most Bitcoin users realizing it. NateEag (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Made this change again, as no response ever came. I forgot I wasn't logged in when I made it, which is why it's anonymous. Sorry for the mistake. NateEag (talk)

"And how do we know no other major flaw was found and exploited?" - because the cited source said so. You should not replace the information from the cited source by your own WP:OR. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe applying logic to conclude that a source is making too strong a claim and reducing the claim's strength in the article accordingly is original research. I could be mistaken - obviously I've not been able to convince you that it's an overreach. Why do you think the claim that there are no other security flaws is correct? NateEag (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Why do you think the claim that there are no other security flaws is correct?" - I do not know that. What I do know for sure is, that such a claim is not in the article. If you do not know that, you should do something else than putting your WP:OR into the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Graph

There should be a price graph. Benjamin (talk) 10:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]