Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 → Archive 20

bitcoin is an illegal counterfeiting

under US law bitcoin and all other cryto currencies are illegal counterfeiting... and can be shut down over nightpt12345624.45.46.57 (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC) feb 27, 2014 >> 07:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC) jaz cramer

Evidence?--Wuerzele (talk) 07:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Obviously not, incumbents witnessed that to be false '“We all recognize that virtual currencies, in and of themselves, are not illegal,” Mythili Raman, acting assistant attorney general at the Justice Department’s criminal division, said at the hearing.' Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

was happened with e-gold which was around for some years before USA outlawed it ... this point made Feb 27 see next comment but hy7sterical bitcoin fans removed it... this IS the key point of the whole bitcoin story besides the massive hoarding making any particular value of question, this question of total illegality is not \covered in the article and should be covered , mention.... King Mitas sr

disagree. If illegality is the key point of Bitcoin you need to bring evidence.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:38, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

<< past post destroyed by bicoin hysterical supporter , who favors keeping bitcoin masked in secrecy until it collapses , when ruled illegal counterfeiting... check out .... us counterfeit statutes prohibit anyone creating any currency or duplicating us currency so these may apply .... please contact J Cramer ab this ,,,, esp as e.g. other similar ventures were closed for this reason... off shoar citi exch, pt12345624.45.46.57 (talk) 08:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC) feb 27, 2014 >> 07:05, 10 March 2014 (UTC) jaz cramer

24.45.46.57, I'll be happy to incorporate relevant information on this if you provide a link to a reliable, independently-published source. Note that it must specifically discuss Bitcoin or modern-era cryptocurrencies; citing a 19th century law with a personal interpretation is not adequate for inclusion in Wikipedia. Many earlier ventures were shut down due to lack of money transfer compliance required under a shifting interpretation of the Patriot Act, and some operators faced criminal charges. The same is true of some Bitcoin ventures; the US seized Mt. Gox's US assets for that reason. However, I don't recall any charges related to counterfeiting being filed. Agyle (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

History

Due to current developments (moving swiftly in the news) it is best to wait and see how to update the HISTORY section.

Headline-1: Calif. man denies he's Bitcoin founder after Newsweek report.

Gavin Andresen is Bitcoin's chief scientist, (at age 47.) — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

thanks for bringing this up,Charles Edwin Shipp unless there is another source but Fox, I'd use this one. The Satoshi story needs to be mentioned.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:53, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
There are several other 'best' sources, starting with the Newsweek article, and also their 'clarification'. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Headine-2: The Face Behind Bitcoin

QUOTE: “Cover article: BITCOIN'S FACE – The Mystery Man Behind the Crypto-Currency” [Satoshi Nakamoto doesn't want to talk about it.] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Headine-3: Newsweek's Statement on the Bitcoin Story

QUOTE: “...generated an immense amount of international attention...” [Newsweek stands by their story/reporter] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Headine-4: Both Satoshi Nakamotos say accused Satoshi Nakamoto isn't Bitcoin's creator

QUOTE: “Nakamoto's true identity has been shrouded in mystery right from the beginning of Bitcoin. For years people have wondered if Nakamoto was an alias for a secretive genius programmer or perhaps a group of hackers fearful of revealing their identity.” [Mystery continue] — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia article for Satoshi Nakamoto: Satoshi_Nakamoto#Dorian_Nakamoto

How can this work into the article here? Caution is advised. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Bitcoin Transaction Visual

We include a "Bitcoin Transaction Visual" in the article. I know a lot about bitcoin, but I still don't fully understand the sequence of actions depicted in the diagram, especially the hash part of it. (I know what a hash is.) I don't think any of you do either. Prove me wrong! If nobody can explain it, then it's too technical for the main Bitcoin article and should be moved to the more-technical Bitcoin protocol article. Chris Arnesen 15:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed the diagram, which already existing in the Bitcoin protocol article. Chris Arnesen 21:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
As you seem to know, hash is for speedy sorting. And you understand public/private key encryption. Hence, the diagram is easy to understand if you don't "think too hard" :-) But I agree that the diagram can be in the detailed WP article and not this article. — IMO, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
If it's so easy then please explain it to us, in words. Chris Arnesen 18:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
No need: it is already in Bitcoin protocol and does not need to be here, as you already noted. — Cheers, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I found this video-interview very interesting: [1] with Bitcoin, chief scientist. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Should this sad news be mentioned?

Headline: "Bitcoin firm CEO found dead in suspected suicide."

There is a picture of the 28-yr-old American CEO. It is a selfish (and stupid) act, putting burden and sorrow on loved ones. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2014 (UTC) — PS: I thought it would be more appropriate to mention and chronicle this on her Wikipedia page, but she doesn't have one. It may be best to just bury the news.

It's also based on premature speculation, which is inappropriate in such an article.Landroo (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Why would you want to bury news (@ user Shipp)? The weirdness of Wiki world! 10stone5 (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm just undecided on the appropriateness of even mentioning her death (forget the cause) thinking it is not important to the article. Is it? Is it not? — Just asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
It's probably best to wait a week for the investigation to conclude [2] and [3] and then add a sentence to the HISTORY section when a new CEO is selected. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
It should not be included. There's no indication her death was related to Bitcoin, and her employer, First Meta, is not notable. Even if it turns out the suicide was related to Bitcoin, it isn't important to an understanding of the article's subject. Not every omission is "burying news". Agyle (talk) 04:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
After there is a new CEO, I would propose a new section: "Management". — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
First Meta is one of thousands of companies that trade bitcoins; most are insignificant to the topic of Bitcoins as a whole. I'd suggest covering staffing of specific notable companies or organizations in articles about those companies/organizations. There is no management of Bitcoin as a whole, per se, unless you count the Bitcoin Foundation, and there's an article for that. Agyle (talk) 05:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree. Further, this points out the lack in this article. Between section 2 and section 3, there needs to be a new section, "Management", since she was called the CEO, and you correctly point out what a casual Wikipedia reader (me, in this case) would conclude incorrectly. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Bitcoin, like many cryptocurrencies, has no owner, management, business or official website. There are different people and organizations that focus on Bitcoin-related things; the Bitcoin Foundation is a prominent one, and an informal (I think) group of software developers are generally referred to as "core developers", but that's the nature of its being an ownerless, open standard. However, your suggestion still seems good; whether it needs a section or just a paragraph somewhere, the lack of management and overseeing company seems well worth mentioning, to provide a more complete understanding of the topic. Bitcoin.org's About Us page is a primary source reference, though I'm sure some media coverage explains this as well. Agyle (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree! Who knew? I found this video-interview very enlightening, [4] "no person or company has control[!]" — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC) [Soapbox PS: Some religions are like this, with no single prophet/mgt to lead/guide. Can become chaos!]
But I see what you mean, about being a standard, not controlled software from a company. Perhaps I'll read through the other article Bitcoin_Foundation — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

malware section

agyle thanks for adding this interesting info. you saw I cut and pasted the mining to unauthorized mining, because I felt it belonged together- can you copyedit it please? I feel uncomfortable. And do ransomware and theft really have to be subsections of malware ? I mean I understand why you did it , academically, but couldnt they just be 2 more sections, saving on this 1 sentence paragraph under Malware?--Wuerzele (talk) 07:59, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

unauthorized mining is done by malware, so it makes sense to be a subsection, malware stealing bitcoins can use a more appropriate subsection name Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, the problem is I didn't notice there was an existing "unauthorized mining" section when I added a malware section and mining subsection. It was definitely redundent, and while they have different information (I'll blend them), they definitely needed combining. It's just a question of whether whether to put it under malware or not. Personally I favor grouping the three types of malware in a Malware section. They're related, and I was actually thinking to mention that there are hybrid types in the opening paragraph (e.g., there's a ransomware program that also mines while it's waiting for payment, and a botnot wallet-stealing program that also mines in the background).
I agree with Ladislav's suggestion that the bitcoin-stealing malware section could use a different name, to distinguish it from the other hacker theft section, though the variety of techniques makes it hard to come up with a good catch-all description that covers both wallet theft and the clipboard copy/paste trick. Perhaps splitting it into two, one for "Wallet-stealing" and the other "Address modifiers" or something?
Agyle (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Agyle thanks for editing, looks good now. agree with Ladislav re new subsection name, I think your suggestion to use "theft by (or via) hacking" is good, the more descriptive the better. I d strike the word loss out of the subsection name, as loss isnt criminal activity, that sentence should be somewhere up in the beginning, as illustration what happens if you dont take care of the keys.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Reverting only cash

65.211.126.73's edit changed the sentence "Bitcoin has been a subject of scrutiny amid concerns that it can be used for illegal activities" to add the words "like cash" to "Bitcoin has been a subject of scrutiny amid concerns that like cash it can be used for illegal activities" with no edit summary. Fleetham reverted it with no edit summary. Wuerzele reverted the reversion saying "no reason for deletion given- fleetham please discuss on talk page".

So I'm discussing it here. I'm removing the words again. They are inserted to make an obvious, implicit, simplistic POV argument not contained in the cited sources. A natural answer to the argument is that cash is already subject to numerous government regulations, but this article should be a NPOV reflection of facts based on reliable sources, not a debate.

Agyle (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

section summaries (section leads) before subsections

As alluded to, in the prior section ponzi scheme content change, i feel the section summaries (text below section heading preceding subsections) on bitcoin are unfortunate, because confusing, so i find them unnecessary. They could be done away with for the following reasons:

  1. the subsections are usually so short, consist of so few points, that its easy to read through them, so a preceding section summary above them doesnt serve a purpose
  2. the subsections are visually difficult to distinguish from the sections (very minor font change). Besides myself, i have now witnessed others , both Agyle( Malware) and Ladislav (Ponzi scheme) to have been mistaken about what's written where, under what section, so a section summary makes it even more difficult
  3. the subsections are so short, that a subsection summary is a confusing duplication in content and in citations.
  4. could find no rule in the wikipedia Manual of Style that section summaries are needed (I have never written subsection summaries on pages i started myself, but maybe i am wrong?); there's a rule about uniqueness of headers (WP: MOSHEAD), which subsectioning kind of runs up against by repeating the same term (for example# Legal status and regulations ## Legal status), which pleads for using subsections only as much as necessary/as little as possible.

Opinions?--Wuerzele (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Regarding subsections, I see a good reason why to keep, e.g., the "Malware" sections together (they may be put into a separate article at some point in the future to keep the main article reasonably short and balanced). To discuss section leads, my observation when examining the "Economics" section lead is that the first sentence looks more like a sentence belonging to the "Reception" section and that there is some room for improvement. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I dont see how this replies to my point of doing away with the section leads these sentences before subsections, sorry Ladislav! Maybe I didnt make myself clear...?--Wuerzele (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't think I've made that mistake, but regardless, I'm opposed to doing away with text from sections that have subsections. If you look at sections of the MOS itself (e.g., WP:MOS#National varieties of English, WP:MOS#Capital letters, WP:MOS#Non-breaking spaces etc.), it introduces sections before subsections the same way. This is a normal practice on Wikipedia, and in American English (at a minimum) writing generally. Agyle (talk) 02:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

@Agyle: thanks. you forgot what you wrote just in the talkpoint above,-:) March 10 ? "Yeah, the problem is I didn't notice there was an existing "unauthorized mining" section when I added a malware section and mining subsection. It was definitely redundent,..." I am ok with ultrashort summaries if need be but find pages without way more appealing. BTW I dont see evidence supporting your claim that section summaries are "a normal practice on Wikipedia, and in American English (at a minimum) writing generally". seems the exception not the rule in my experience and i like you , am interested in many different topics. i checked random wiki articles, scientific, biographical, like eg internet security plenty subsections- 1 summary , main page article Mitt Romney zero summary, like prairie dog or antibiotics or money laundering or ....whatever, they look and read better.--Wuerzele (talk) 09:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Wuerzele I just didn't read the section, it had nothing to do with confusion; I confess I haven't read the Bitcoin article top to bottom. :-) You got me curious if I was off-base, so I tried an arbitrary sample of "Good"-rated Wikipedia articles on WP:GOOD, by clicking the first category (WP:GA/GP – Agriculture Food and Drink) and looking at the first 25 articles listed. 18 had sections with text above their subsections (1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18), 1 did not have text above its subsection (1), and 6 didn't have subsections (1 2 3 4 5 6). While there's no arguing with personal preference, this does seem to be the norm, at least from a small, not-entirely random sample. A spot-check of other categories of Good-rated articles seemed similar. Incidentally, I agree that the font choice for sections vs. subsections is terrible...I'm guessing there have been years of debates on that. :-) Agyle (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
@Agyle: @Ladislav Mecir: Thanks much for presenting this, excellent idea of you; had no clue of WP:GOOD. I am totally fine with this sample of n=25. So I looked at all of them, and I see ONLY 9and 16 have text before a subsection, and BTW only before ONE subsection, and not notoriously as on Bitcoin under EACH section, in other words: only 2 of 25 articles, or 8% if this is a repr. sample., 92% dont have (the confusing look of) section ledes. This confirms what i 've said. i conclude that i've not been descriptive enough because both you and ladislav misunderstood section summary. as far as your confession, thanks for your honesty. thats why we are a team. everyone's different. as may be obvious i am not a programmer. i read the whole article from top to bottom before each day, if and when i edit. please look at my definition of section summary again and tell me if you see it now. Ta.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Wuerzele: "I dont see how this replies to my point of doing away with the section leads" - sorry, I did not understand your point properly, as it looks. While it looks possible in some cases where it brings clarity, I do not think it is applicable as a general measure to all section leads in the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC) thanks for the feedback, Ladislav, mea culpa not being clear enough see above--Wuerzele (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Wuerzele, based on your analysis of the same articles, I don't understand your meaning. I reread how you define "section lead": "text below section heading preceding subsections". When I look at the first article in the sample, Apiary Laboratory, the section Apiary Laboratory#Research has text below that section header, preceding the subsection Apiary Laboratory#Selected publications, so I counted that as having a section lead. You looked at the same article and counted it as not having a section lead. Could you elaborate? Agyle (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

True and thanks. I stand corrected: 3/25= so 12% have ONE section lede.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Wuerzele, to clarify, my total of 18 is the number of articles that have section leads, not the number of sections. We classified 1, 9, and 16 the same way; here is my rationale on the others 15:
Can you elaborate on why you don't consider those lead sections? Agyle (talk) 05:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
@Agyle:Thanks. I don't consider those ledes, as they are not summaries, like on Bitcoin they are completely independent and could get their own subsection title , see comments below,
  • 2 has a section between section Early farm years and subsection 1910 to 1924- is prose covering 1835-1904, no lead, no summary
  • 3 has a section between section In the Americas and subsection North America section describes earliest findings from 1493 until when subsection starts conjoining with “the next transport…” again no summary , no duplication
  • 4 has a section between section Design and subsection Materials section is a hodgepodge of design elements and does not anticipate or summarize what follows : materials. Is no lead.
  • 5 has a section between section Timber industry and subsection Planting probably best example for not being a lede, discusses economics, whereas what follws discusses horticulture/biology, ie no summary no lead
  • 6 has a section between section Gum-diggers and subsection Gumdigging methods the subsection on methods is a special aspect not summarized in the section above, which hence is no lead
  • 7 has a section between section Academics and subsection Libraries and collections the section is no lead because it does not summarize the 2 subsections that follow Libraries and Research.
  • 8 has a section between section Life and career and subsection Writing the section describes his early life until age 29 again mutually exclusive from the subsection which describes his life after 29.one coudl have writte 0-29 above, clearly no lead.
  • 10 has a prose section between section Advertising and subsection Controversies the section is no lead because it describes advertising , and does not summarize or anticipate what is in the subsection : controversies
  • 11 has a section between section Description and subsection Menu clearly no lead, describes everything but what is in the subsection “menu”
  • 12 has a section lead between section Products and subsection Equipment a whopping lead if it was one, dwarfing the subsection of cooking equipment below, neither summarizing nor anticipating it,the subsection once again is ONE aspect that’s put in adrawer in the section. This doesn’t make the rest a lede.
  • 13 has a section between section Description and subsection Menu again describes everything, but what is in the subsection, the “menu”
  • 14 has prose under section Media before subsection Menu which I consider an incorrectly used subdivision making me think it was erroroneous. Media coverage has nada to do with menu, so the latter should be an independent sister section.
  • 15 has a section of prose between section Description and subsection Menu again describes everything in the restaurant , but NOT what is in the subsection , the “menu”
  • 17 has a section in prose describing how the restaurant was received below section Reception and before subsection Ratings and awards but it mentions zippo on the awards , so is no lead.
  • 18 has a section between section Operations and subsection China this one is a hard one, because it does anticipate some information later mentioned in subsections china and US, but it doesn’t summarize Japan, Australia etc , the other 6 subsections that follow, so I am seeing this again not as a true lead.

sorry it took me a day to reply-:)--Wuerzele (talk) 08:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

So called section ledes really are the norm in Wikipedia. Fleetham (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

"FINRA warning" primary source, and irrelevant info

@Fleetham:, can you elaborate on why you inserted this info ? i dont think it needs to be on teh page. bsides, their "warning" is everything but informative. looks more like an ad to me. You called the FATF opinion i added a week ago a primary source, but this is definitely one: FINRA Inc, private corporation, self-regulatory, successor to the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc, of NYSE. --Wuerzele (talk) 06:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I believe it turned out that I was wrong to say it was bad that FATF is a primary source? I remember some other editor disagreeing with me on that. In that instance, I probably should have looked at WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, which states that it can be better to use primary sources especially when quoting from them. The rules say that secondary sources are preferred because "primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research." (See WP:WPNOTRS for the quote.) In this case, there's no WP: original research, and the source is highly reliable. Fleetham (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I disagree that the quote or FINRA investor alert is an advertisement. As a rationale for including their warning in some form, FINRA's warning was covered by several media outlets, including The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Reuters, Business Insider, FOX Business/MarketWatch Pulse, CNBC, NBC News, Yahoo! Finance/Quartz, CoinDesk, DC Magnates, and Ars Technica. Personally I think it would be better to summarize a good reliable source, like The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times. If I really wanted a quote for some reason, I'd choose a FINRA quote from one of those sources, or perhaps a weaker reliable source. Google shows no sources included the exact quote used here, and while I think it's acceptable to quote a well-covered primary source directly, it should be done cautiously and when there's an overriding reason for it. Many of these articles quote FINRA's alert, but none chose this quote, because of a glaring ambiguity – Bitcoin carries "numerous risks": what risks!? FINRA followed the quote with six bulleted paragraphs detailing the risks, and journalists and Wikipedia shouldn't devote that much coverage to their alert. The same reason they didn't use that quote is the same reason Wikipedia shoudn't use it, but a neutral summary of their warning would be fine. Agyle (talk) 17:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
agree to use sources describing FINRA warning rather than FINRA's self published newsletter, although the message ( be cautioous) aint new. --Wuerzele (talk) 08:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

ponzi scheme content change

I had simplified a sentence into "At least one Ponzi scheme using Bitcoins has occurred." @Ladislav Mecir: you replaced 'occurred' with the more cautious "prosecuted", citing trial as unfinished. I am aware of that, but the way I read the quoted sources (and the RULE 26(f) CONFERENCE REPORT) is that the SEC finds it a Ponzi scheme. -- I can live with the change you made. anyway the next court date is 3/17/14 per [case docket]...Wuerzele (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

In a trial case, the task of SEC is to charge. They are in conflict of interest (they must charge if there is a reasonable suspicion). (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I dont understand what you mean by SEC in conflict of interest. The SEC is the plaintiff; do you mean they need to prosecute what they ( will) need to regulate (in the future) ? Please explain --Wuerzele (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I mean that the plaitiff's duty and measure of success is to charge and find guity as many defendants as they can. That is their interest. Such an interest may differ from the interest of the attorney of the defendant, who is paid for winning the case for his client. Those interests are specific and trying to find the truth asking just one side may be unreasonable due to their (conflicting) interests. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Ladislav Mecir, conflicting interests as you use it, is totally different ( between parties) from the standing term conflict of interest (within one party), so the sentence made no sense. Thanks for clarifying.--Wuerzele (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I tried to illustrate the point by mentioning two different parties, but, actually, taking just the one party - the plaintiff, we can easily see that what they present may not necessarily be the truth, since their interest may differ from presenting the truth (they may not even know the full truth when their interest forces them to charge). Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
By law, only the court is allowed to find the defendant guilty (or innocent). According to the law, the defendant is innocent until found guilty. The law is quite specific about this, and it is a bad idea to depart from it. We should either wait until the defendant is found guilty or present the information as allegations, not facts. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
No disagreement about the law here, Ladislav. But you kind of surmise, I am carelessly anticipating the defendant's guilt by writing "At least one Ponzi scheme using Bitcoins has occurred." Thats not true. I am talking about the fact that a Ponzi scheme occurred, that's fair to state. Example: A tree is found cut. People/ newspapers talk about a cut tree (here I will use the "unusual" :-) term common opinion). But you say I cant write that, correct me, that it's an allegedly cut tree. Now there will be a trial of the man allegedly having been seen to have cut the tree, to establish his guilt or innocence, ok. Likewise, the Ponzi scheme has been found a Ponzi scheme (people and newspapers and SEC, basta), and the trial on 3/17 is about the defendants alleged connection with the Ponzi scheme. Do you see, where I am coming from? Accuracy is as important as clarity for the reader.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I understand it that you think it is not possible for the court to find that no Ponzi scheme was involved in this case? However unlikely such ruling may look, it is, at least in principle, possible and it is not our job to rule out such a possibility. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

But you then added stuff about legality from the senate hearing, I dont think this fits there: "Incumbents witnessing at US Senate hearing presented their common opinion that Bitcoin and other virtual currencies are not illegal, though. “We all recognize that virtual currencies, in and of themselves, are not illegal,” Mythili Raman, acting assistant attorney general at the Justice Department’s criminal division.[137] Independent on legality of Bitcoin,..." I think this should go where legality is mentioned (maybe legal status). but i'd wordsmith the sentence "Incumbents witnessing at US Senate hearing presented their common opinion": incumbent or not is irrelevant, common opinion is an unusual term - what were you trying to say? the name Mythili Raman should also go away, irrelevant details confuse, so for example:"The acting assistant attorney general at the Justice Department’s criminal division said at the Senate hearing that "virtual currencies, in and of themselves, are not illegal". I think the then following clause "Independent on legality of Bitcoin" is irrelevant because Bitcoin is legal, and confusing because casting doubt, so I propose to drop this. I didnt edit anything, but wrote this here, so people understand where I am coming from. Thanks.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

'The acting assistant attorney general at the Justice Department’s criminal division said at the Senate hearing that "virtual currencies, in and of themselves, are not illegal".' - well, common opinion may be unusual for you, but once presented as such by a witness, other witnesses are certain to agree with it, otherwise they would have to deny it. (A witness has to tell the full truth and not conceal important facts.) Therefore, an opinion presented as a common opinion of witnesses by one of them actually is a common opinion of witnesses unless another witness denies it. Also, currently the aim of the starting paragraph is to cast the doubt on legality of Bitcoin (Ponzi schemes are illegal). The paragraph starts with "accusations of critics" (weasel worded formulation, the said "critics" are anonymous as far as I can see), which is balanced by a "disagreement of proponents" (also weasel-worded, in this case there is a specific, non-anonymous, and quite honorable, as far as I am concerned, person).
i have been unhappy about this weasel intro sentence also. i didnt know that "the aim of the paragraph was to cast doubt on Bitcoin", but youve been at it longer... i think the intro texts on the whole bitcoinpage are very unfortunate and redundant duplications on what usually follows 1/2 inch below ( ill start another subsection on this). Anyway, I feel your reply to my question how the stuff about legality from the senate hearing fits under Ponzi scheme is too complicated for a reader: you leave the legal stuff in to counterbalance implied doubt casting on Bitcoin. No.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Following these accusations is a report of an important and non-anonymous regulator (ECB) casting more doubts to the subject. To balance it, there should be an opinion of a regulator denying the accusations, which, I think, the present citation does sufficiently not just for the Ponzi scheme case, but equally well even for the "pyramid scheme" case, which is mentioned in the ECB report as well. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:35, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I removed two of the sentences; Ladislav replied here as I was editing. The sentence on "incumbent witnesses" didn't cite a source, and the Telegraph article cited in the next sentence also didn't support it - it didn't have the words "incombent" or "opinion". The sentence that the SEC case was prosecuted was imprecise; they are in the process of prosecuting the case. The SEC opinion that the operation was a Ponzi scheme doesn't make it a Ponzi scheme; that's an allegation. Particular care should be taken to precisely describe allegations of crimes. Agyle (talk) 08:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
AgreeAgyle, although i could have lived with Ladislav Mecirs "alleged Ponzi scheme".--Wuerzele (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your precisation efforts. Regarding the word "witness" - that was used, e.g. in http://www.coindesk.com/fincen-secret-service-bitcoin-foundation-hearing-bitcoin/, and senate hearings also have lists of witnesses published as far as I know."Incumbents" was my own word, I do not insist on exactly this word. What interests me more and what we lost at present is the information that the second paragraph does not depend (or relate to) the first one, it just relates to "Ponzi scheme" title of the section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)::: you are correct Ladislav, they used the word witness, even though the senate hearings were informational, not a trial. But like Agyle I dont understand the term incumbent--Wuerzele (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
The second paragraph seems clear from the opening that it's unrelated to the prior paragraph. I can see the reason for concern, but it's a short, simple paragraph, and clarifies the gist of it right away. I think it's fine as is. Agyle (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I just reverted the attempt by Aoidh to unbalance the first paragraph by removing the regulator testimony from it. Since the opinion presented in the ECB report is not the only and unopposed opinion of an important regulator, I must insist on keeping the opposing opinion in the paragraph to balance it. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:04, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

And I have restored the previous version again. Your edit was WP:SYNTH. As the source makes zero mention of a ponzi scheme, it's inappropriate to assign meaning that isn't found in the source. The source discusses the legality, there is a section for legality. The source makes zero mention of a ponzi scheme or that anyone considered it in that context, so it has no place in the ponzi scheme section, especially when there is already a section for the material. - Aoidh (talk) 11:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
My edit is not WP:SYNTH, my edit states exactly what the source says. Also, the name of the section is "Legal issues", so such a sentence is known to be appropriate in it. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Your edit is WP:SYNTH, saying that it's exactly what the source says doesn't make it not so, please read what WP:SYNTH actually is, because your explanation of how it isn't WP:SYNTH doesn't actually refute this, that's part of the synthesis of sources. Bitcoin#Ponzi scheme is not part of any section called "Legal issues", that's the preceding section. Unless you provide a source that mentions the 2013 US Senate committee hearing discussing anything relevant to ponzi scheme concerns, it doesn't belong in a section about ponzi scheme concerns, but legal concerns. That's the preceding section. If you feel otherwise, please get a consensus and find sources that support your edit. Placing that sentence at the end of a paragraph about ponzi scheme concerns makes it seem as if the committee discussed ponzi schemes in any way, and I can't find any evidence that they did, so yes, that is a synthesis of sources. Although sourced, the way the edit was worded implies something not supported by the sources which is inappropriate. That content probably belongs in the article, but not in that section. - Aoidh (talk) 11:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I tend to side with Aoidh on this. To counter the claim that it's a Ponzi scheme, a source should address that issue. The Senate hearing sources said bitcoin use could be legal in the US, and while it's a common sense inference that it's not considered a Ponzi in the US, that isn't said explicitly. While the article didn't claim the US refuted that it's a Ponzi scheme, putting the "it's legal" material in the same paragraph as the Ponzi scheme material implied they were connected. Agyle (talk) 12:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Aoidh and Agyle stuff about legality shouldnt be mixed with the Ponzi scheme this was exactly my point -see above! -did anybody but Ladislav read it ? :-)--Wuerzele (talk) 23:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I see that there was a slight mistake on my part, thinking that the "Ponzi scheme" subsection may be somehow related to "Legal issues". However, since it actually is in the "Criminal activity" section, it is necessary to find out whether it does belong there. I think that the ECB report did not paint Bitcoin as a criminal activity, if they did, they would have to act as a regulator. Thus, the first paragraph of the "Ponzi scheme" section does not belong to the "Criminal activity" section and shall be removed. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that occurred to me too; the first paragraph is not about an actual crime, it's more about a debate on its legality. If there were a "Criticisms" section, it would fit there; but of the existing sections, it probably fits under "Legal status" most appropriately, though "Reception" might work too. Agyle (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, based on this agreement, I remove the paragraph from the "Criminal activity" section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I didn't suggest deleting it, but moving it. I restored the deleted text to the legal status section. I'm sure we editors have opinions on whether Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, but hopefully everyone is trying to present balanced coverage of the views expressed in published reliable sources. From the brief mention in the cited Reuters article, and the 2011-2012 dates on the other cites, I thought this might have been a fringe or passé issue, but a google of "bitcoin ponzi" shows it's a widely discussed current topic in very established news sources. Just in the past day there are articles about an economist tweeting about this in The Wall Street Journal, Finance.yahoo.com, CNBC, and ZDNet. Agyle (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I was at odds where did the "Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme" statements belong. We found out they did not belong to the "Criminal activities" section - no criminal activity is being performed according to regulators. Now, you proposed two alternatives: the "Legal status" section or the "Reception" section. Had to contemplate about it a bit, and I think that the best place may be the "Reception" section, since the statements usually are: "... (I or somebody else) do not accept bitcoins, since (my opinion is that) Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme..." The statements are not: "...Mr. John Doe was arrested for owning, mining or selling bitcoins, since Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme...", or that "...some regulator charged Mr. John Doe for owning, mining or selling bitcoins, since Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme...", etc. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
I oppose removing the ECB report from the criminal activity section. The report does not say that Bitcoin is not a Ponzi scheme. It just says that it "might or might not be." It doesn't belong in the regulation section although perhaps something mentioning that no nations have found Bitcoin to be a Ponzi scheme might work there as well. Fleetham (talk) 04:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Contemplating is fine, but don't remove content while you think. :-) Fleetham has moved it back to Criminal activity. Repeating above, the paragraph does not discuss any criminal activity. Most of the debate over whether it's a Ponzi scheme is informal criticism, like saying the US Social Security or Federal Reserve systems are Ponzi schemes. Moving it to Reception seems fine. We could rename the Ponzi scheme criminal activity subsection "Investment fraud", which is a general class of criminal activities that includes Ponzi schemes, to reduce confusion. Given that it has only one example at the moment, the SEC case could also just be moved to Criminal activity section itself, rather than a subsection, but other current topics in Talk include the suggested removal of all subsections, and the suggested removal of all text from sections that have subsections. Agyle (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

@Agyle: That is not correct. Removal of all subsections is not what I wrote. Please read next talk point again.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I do agree with the proposal to change the criminal activity subsection to "Investment fraud". I also agree with Agyle that the fact that Bitcoin itself is not criminal activity has been proven by reliable sources. Stating that Bitcoin is a criminal activity basing the statement on utterings of anonymous sources (as is the case in the "accusation paragraph"), or on a citation of the ECB report which can be easily verified to not confirm such a statement I agree that painting Bitcoin as "criminal activity" is an invalid synthesis. Therefore, I also agree with Agyle that the "accusation paragraph" does not belong to the "Criminal activity" section nor to the "Legal issues" section, agreeing that it should be put to the "Reception" section as proposed. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
You didn't change the criminal activity subsection, you separated a paragraph into a new subsection, which is why your edit was reverted; what you're saying here and what your edit did were two completely different things. There are people who criticize Bitcoin itself for being a ponzi scheme, and alleged ponzi schemes involving Bitcoin. Both fall under the same subsection, there's no reason to split one out into an even shorter subsection. - Aoidh (talk) 23:23, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I think that it is time to discuss what you did instead: you reverted the edit I made 4 times without discussing it at all and pretending no discussion related to "Investment fraud" section name existed. After your fourth revert you wrote one short "disagreement", which I completely disagree with, to reassure you, and I am not the only one who expressed a different opinion than you did here. Nevertheless, you hurried again to delete the section immediately again, without us having any opportunity to respond and disagree with your "proposals". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I already explained why it was removed, and why your edit was made with zero discussion; the discussion was about something unrelated to your edit. Instead of discussing the merits of your preferred change, you attack the editor that disagrees with it. You have had days to "respond and disagree" from when I revert it pointing out that there was no discussion. In contrast, you have consistently reinserted it without any discussion at all, so you don't exactly have some high moral ground to complain. Discuss why your edit should be made on its own merits, not on the basis of attacks others that disagree with you. Your edit provides no benefit to the article and moves content about a ponzi scheme away from the ponzi scheme section for no discernible reason. Why should that be done? - Aoidh (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
My edit was made after a discussion and after a proposal of the "Investment fraud" section was made by Agyle. We both did not try to make immediate changes to the article, waiting for a couple of days before making an edit. You pretended the section name was not discussed until your fourth removal of the discussed section name. Only then you "miraculously found" the purportedly nonexistent discussion in here and are trying to make it irrelevant and not respecting any disagreement with your numerous attempts to remove the section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Once again you're discussing everything except why your edit should stay. Your edit was made after a discussion about something else, and then you made an unrelated edit. Since you keep dodging the actual discussion of why the edit should stay, it seems like that's because there's no basis for the edit. - Aoidh (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I hate to repeat myself, but specially for you (no news for others who read the discussion). It has been already discussed that the first source for the text: "Critics have ..." contains the information: "Bitcoin, a digital currency variously dismissed as a Ponzi scheme", i.e., the source is explicitly describing reception of Bitcoin ("variously dismissed"). The information describing an alleged Ponzi scheme by a Texan, on the other hand, is a criminal case; there has been a charge, arrest and the trial has already started, although it is not finished yet. The reception information and the criminal case information are fundamentally different and unrelated. The "Investment fraud" section has been proposed by Agyle to serve for criminal cases published. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind changing the name of the subsection to prevent confusion, but could someone please explain how the ECB report "does not discuss any criminal activity" as Agyle mentioned or how it "[states] that Bitcoin is a criminal activity" as Ladislav Mecir says. What? For one, the two of you seem to be taking contradictory stances, so it seems at least Ladislav supports the ECB report being mentioning in the criminal activity section but just doesn't like the source.
I am sorry if my formulation was so unclear. I actually wanted to point out that the ECB report does not claim Bitcoin to be criminal activity, see below. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
@Agyle: Ponzi schemes are illegal. How does stating "Bitcoin may or may not be a Ponzi scheme; it's difficult to tell" qualify as not mentioning criminal activity? That's like saying, "John might or might not be growing weed in his basement--but I'm not discussing any criminal activity of course!"
@Ladislav Mecir: I'm not sure how you get to WP:SYNTH. For one, the "criminal activity" section mentions both real and alleged criminal activity. Remember, the threshold for inclusion of material is Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. It's not just the ECB report that mentions Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme, and prior to anyone being arrested for money laundering with bitcoins, the "criminal activity" section included a mention of money laundering because it was in a FBI report. I'm not stating that we should include the ECB report in the criminal activity subsection because Bitcoin will soon be classified as a Ponzi scheme, but I wonder why you didn't take the same stance with money laundering as you do with the Ponzi scheme material. Fleetham (talk) 17:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
@Fleetham:, there are criminal laws against fraud using Ponzi schemes. But since no government has taken the position that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, those laws don't apply, and using/promoting bitcoins is not a criminal activity on that basis. Individuals expressing opinions that Bitcoin should be considered a Ponzi scheme, and that its use should constitute a crime, don't mean it is a crime. Also, many economists/scholars saying Bitcoin is or resembles a Ponzi scheme mean it in an informal sense, as part of why they think Bitcoin is destined to collapse, rather than to advocate criminalizing its use. The ECB may have been looking at it from a criminal standpoint (I honestly don't know if they legislate criminal law), but they didn't find that Bitcion was a Ponzi scheme. c (talk) 18:34, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Fleetham wrote: "I'm not sure how you get to WP:SYNTH." - that is actually easy. The (anonymous, in case of the paragraph) sources are stating that "Bitcoin has properties of Ponzi scheme". They do not explicitly say that Bitcoin is a criminal activity, there actually is a source (a journalist) who explicitly says he does not mean it in the sense that it is a criminal activity, more in the sense that it resembles Ponzi scheme in some way. In total, the claim that Bitcoin is a criminal activity is not present in the sources. It is a deduction (synthesis) of other information, which is inappropriate in this case not reflecting the sources, in fact. The same criterium can be applied to the ECB report. The report finds (some) properties of a Ponzi scheme, but also properties that are distinct from properties of a Ponzi scheme. This means that the "criminal activity" deduction is inappropriate synthesis. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the concluding that Bitcoin itself is a criminal activity from the source would be SYNTH. The section is not about "only those criminal activities that have really and truly taken place using bitcoins," however. It's simply titled "criminal activity." Again, please let me ask you to read WP:VNT.
I think the section as it stands makes it clear that the status of Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme is disputed. Again, the section is not about "real crimes of Bitcoin" but simply criminal activity. Fleetham (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
You coined the WP:VNT issue to the discussion. I think that it really should be taken into account. OK, so let's examine whether we can verify the statement "bitcoin is a criminal activity" from the source. I examine the first source for the paragraph and see: "Bitcoin, a digital currency variously dismissed as a Ponzi scheme or lauded as ..." - so, the source is actually quite specific what is being discussed - it is reception, not criminal activities. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
If you don't like that source, there are plenty of others on offer:
Fleetham (talk) 03:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Fleetham: "If you don't like that source..." - I have got nothing against the source. My problem is that as written, the text is dubious and needs both different sources and different formulations to be verifiable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I'd be happy to hear what you think needs to be changed. Please elaborate. Fleetham (talk) 05:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I originally thought that we may want to keep the above mentioned source and move the discussion to the "Reception" section exactly because it actually informs about reception. There may be other alternatives, but this was the one proposed above. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, the replacement of the word "dismissed" supported by the source by the word "accused" unsupported by the source is an invalid synthesis. In total, the present formulation is violating several principles of Wikipedia. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
You're using the word "synthesis" wrong; that's not a label you give to content you disagree with to make it go away. Which of these sources say that it's "dismissed" as such? I couldn't find any, but the accusation is well sourced. - Aoidh (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
I actually do agree with the source stating "Bitcoin, a digital currency variously dismissed as a Ponzi scheme", since that is verified. The formulation "accused" is misrepresenting the source. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
What source, exactly, is that supposed to be misrepresenting? Numerous sources above accuse Bitcoin of being a ponzi scheme, but we don't use their "it's definitely a ponzi scheme" in Wikipedia's voice, that's not synthesis, it's an accusation that Wikipedia is attributing to them rather than repeating itself. Your edit also makes the sentence read very awkwardly and comes across as very forced. Please stop using phrases like "misrepresenting the source" and "invalid synthesis" without explaining what you mean, because it looks like you're using these phrases in the wrong manner. - Aoidh (talk) 20:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Aoidh: "What source, exactly, is that supposed to be misrepresenting?" - I wrote it above, but just for you repeating myself: exactly the source used for the sententce as its first source. Also, there is no "accusation" in the sources I know of, the only one is the one you are inventing right now. (synthesis) Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
See the sources above, they are full of accusations, unless you're saying that Bitcoin has been shown to be a ponzi scheme, they are accusations to that effect. That one source uses a specific wording does not "misrepresent" that they are nothing more than accusations, that's not even close to accurate, nor is it the only source so that's not true in any case. If that's the source you were talking about, then no, that doesn't misrepresent the source at all. - Aoidh (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Aoidh: "they are nothing more than accusations" - shall I understand that you are saying that "variously dismissed as Ponzi scheme" is (according to your statement) saying nothing about dismissal or reception, being an accusation instead? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
If you do really mean it, then you are misrepresenting the source. If you do mean some other source, then, please, just mention the source you want to mention. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Do I really have to break this down in such simple terms? The sources are above. In them, there are accusations. They are not factually indisputable, therefore they are accusations by the authors of the articles. You have mentioned a single article that notes the ponzi scheme accusations, and focusing on that to the exclusion of all others, claiming that the others somehow are invalidated by that one, even though nothing is contradicted? There are plenty of sources accusing Bitcoin of being a ponzi scheme, that is not "misrepresenting the source", period. - Aoidh (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
You are specifically using one source and misrepresenting it. When you try to be constructive and propose a different source, we may easily find a better ground for discussion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
No, you are using one source and ignoring all other sources and what other editors explain (and that one source doesn't even refute anything); saying "misrepresenting" is not some magic wand that allows you to avoid giving an actual reason. Fleetham provided numerous sources above that quite clearly contradict what you're saying, and those are the sources I'm referring to, not the "one source" you keep going on about, so saying that I'm "using one source" is demonstrably false. Given that, I'm restoring the edit per WP:STATUSQUO until you get a consensus for your edit, because WP:IDHT is not a discussion, and until you discuss the reason for your edit, it will not remain in the article. - Aoidh (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The fact is that the article uses a specific source. That source is what is being misrepresented. Other sources may not be, but they are not in the article. Thus, until other changes are made, the "accusation" formulation misrepresents the source used. I do not object against proposing other source for a different formulation, but until you do propose such a change, any other, in the article not mentioned, source, is irrelevant. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
That's not a fact, it's not even true. The source uses a few sources, and even the one you're focused on isn't being "misrepresented", and others are in the article (even if it wasn't, the information is verfiable, it doesn't matter which source is in the article, but that's a moot point since the article already verifies the sentence). Are you suggesting that nobody has accused Bitcoin of being a ponzi scheme, despite all the sources above to the contrary? Saying "dismissed" is a wording used by a single source, not reflected by most of the sources, it's not a "misrepresentation" to reflect what the sources say. - Aoidh (talk) 05:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
The article indeed uses a few sources (that is how I understand your "the source uses a few sources"), but none of them verifies any "criminal activity accusations". Whether somebody stated "Bitcoin has properties of a Ponzi scheme" - yes, that is what I consider verified,, but that is not a "criminal activity accusation". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
I really feel like you're not actually reading the sources above. About half of the sources given are flat-out stating that Bitcoin itself is a ponzi scheme or is a vehicle for such, so it does indeed verify the content. - Aoidh (talk) 10:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Also, there was one more incorrectness, pretending the opinions is shared between all critics, which is not verifiable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Saying "critics" doesn't imply or suggest "all critics", saying "all critics" is unnecessary in the English language and is poor writing. - Aoidh (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
'saying "all critics" is unnecessary in the English language and is poor writing' - Yes, and "all critics" is not the case verified by sources. 'I really feel like you're not actually reading the sources above. About half of the sources given are flat-out stating that Bitcoin itself is a ponzi scheme or is a vehicle for such, so it does indeed verify the content.' - I found neither "accused" nor "criminal activity", while the text I proposed and discussed is cited from the sources. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
First of all, stop trying to push the edit in the article, because there are obvious problems with those changes and if you want them in the article, please get a consensus rather than edit-warring to include them. You're not going to find a source that says "I am accusing Bitcoin of being..." but neither is Wikipedia going to say "Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme" in its own voice, thus it attributes the accusation instead of claiming it as fact. Asking that a source literally say the word "accused" to show that is an unrealistic expectation. As for the critics thing, I'm guessing English is not your first language, because you missed the point of what I was saying entirely. I'm not saying "all critics" is verified, I'm saying that "critics" does not suggest "all critics". It does not imply a unanimous agreement. - Aoidh (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Ladislav, please don't edit war. I'm not sure if directly addressing the issue will help resolve this, but 1) you don't need a source that specifically states "Bitcoin might be a Ponzi scheme, and Ponzi schemes are illegal." Ponzi schemes are illegal and are, therefore, criminal activity. 2) You don't need a source that accuses Bitcoin of being criminal activity. Simply suggesting that Bitcoin might be a Ponzi scheme covers this because Ponzi schemes are illegal.
I do agree with Ladislav that the article should make it clear that Bitcoin is not a "proven" Ponzi scheme. Can't we move on to editing the article instead of simply rearranging it? Fleetham (talk) 17:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, the paragraph mentioning the criminal charge against a Texan is a true criminal cause. Bitcoin does not have such a criminal accusation. That said, do you have any objection against a statement in the "Reception" section that some sources say Bitcoin has some properties of a Ponzi scheme? It is not a criminal accusation to state that bitcoin has some properties of a Ponzi scheme and some properties distinct from properties of a Ponzi scheme. Anything that can be bought has at least this property common with a Ponzi scheme. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, it would be difficult to prosecute Bitcoin itself for being a Ponzi scheme, wouldn't it? But in all seriousness, the Ponzi scheme allegations or accusations belong in the criminal activity section as Ponzi schemes are criminal activity. You're asking that the material be removed because there is no court case regarding this, but there's no reason to set such a high bar for inclusion of material. No one has gone to court because they mined bitcoins using botnets, but that doesn't botnet mining "truly" belongs in the reception section. Fleetham (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
"Well, it would be difficult to prosecute Bitcoin itself for being a Ponzi scheme, wouldn't it?" - that is a myth. If Bitcoin was a criminal activity, it would be certainly possible to prosecute everybody selling bitcoins, mining bitcoins, buying sheets with bitcoins... Also, the "No one has gone to court because they mined bitcoins using botnets" - actually, such prosecutions and accusations are in the news. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, again I challenge the notion that any accusations of criminal activity not formally made by a court belong in the reception section not the criminal activity one. Fleetham (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, it looks that I am being unclear here. I do not actually want to set the bar that way. I am actually trying to make the following distinction:
  • if I say that something (Bitcoin) has some properties of a Ponzi scheme I am not accusing anybody or anything of criminal activity, especially if I also say that the something (Bitcoin) also has some properties distinct from the properties of a Ponzi scheme. Notice that this is what is in the sources and it does not confirm "criminal accusations" by this specific criterium.
  • it may not matter much who is accusing (whether it is a court or some other plaintiff), what matters is whether an accusation is seriously being made, or if it is just some dismissal not meant as an accusation of any (known or unknown) subject or subjects. Hope I am being more clear this time.
  • to compare the above rules to other situations let's assume I say: "Mr. XY behaves like a thief, being so quiet when walking", but that he also "does not behave like thief, not stealing things". I do not think it is serious and reasonable to interpret that as a "criminal accusation". In case of Mr. XY we actually know that a professional whose job is to prosecute criminal cases witnessed that "it is not illegal". In another example, if I say "Mr. YZ is a criminal, he won a huge amount of money and did not share with me, and he knew I needed the money badly", it is not hard to detect that I am making a hyperbole, but I am not seriously accusing mr. YZ to be a criminal. In general, these issues need serious judgment, and that is what is missing. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but what we have here is not a case where Bitcoin is being accused of having some properties of Ponzi schemes and some properties that are not associated with Ponzi schemes. Multiple reliable sources have asserted that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, and the European Central Bank says that Bitcoin does exhibit some properties of Ponzi schemes. Fleetham (talk) 04:27, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
I assure you that the ECB does know how to accuse and this is not how they do it. All the sources in the article have the same property of not being a serious accusation of criminal activity. It looks that I did not succeed to explain that to you. Nevermind. It is no tragedy we cannot find an agreement on this. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:47, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Ponzi scheme mention in ECB report

Recently, material quoting an ECB report about Bitcoin being a Ponzi scheme was moved from the "Ponzi scheme" section to the "legal status" section. While perhaps it should be in both places, there's no reason to remove it from the "Ponzi scheme" section. If any mention of Ponzi schemes truly belongs in the section about legal status, it should be something mentioning that no nation has indicted Bitcoin as being a Ponzi scheme not a quote stating something to the effect of "Bitcoin might be a Ponzi scheme, but it's difficult to make a judgement." Fleetham (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd direct comments to the existing Talk section on this three sections up (Talk:Bitcoin#ponzi scheme content change). Agyle (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
I also refer to the above discussion where you can find a comment why putting the discussed material to the "Criminal activities" section is an invalid synthesis. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:50, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Ahem. Here is the original sources from the European Central Bank report on virtual currency schemes:
http://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemes201210en.pdf
It says on page 28: "Another recurrent issue is whether Bitcoin works like a Ponzi scheme or not. Users go into the system by buying Bitcoins against real currencies, but can only leave and retrieve their funds if other users want to buy their Bitcoins, i.e. if ew participants want to join the system. For many people, this is characteristic of a Ponzi scheme. The US Securities and Exchange Commission defines a Ponzi scheme in the following terms: A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk. In many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters focus on attracting new money to make promised payments to earlier-stage investors and to use for personal expenses, instead of engaging in any legitimate investment activity. 14 On the one hand, the Bitcoin scheme is a decentralised system where – at least in theory – there is no central organiser that can undermine the system and disappear with its funds. Bitcoin users buy and sell the currency among themselves without any kind of intermediation and therefore, it seems that nobody benefits from the system, apart from those who benefit from the exchange rate evolution (just as in any other currency trade) or those who are hard-working “miners” and are therefore rewarded for their contribution to the security and confidence in the system as a whole. Moreover, the scheme does not promise high returns to anybody. Although some Bitcoin users may try to profit from exchange rate fluctuations, Bitcoins are not intended to be an investment vehicle, just a medium of exchange. On the contrary, Gavin Andresen, Lead Developer of the Bitcoin virtual currency project, does not esitate to say that “Bitcoin is an experiment. Treat it like you would treat a promising internet start-up company: maybe it will change the world, but realise that investing your money or time in new ideas is always risky”. 15 In addition, Bitcoin supporters claim that it is an open-source system whose code is available to any interested party ... "
Fleetham, I am confused that you extract from that ECB report the statement that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme. I read quite the contrary conclusion. Could you explain with which sentence you would back your statement?
Unsigned post above not from me. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
The ECB report does not assert that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme. Each of the sentences in the Ponzi scheme section rely on different citations. Sources that claim Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme can be found at the end of the quote "critics have accused Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme". Other sources have done likewise some of which I've pasted below.
Fleetham (talk) 02:31, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Fleetham wrote: "The ECB report does not assert that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme." - agreed. Neither it "asserts" that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, nor does it "accuse" Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme.
Fleetham also wrote: 'Sources that claim Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme can be found at the end of the quote "critics have accused Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme".' - no, the sources that can be found at the end of the sentence (it is not a quote) neither "accuse Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme", nor they "claim Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme", as can be verified by reading them.
Regarding the other sources that are not used in the article, but mentioned above. I have got reservations. One of them being that the other sources are not used in the article, so the sentence in the article is unconfirmed. More importantly, when reading all of them, I did not find any that can be used to confirm the "critics accuse Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme" sentence, not to mention that it isn't a quote of any source.
The sentence still remains weasel-worded mentioning "Critics" making its implication misleading and too vague to substantiate.
Yet another reservation to the wording is that Bitcoin is presented as "accused of criminal activity" and the official ECB report (known to not support it) is weasel-wordedly ("shares some ... characteristics of a Ponzi scheme") mentioned as supporting the whole cardhouse, while a quote from a testimony of an official stating "Bitcoins are not illegal in and of themselves" has been removed at least twice as a "synthesis" - synthesis of what? Of the exact quote? This can be a neutral point of view only in Orwellian sense. I stated and continue stating that I cannot agree with the present wording of the article and I listed my reasons for disagreement several times in this discussion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

To address your numerous points... 1) if you want the above sources to be used in the article, let's add them. 2) Instead of "critics," how about "prominent economists, heads of central banks, and journalists"? 3) When was a quote saying "bitcoins are not illegal" removed? It should be added back, but I'm not sure how it has any bearing on the Ponzi scheme issue. 4) The ECB report does support the idea that Bitcoin has characteristics of a Ponzi scheme. The report states, "Another recurrent issue is whether Bitcoin works like a Ponzi scheme or not. ...it is also true that the system demonstrates a clear case of information asymmetry. It is complex and therefore not easy for all potential users to understand. At the same time, however, users can easily download the application and start using it even if they do not actually know how the system works and which risks they are actually taking. ... Therefore, although the current knowledge base does not make it easy to assess whether or not the Bitcoin system actually works like a pyramid or Ponzi scheme, it can justifiably be stated that Bitcoin is a high-risk system for its users ...and that it could collapse... All these issues raise serious concerns regarding the legal status and security of the system, as well as the finality and irrevocability of the transactions, in a system which is not subject to any kind of public oversight." Information asymmetry is a hallmark of the Ponzi scheme as is collapsing. Bitcoin does not, however, promise high returns–another characteristic of most Ponzi schemes. Fleetham (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

And a quick thought: why would the ECB say it was difficult to determine if Bitcoin was a Ponzi scheme if Bitcoin did not behave like a Ponzi scheme? Fleetham (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Fleetham: " 1) if you want the above sources to be used in the article, let's add them." - I do not think that would help. It should suffice to use one source confirming the formulation, if there was one usable. The problem is that none of the sources does really verify the formulation.
2) 'Instead of "critics," how about "prominent economists, heads of central banks, and journalists"?' - well, my problem is that none of the sources really confirms such an accusation. I did not find a source that does.
3) 'When was a quote saying "bitcoins are not illegal" removed? It should be added back, but I'm not sure how it has any bearing on the Ponzi scheme issue.' - if the Ponzi scheme discussion in the press was presented as a dismissal (placed in the reception section) then there would be no bearing. However, the paragraph is presented as an "accusation of being a Ponzi scheme" and a "criminal activity" (it is in that section and formulated that way). The testimony contradicts the opinion that Bicoin itself is (or has been) accused as being a criminal activity.
4) The ECB report does support the idea that Bitcoin has characteristics of a Ponzi scheme. - the bold formulation is: "demonstrates a clear case of information asymmetry. It is complex and therefore not easy for all potential users to understand." However, the report lists the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme by SEC and "not easy to understand" is not present in the list.
'why would the ECB say it was difficult to determine if Bitcoin was a Ponzi scheme if Bitcoin did not behave like a Ponzi scheme?' - "why?" is really an interesting question. As far as I am concerned, their behaviout can be explained only in one way, in fact. If there is any suspicion that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, their duty as a regulator is to charge. They did not charge. My conclusion is: their behaviour is explainable only when assuming they did not have any reasonable suspicion. On the other hand, it is quite irrelevant why they wrote the report the way they did (there may be a simpler reason), we should use what is written and not what we think about their motives. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
It's very easy to use multiple sources to support a single sentence... see WP:CITEBUNDLE
About the bitcoins-not-being-illegal quote, why not add it back to the page?
You are correct, being "difficult to understand" is not a characteristic of Ponzi schemes.
The ECB is not a regulator. It is a central bank. I believe things like Ponzi schemes would be regulated at the national level in Europe not by the EU itself.
Fleetham (talk) 05:31, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Fleetham wrote: 'It's very easy to use multiple sources to support a single sentence... see WP:CITEBUNDLE' - oh yes, I did not want to purport that using multiple sources is not easy. I wanted to mention that the sources listed were not usable to verify in this specific case, and that one source could suffice if there was such.
'About the bitcoins-not-being-illegal quote, why not add it back to the page?' - OK, I will add it then, curious how long will it last this time. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Please explain how the sources do not support the statement. Have you read the sources? Fleetham (talk) 16:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I have. I will use the first source to show why that specific source does not confirm the sentence "Critics accuse Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme". Citing from the article: "As a digital delivery system, perhaps bitcoin can be saved. But a currency built by hackers and anonymous code-writing anarchists offers a pretty weak alternative to cash, credit cards or PayPal." - this is actually telling that Bitcoin can be used as a "digital delivery system", which would be a legitimate use, not a Ponzi scheme. The author thinks other "digital delivery" alternatives are "stronger", but that is not an accusation. In other sentences the author mentions "cybercriminals", mentioning illicit activities as drug dealing, etc. that are mentioned in other sections and are unrelated to any Ponzi scheme. That is why I do not think this article actually supports "acsuation of Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme". The title is just a hyperbole. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what source you're referring to. How about:

Fleetham (talk) 02:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Fleetham:"I'm not even sure what source you're referring to." - you were asking whether I read the bunch of sources you listed abvoe, and I was referring to the first one of them.
Regarding the CB of Estonia quote; the source says: "The central bank of Estonia ... urged consumers to steer clear of Bitcoin and similar virtual currencies, warning such software could prove to be little more than a “Ponzi scheme.” - however I look at it, I do not see an accusation of being a Ponzi scheme, "could prove to be a little more than" is unequivocally stating that this is not an accusation. It is what it is: a warning.
@Fleetham:@Wuerzele:@Agyle:More importantly, Aoidh removed the "not illegal" testimony again, stating: "the consensus on the talk page was completely against adding this here". I shall leave it to others to decide; my opinion may not be neutral on this, but I think that Aoidh's information is inaccurate. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Less importantly, Bitcoin has been invented as a decentralized currency to not need a central ("third party") institution to maintain the ownership of the currency. Due to this fact, every central bank should be treated as a non-neutral source of information on Bitcoin. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
My opinion is that the removal of the quote is proper; while the sentence is factually correct, it does not seem to be made in reference to section's topic of Bitcoin being a Ponzi scheme. Its placement implies it was in reference to the topic, which is a form of synthesis. To be clear, the sentence that Aoidh removed was this:
"At a 2013 US Senate committee hearing on virtual currencies, representants of several federal agencies witnessed they were willing to accept the use of bitcoins as legitimate payment alternative, and Mythili Raman, acting assistant attorney general at the Justice Department’s criminal division, testified: 'we all recognize that virtual currencies, in and of themselves, are not illegal'."
––Agyle (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
To make it clear, the information is related to the subject of the section "Criminal activity". Bitcoin is mentioned as being "accused". This is where the cited information is related. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
The information is not, however, related to the ponzi scheme subsection, and placing it there makes it sound like it is. That quote is not related to that subject at all, and doesn't belong in that section, unless you can find a source that says that the committee hearing discussed ponzi schemes in relation to Bitcoin in any way (for my part, I couldn't find any such mention). - Aoidh (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
That is very much inappropriate. Stating that Bitcoin is a criminal activity (as the article does at present) is not a neutral POV. Stating that a testimony saying the opposite does not belong in there is finis coronat opus as far as "neutrality" is concerned. The only reason I could find for mentioning Bitcoin in the "Criminal activity" section as "accused of being a Ponzi scheme" is that such an act might be considered a criminal activity in its own right. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Aoidh... the idea being that placing the "not illegal" quote in the Ponzi scheme section makes it appear that the US government supports Bitcoin not being a Ponzi scheme. Why can't we settle for mentioning that no court has found Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme instead? Fleetham (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
"Why can't we settle for mentioning that no court has found Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme instead?" - because for that you cannot find any verification. How can you verify that something did not happen? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Ladislav, the sentence and quote address whether the use of bitcoins, in and of themselves, is legal or illegal in the US. If you want to address that issue, it should be done elsewhere. I disagree with Aoidh's implication that the quote belongs in the section if the hearing discussed Ponzi schemes elsewhere; the quotation did not refer to them, and should not be included either way. Agyle (talk) 22:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, I will not try to discuss unsubstantial things. The substantial thing is: the article currently paints Bitcoin as "accused" "criminal activity", which is not verified by sources. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, what if we say something along the lines of "many are concerned that Bitcoin might be nothing more than a Ponzi scheme?" That gets rid of the word "accused." Fleetham (talk) 02:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, an edit using e.g. "concerned that", "dismissed", "warned", instead of "accusation", could improve the wording. Agyle proposed to move the paragraph to the reception section. My opinion is that such a change would also help to straighten the "criminal activity accusation" issue. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 02:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
{{ping|Ladislav Mecir]] sounds fair to me. FYI: I understand your issue. Aoidh can you live with this? would be good if you two could come to peace with this. Life is very short and there's no time for fussing and fighting......Id like to close this section.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Informational commodity

Someone changed the definition of Bitcoin to "a informational commodity" citing an arXiv journal article. As anyone can post an article to arXiv, such material does not meet the guidelines for WP:RS. Fleetham (talk) 06:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bitcoin/Archive_14&oldid=606747256"