Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 25

Economics section lead

The starting sentence: "Bitcoin has garnered comments and attention from economists and journalists, as well as investors and speculators." - this looks to be related to the "Reception" section. Thus, I would prefer to move it to "Reception", maybe together with the subsequent sentence. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Because you think it's inappropriate to say that in the economy section, or because you think it's necessary to say that in the reception section? It seems like a basic, mundane introduction to the section, and if Reception is lacking something, I'd just add whatever it's lacking. Agyle (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Because "has garnered comments" looks like a formulation from and appropriate for "Reception". Also, the fact that it has garnered comments does not look like something inherently economic. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: agree with your logic.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It does sound like something that should go into the reception section. But since it's uncited, it's probably best to just delete it. What about replacing it with something along the lines of "while Bitcoin is often referred to as a currency, the current state of the Bitcoin economy means most economists disagree with that characterization." If you read the current section, that seems like a more appropriate intro sentence. Fleetham (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Sressler (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)User:Sressler: "Bitcoin is a decentralized virtual currency..." this characterization from the St. Louis Fed is accurate and we should use that characterization.

Fleetham:"while Bitcoin is often referred to as a currency, the current state of the Bitcoin economy means most economists disagree with that characterization." - that looks acceptable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC) Or, maybe a bit shorter: "While bitcoin is often referred to as a currency, most economists disagree with that characterization at present." Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: am aware of the debate whether Bitcoin is a currency, and that is worth to insert(see March 15 Economist for example), but "most economists", really?--Wuerzele (talk) 06:55, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Any that could be bothered said bitcoins are not a currency. I don't think you'd be able to find a single economist who argues that bitcoins should be considered a fully fledged currency. There is a widely agreed on definition of what constitutes a currency: it should be a store of value, a medium of exchange, and a unit of account. Bitcoins do not hold all three properties simultaneously. Fleetham (talk) 07:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

@Fleetham: "Any that could be bothered said bitcoins are not a currency" - That statement is incorrect. Basically all economists in US government agencies that use the term virtual currency, of which there arent few, the Treasury, GAO, and yes, as of today the IRS consider it a currency. fully fledged maybe not but a currency. Fleetham, bring evidence when you delete , or make a claim, otherwise dont. you may not have noticed, but I have inserted quite a bit of material that sticks and I know the sources I studied. I dont wait to see what others write, to jump up for a revert/delete or correction of a minute grammar edit to go on the edit counter, which seems to be your yardstick. --Wuerzele (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: Thanks for adding information about the definition of what constitutes money to the page, but there's no such thing as a "condition 1" or "condition 2"... I'm not sure where that's coming from. Also, you cited an article that clearly had a thesis of "bitcoins are not money" for the statement "economists debate whether or not bitcoins are money." Sorry to revert, but... please be more careful! Fleetham (talk) 08:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC) Not true. Fleetham, show me where in the article the debate about Bitcoin as money is decided. I think, you are reading something into it that isnt there. The author even qualified each of the 3 functions of money: "does best as medium of exchange", "not exactly a stable store of value", and volatility has worked against it being a measure of account. In every paragraph there is something about it evolving and "possibility of"--Wuerzele (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

No, merely reverting is not the way to go. How many more times do I have to say this? It's been a month that youve been doing this, and you still do this. There are many many points in my edit and you should edit what you dont think is proper. Removing a large addition for a minor error you dont like condition 1 and 2, well find a better wording. You are making it too easy for yourself. Please be more careful. I will revert your revert.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I am guilty of not doing a comprehensive research on this. If I understand well, Wuerzele considers the sentence to be unverifiable in that we may not have a research article doing the "statistic job" of finding what the majority of economists thinks. I have to admit that the articles saying "bitcoin is not a currency" are not a statistic information about the majority opinion. If we find some source mentioning the majority, then there is no need to dismiss the sentence, otherwise we may need to look for a more verifiable statement. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You are not guilty of anything ! Ladislav Mecir, yes, you grasp what I want to relay, economists are struggling with the concept of Bitcoin, as is society, it is simply evolving, maturing in teh word of teh Economist article. of course there are zero data of a majority opinion. when in doubt, be cautious and thats what I was. --Wuerzele (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: I do agree it's best to not revert. Please don't assume that I only found fault with a small portion of your edit. If I had done so, I wouldn't have reverted your entire edit. I'll make changes now, and please let me know what you think. Also, changing something, having it reverted, and then reverting the revert is not following WP:STATUSQUO. In this case, I would be reverting per WP:STATUSQUO, and you would be edit warring. Let's not do that and instead work together to create a great page! Fleetham (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I do what you do to show you, that it's nuts. why dont you try edit BEFORE reverting me? obviously there was substance in what I wrote and editing would have sufficed; thats what I would do. complete revert, then edit, is the wrong way round, plus so aggravating and inefficient.--Wuerzele (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I made changes that I believe are in concert with your original changes. I did not, however, understand the following quote. Can you please clarify? You wrote, "At present, this appears in furthest reach given Bitcoin's money supply problems (disappearance of large exchangers) and finite reserves, the arbitrary cap of 21 million." Fleetham (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

@Fleetham: the latter is taken from the Economist article, if you read it. you quoted my sentence out of context, so I had to go all the way back and see what "this" refers to, so here is teh whole section again :

Although economists as of 2014 are still arguing, whether Bitcoin is money[72] this has not prevented their being used as a   
medium of exchange.[73] Bitcoin is used as a currency,[74] with about 1,000 brick and mortar businesses willing to accept    
payment in bitcoins as of November 2013[75] and more than 35,000 merchants online.[76] The bitcoin market currently suffers   
from volatility, limiting the ability of bitcoins to act as a stable store of value, which is condition 2 for a currency, <br 
besides condition 3 "being a unit of account, against which value an economy is measured".[72] At present, this appears in  
furthest reach given Bitcoin's money supply problems (disappearance of large exchangers) and finite reserves, the arbitrary 
cap of 21 million.[72] Nevertheless, Bitcoin has become a target for speculators trading bitcoins as a speculative asset, an 
investment vehicle, and a network serving customers of international remittance business.[77]

Being a unit of account is in furthest reach. and no your changes are not in concert with mine as they are misrepresenting teh source. BTW: the very last sentence which you deleted for no reason, isnt from me, was there before and since it is sourced I wouldnt delete it but move it to "speculators". As I have shown, subsection ledes are unusual on wikipedia ( exist in 12%- but you wrote "the norm").IN NO CASEweretehy subsection summaries, so I am all for cutting duplication ie move sentence to speculator subsection. --Wuerzele (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC).

@Wuerzele: Sorry, but I still don't even have the most basic grasp of the sentence's meaning... I've gotten as far as understanding that "this" means "being a unit of account." What does "in furthest reach" mean? What is a "finite reserve"? Do you mean "fixed money supply"? I think that what you're trying to explain is why Bitcoin isn't used as a unit of account, but, again, I'm not entirely sure... Fleetham (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I have got several notes to the "moneyness" of Bitcoin:

• Bitcoin has been classified as currency by a federal court. This makes the classification a part of law in USA if I understand it well. I do not think the decision can be overturned by economists.
• The "store of value, medium of exchange, unit of account" is not the only definition possible. Historic money did not have all the properties listed in the definition, while economists agree that historic money were money despite the definition. I find this fact amusing and telling about the state of economy as a science. A property of having a definition that is not universally applicable should be reserved for pseudosciences.
• Austrian economists use a more universal definition: "widely used medium of exchange". This definition does not make bitcoin money automatically either, since it is highly arguable whether or not bitcoin is "widely used" (I tend to think it is not widely used yet).
• The "medium of exchange" classification of bitcoin is uncontroversial. However, when I see the text of the Bitcoin article, I am pretty sure that it would become unreadable if we replaced all occurrences of "money" and "currency" by "medium of exchange". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: I think that we agree on this here, Ladislav. The German court thing: Obviously doesnt seem to matter/impress folks here, in the U.S. -I will stick in the term currency again, for reasons mentioned further above, that have been un-opposed, and yet all the info I put together was edited out, by, looks like by Fleetham.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

A German court classified Bitcoin as a unit of account. Despite this, Bitcoin is not used as a unit of account. Courts don't decide how people use bitcoins in the real world, and it appears that currently this currency is only used as a medium of exchange, And why should we use outdated or seldom-recognized definitions? Fleetham (talk) 17:24, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Because people, media and institutions are discussing it, Fleetham, as on this page ! Bitcoin is morphing and wikipedia can and should reflect it. once again, you opinionize and bring no source to the table, you editorialize on the talk page, and cut and and delete other people's stuff on the article page. for all the talk of lets create a great page, lets see it. --Wuerzele (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that the German court decided people should use bitcoin as a unit of account. In my opinion, the court took the reality into account (disclaimer: I did not read the ruling) recognizing that bitcoin is a unit of account used in the block chain, which it obviously is. I think that you, Fleetham, just interpret the situation differently, thinking that a "unit of account" must be also a "yardstick" of value, which bitcoin is not at present for the majority of its users. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop referring to bitcoins as a currency. It is not a currency. It is a property like a stamp or a cigarette. Cigarettes are often used in prisons as a medium of exchange. Anything can be a medium of exchange. That is all that bitcoin is: a property that some people will use as a medium of exchange: just like cigarettes or stamps. Nothing more. It is easy to transfer bitcoins over the internet. That is bitcoins only advantage over stamps and cigarettes. BitcoinrealityCheck (talk) 19:39, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but as Mecir pointed out, it's just not feasible to say "medium of exchange": repeatedly... Fleetham (talk) 00:33, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

BitcoinrealityCheck trying to understand where you are coming from with your well, zealous assertion that Bitcoin aint no currency: is it the IRS decision? what else? any other sources you could back this up with? Ta.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It is even debatable whether IRS actually ruled what bitcoin is. The source says that IRS ruled how bitcoin shall be handled for tax purposes, which is their responsibility. Other institutions, like the above mentioned federal court did what was in their responsibility as well, and even though the decidions may seem to contradict each other, they most probably do not. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

arbitrary limit of 21 million bitcoins

@Agyle: saw you reverted insertion of the "arbitrary limit" of 21 million bitcoins. thanks for catching my error of not adding reference #7 - i dont know/recall what happened, I thought I did add it, but obviously I didnt @Ladislav Mecir:thanks for rescuing the statement too. i've always wondered, where that 21 million number came from and when i found out, i had to add it.....happy spring, y'all, snow finally on the retreat and ground visible hereabouts!--Wuerzele (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I found a Motley Fool source for the information, but it would have been shorter to use #7, so feel free to make the change if you prefer.Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: Thank you again.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: Do you know what happened to the "arbitrary"? It is gone. I looked and dont understand the diff from March 15 to March 16; it disappeared, even though it doesnt look like you cut it.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I still see it in the sentence where you originally put it. Maybe you are looking at some other place? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: it's gone. Fleetham edited out, sigh...--Wuerzele (talk) 00:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Recent change to "Transactions"´

I would say that the previous formulation was not very readable, indeed. However, the formulation: "... user sends a payment it triggers..." is called "subject change" in some languages and it is strictly prohibited as not understandable. Thus, the updated formulation looks less readable than before. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: thanks for your opinion. I only understand that i supposedly made things "less readable than before". I wish I understood your argument, but I basically understood nothing: 1. what do you mean by the term "subject change" ? A quick search on www AND wikipedia gave no references. 2.then the claim "Subject change is strictly prohibited"- wow ! strictly even! If that were so, I should have heard something about that during my career. Or one should be able to find a wikipedia entry about it. there must be something lost in translation, please elaborate on / source this, so I can understand. 3."subject change is prohibited as not understandable" - why ? not self evident. again where does that come from ?

my rewording was probably too cautious and not radical enough, and can be improved. however, i object to your reversion of the sequence of my 2 sentences ("When a user sends a payment it triggers the broadcast of digitally signed messages to the Bitcoin network, requesting an update to the ledger or public transaction database, in Bitcoin terms:the block chain. Because a transaction transfers ownership of money from one Bitcoin address to another Bitcoin address it must be recorded in the block chain to take effect.") into "Bitcoin transaction is a digitally signed message transferring the ownership of bitcoins from one Bitcoin address to another. A user sends a payment triggering the broadcast of the transaction to the Bitcoin network. For the transaction to take effect it must be recorded in a public ledger or public transaction database called the block chain".

To write for a layperson it is best to go from known to unknown. Therefore we should explain/ describe in lay terms, even use an analogy of a concept that is hereforth unexplained, and then name the concept, rather than the other way round. And as it stands now, the first 2 sentences in this very section that follows the top lede, the Bitcoin-page-idiosyncrasy of a subsection summary, which I have objected to lengthily on this page Talk:Bitcoin#section summaries (section leads) before subsections are mouthfuls of technical terms summarizing what hasnt been explained, plus they are in broken English. The indefinite article is missing in the first sentence and the conjunctive clause in the second. I will fix this and revert the sequence. Best would be as I have argued to get rid of this rare idiosyncrasy and focus on the subsections themselves--Wuerzele (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

'1. what do you mean by the term "subject change"' - the formulation "... user sends a payment it triggers..." - uses "user" as the subject until it starts to use "it" as the subject. That is what I mean by "subject change", since "user" and "it" are distinct subjects, as far as I can tell. Such a formulation may not be prohibited in English, but the readability is poor at best. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: Incorrect: "user" and "it" are not "distinct subjects". The user sending a message is the simple subject of my sentence (which in itself shows the grammatical principle). you neither verified the term "subject change" in the context of English grammar nor the extreme warning you gave me ("is prohibited"). most sadly, your reply in and by itself is an example of incomprehensibility. you are much needed here, you are very sensitive when it comes to meaning; your comprehension of nuances is excellent, and better than that of many native editors, but please accept that your expressive language is not at the same level as your English comprehension. please acknowledge the limits of your proficiency. to prevent edit warring do not pick a battle when it comes to a linguistic or grammatical detail in English, especially if you cant back it up. back off a bit. I've learnt during my working career that not the strengths of some US editors either. --Wuerzele (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

After the latest update the text looks better, but the formulation: "When a Bitcoin user makes a purchase," uses a special case "makes a purchase", while the original formulation used a more general (and therefore correct even in cases in which "makes a purchase" is incorrect) "send payments" formulation. In my opinion, readability related adjustments should not replace correct statements by incorrect reformulations. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: Thanks for your opinion. You probably meant "since" not after. So you dont like the third rewrite either. "When a user makes a purchase" may not (yet be) the all-encompassing-case of what a user can do on Bitcoin, but it's a) a start b)something KNOWN from which a reader can work as explained above and c) not incorrect. IMO an incomprehensible statement is worse than a comprehensible statement, and not what we want on wikipedia. I find your use of the word correct is narrow and appears to stem from mathematics. this is wikipedia, not a mathematical textbook, nor a cast in stone journal article. improve constructively with an alternative, work with it - expand it if you want, because the readable and most precise formulation will evolve. And: Relax. Peace out.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: I've added an Overview section as an introduction to the Transactions section which I think addresses the readability issues; I think users will have an easier time following Transactions after reading it. PTAL.Richardbondi (talk) 03:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Miners as "volunteers"

A recent edit suggested that bitcoins miners be described as "those that volunteer to maintain the block chain." As miners maintain the block chain in the hopes of a 25 bitcoins reward, describing miners in this way is misleading. I understand that the wording is technically correct: volunteer does not necessarily denote someone who works without wages. As the word is often used to describe people who do charity work without pay, however, using it to describe miners could cause confusion. Why not simply say something along the lines of "those who freely take part in maintaining the block chain?" I've removed mention of miners as volunteers per WP:STATUSQUO. Fleetham (talk) 05:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I am ok with that suggestion. the reason I wrote "those that volunteer to maintain the block chain" even though I know they could be making bitcoins along the way is to demonstarte the process better than it was before. "Those who maintain"says nothing about the attitude of those who maintain. Volunteering implies yes anyone could participate with their computer. this is a novum in currencies, worth communicating.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree, that's an extremely unusual characterization. There may be a RS that says that, but there's plenty of coverage about bitcoin mining, and most of it does not phrase it that way. While it's technically true – nobody is forcing people to mine bitcoins against their will – the word "volunteer" has a charitable connotation in American English, something that people do for free. Bitcoin miners, if they're lucky, are rewarded with bitcoins. Agyle (talk) 10:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

@Agyle:I actually never understood why you said "extremely unusual characterization" - I ve read the term "volunteering" now several times, last [on 4-4-14] in WSJ Bitcoin's Boosters Struggle to Shore Up Confidence. --Wuerzele (talk) 07:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

am/was aware of the charitable connotation, but some of that may have been the sport of the early days, you know. reward: i agree with stress on "if they're lucky" as many probably arent any more; and then there's always reward in volunteering, even if unmeasured.volunteering was not my word creation but read in ("Bitcoin: Bitcoin under pressure". The Economist. 30 November 2013, so not extremely unusual! guys, i am glad you are vigilant, but it's a bit like splitting hairs here sometimes :_)--Wuerzele (talk) 23:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

There's absolutely no reason we must use "volunteer" to describe "freely participate." It could cause confusion, so why not use a non-confusing synonym? Fleetham (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Fleetham, there's rarely any edit from me that you leave untouched. first you say "a recent edit (like,anonymous) suggested to use ", then you close by saying "no reason we must use". seems liek you cant leave anything I write ever alone. does every sentence have to have your stamp of approval?--Wuerzele (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: (who presumably wrote the unsigned message above) No, and I can understand that questioning your content additions or changes can be annoying. I'll do less of that in the future. But that doesn't mean I don't have valid points, and the way to deal with such annoyances isn't to make personal attacks. Thanks for being civil in your above post. I suggest the best way forward is for everyone to worry less about minutia and focus more on adding cited content to the page. I don't think that the article is complete by any means, and there really is a lot of news articles about Bitcoin. By now there's probably also a much deeper pool of academic research. Fleetham (talk) 07:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Link to CoinTouch

In the "Buying and Selling Bitcoins" section I added the following:

Social trading platforms such as CoinTouch mitigate this risk as users transact directly.

Ref: "CoinTouch – Do Your Friends Buy and Sell Bitcoin?". Bitcoin Magazine. 2014-03-20. Retrieved 2014-03-20.

This was reverted by another user today, and I'd like to propose its re-inclusion, since the news source is NPOV and the language used to describe CoinTouch was neutral. Beachy (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Does a source besides Bitcoin Magazine mention CoinTouch? I'm not sure if the source you currently have would pass WP:Reliable Sources Fleetham (talk) 03:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

"Social trading platforms" are mentioned in Forbes as well. I think it's perfectly reasonable to include a sentence about them, though that sentence should explain more clearly what they are, and I would drop the claim "mitigate..." – at best they try to mitigate risk. Including a link to a specific company is clearly inappropriate, and is not even approaching a gray area. I don't see a reason to mention specific software/services/companies (even unlinked), as they're so obscure that they won't aid the average reader's understanding of the topic; it's sufficient to say they exist. Agyle (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Bitcoin Magazine is the first notable publication to mention CoinTouch. I considered it a reliable source as it was a print magazine Beachy (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

pseudo-anonymous

@Chrisarnesen: welcome back today after some weeks of absence. I noticed a number of deletions of my edits without properly explaining why (only "awkward" or "not a real thing"). As you may not know, or do not remember: I copy-edit for the main stream reader. If I add anything substantially new, it is carefully sourced info.

as far as the term 'pseudo-anonymous': It is a term I've seen used at least twice in connection to Bitcoin. [[An analysis of anonymity in the bitcoin system. Fergal Reid, Martin Harrigan. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.4524v2.pdf p1-28.7 May 2012. In Yaniv Altshuler, Yuval Elovici, Armin B. Cremers, Nadav Aharony, and Alex Pentland, editors, Security and Privacy in Social Networks, pages 197 223. Springer New York, 2013.]] and [[www. dl.acm.org/event.cfm?id=RE398 Sergio Martins and Yang Yang, Introduction to bitcoins: a pseudo-anonymous electronic currency system. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference of the Center for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research, CASCON '11, pages 349{350, Riverton, NJ, USA, 2011. IBM Corp.]]

It is not the same as pseudonymous, which means using a false identity to disguise a real one. Please check Pseudo-Anonymous, defined as Verified (Authenticated) but not traceable (http://iiw.idcommons.net/Pseudo_Anonymity_and_Reputation_Systems) and [Bitcoin not so anonymous, Irish researcher says. 2014 Deutsche Welle 29.07.2011 for example the developers would say that it's rather pseudo-anonymous.]] Before accusing/deleting , plse ask / discuss, just like you asked me, when I first came to this site. It's a small point, but its almost only single points you picked at.Thanks. --Wuerzele (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

As for the talk page, I asked you to post things first here because you came out of the woodwork as a new editor and I didn't agree with most of your edits. Before I got a new job a couple weeks ago, I was extremely active here (like much of the day on most days) for months, and of course I agree with all my edits :) I've already discussed on the talk page the use of the words "anonymity" and "pseudonymity"; you just weren't around yet to see it. To the point at hand, "pseudo-anonymity" isn't a real word that people commonly use. I know you know that because you put quotes around it in the article too. There's already a word for the concept that "pseudo-anonymity" is trying convey, it's "pseudonymity". That's BY FAR the more common term used to describe the level of anonymity in bitcoin, and I suggest we stick with it. Your argument is that a couple articles use the term. So what? I can find you two articles that do something else we shouldn't do. Does that mean we should do it? http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.4524v2.pdf doesn't even use the term as far as I can tell, despite what you said. The other article is from 2011. Google "pseudo-anonymous". All the hits are from 2011 because people have started using the right word now. Bitcoin users ARE operating on the network with an assumed identity, their Bitcoin addresses. I had a bit of a hard time wrapping my mind around it at first too, but now I know it's the right thing. Chris Arnesen 13:17, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

i hear what you are saying. you claim pseudo-anonymous is "not commonly enough used" to be included on the page. That may be so. You say that "people have started using the right word now" (where right is undefined). i dont hear you understand why i wrote pseudo-anonymous instead of the term pseudonymous, which i was aware of. i see you didnt realize, that i could have possibly googled for pseudoanonymous. i see that you cant imagine, that i can wrap my mind around the assumed identity of a bitcoin address. i think you are talking past the point, and you are missing a nuance. i d appreciate, if you were more careful in assuming stuff and choosing neutral language in the edit summary. BTW i read the talk page before i "just weren't around yet to see it" and have seen what you have contributed on Bitcoin. i will not belabor this more. --Wuerzele (talk) 23:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

External links

Hmm @Chrisarnesen: you could be right, but let's review these links. I defend the DMOZ link, because of its usability. I personally support the use of {{dmoz}} instead of links flood. The shortcut of this policy is WP:ELMAYBE, but the full title is Links to be considered and regarding to it's content, in such cases like too many link this option really should be considered, I think. That's a recommended option to avoid of too many links. Chris, I hope you agree with me, this link is OK and resolves many problems.

• Bitcoin/Archive 18 at Curlie
• A detailed description of Bitcoin by Zulfikar Ramzan on Khan Academy
• Chief scientist at the Bitcoin Foundation, Gavin Andresen interviewed on the TV show Triangulation on the TWiT.tv network

I think the 2nd is rather too insignificant. Regarding the Interview link, it is better to place it in Bitcoin Foundation, there will be more useful. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 13:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The 2nd and 3rd are obvious removes. I don't know why you like DMOZ so much. What's "usable" about it? It's owned by AOL and the content is mediocre at best. I'd rather have us just pick a couple choice links from that page and put them explicitly as external links on Bitcoin, bitcoincharts and blockchain.info for example. Chris Arnesen 13:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy defines it as often neutral candidate, it just better that a long list of links. Policy doesn't permit this, so let's just add it. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 14:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I support adding the DMOZ link to the EL list and removing the bitcoin.org link. @Chrisarnesen: recently reinstated an EL to bitcoin.org, which I had deleted. While a lot of the content is acceptable, some does fall foul of WP:ELNO. In other places it doesn't fully meet the WP:ELYES criterion of "sites that contain neutral and accurate material..."

The above ELNO rule states that external links to avoid include those that mislead the reader by providing factually inaccurate information. The bitcoin.org FAQ, for example, states that Bitcoin "has a strong security track record" and that "there are often misconceptions about thefts and security breaches..."

Additionally, the FAQ is often a bit too forceful with its praise:

• "Bitcoin is designed to be a huge step forward in making money more secure..."
• "Bitcoin is freeing people to transact on their own terms."
• "No bank holidays. No borders. No imposed limits. Bitcoin allows its users to be in full control of their money."

Such hagiographic language does not seem to fit with the site's stated aim to "remain a neutral informative resource about Bitcoin."

Some of the answers in the FAQ also make you think the site is not a neutral source. The answer to the question of criminal activities includes the statement: "Bitcoin can bring significant innovation... and the benefits of such innovation are often considered to be far beyond their potential drawbacks."

Chris states that bitcoin.org is only "loosely" associated with the Bitcoin Foundation. WP:ELNO admonishes any "blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." I'm not sure how the Bitcoin Foundation is associated with bitcoin.org, but their logo does appear on the site. In any case, some of the statements made on the Bitcoin Foundation website itself fail WP:FANSITE. Fleetham (talk) 17:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, bitcoin.org seems to be the first domain about the Bitcoin (as a concept, not network), it's significant from the historical point and topic scope. A paper by Nakamoto also relies on this domain, originally. Optionally, we can create for it a separate section containing notability references. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 18:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I would say by all means a link to an cached version should be included. I think this one is best. It's not the oldest cache archive.org has available, but it's the first with pictures that load. Fleetham (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice idea, but why not include the non-archived link to the website at current state? It's still the same website, has just more content and CSS. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 21:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at the archived link and the current site... they're quite different. It's not the same site it was when Bitcoin launched. As for reasons why the current site shouldn't be linked, please see my above post. I think the best resolution is simply to link to DMOZ. Fleetham (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

The current bitcoin.org website should not be linked. It is purely promotional in pages such as Bitcoin for Individuals and Bitcoin for Businesses. About Us explicitly says it "Bitcoin.org is not an official website". WP:ELYES suggests linking official websites, or websites with "neutral and accurate material", both of which are clearly lacking here. Agyle (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed the link to Bitcointalk.org, a web forum. WP:ELNO says to generally avoid linking to "chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups)". Given that guidance, I'd suggest seeking consensus before reverting, if you think it should be included. Agyle (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

 Added DMOZ link. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 17:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Capital B vs. lowercase b confusion

Fleetham reverted my edit: "... the US Treasury has called bitcoin a decentralized currency..." to a version using uppercase "Bitcoin" stating "see the lede". Citing: "Conventionally, the capitalized word "Bitcoin" refers to the technology and network, whereas lowercase "bitcoin" refers to the currency itself." The sentence explicitly refers to the currency ("decentralized currency"), so it is no doubt that the word should be lowercase. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Can somebody write an article on Bitcoin and tax rules?

Could somebody write an article on Bitcoin and taxes? There are a lot of different approaches between countries, and there seems to be a general lack of good basic information. Also, taxation procedures such as FIFO and LIFO accounting should be explained and their implications discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.11.33 (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

You would be better speaking to an attorney. Also, articles are written on notability and verifiability, and tangentially, WP:NOTHOW may be invoked to disallow such a page. That doesn't stop huge columns of 'legal or illegal' in columns though. So there could be a chance. Nonetheless, it would be more useful to speak to an attorney yourself if you have any doubts. Ging287 (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer if you don't mix up the development of Wikipedia content with unsolicited discussions of my personal financial affairs. My suggestion refers clearly to the former, and rest assured that the latter is in good care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.11.33 (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I think it's a good suggestion, just a question of whether someone feels like writing such an article. Legality of Bitcoins by country has a very small amount of information on the topic. Agyle (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Internet of Money

The aspect of Bitcoin opening the doors to becoming the "internet of money" wasn't explicitly mentioned within the wikipedia page. I believe it is imperative that this issue be elevated into a subsection within the page or at least mentioned to some degree with key points highlighting aspects from the following articles:

Andreas Antonopoulos a prominent bitcoin leader explains bitcoin very well and provides a great analogy to look at twitter similar to e-mail and the internet: “This is the the internet of money; it’s not just money for the internet. [...] The bitcoin currency is just the first application – it’s like email on the internet – it’s good enough to change the world and have everyone adopt the internet…” http://www.singularityweblog.com/andreas-antonopoulos-on-bitcoin/

"It is true that Bitcoin can substitute for other currencies, but as with the Internet, the abstraction of a permissionless application layer means that it is much more than a substitute: it is like a transport layer for finance." http://theumlaut.com/2014/01/08/bitcoin-internet-of-money/

"The cryptographic advances and technologies underlying bitcoin will likely play a major role in the development of the Internet of Money, that is, an Internet era, digital money ecosystem. But, as is the case with all complex platforms, its architecture, protocols and governance will have to evolve. It remains to be seen whether the resulting platform will still be called bitcoin or if something else will have taken its place." http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2014/02/12/bitcoin-and-the-internet-of-money/

That's interesting but seems ill-defined. What is "an Internet era, digital money ecosystem?" Fleetham (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Secure storage or safe-deposit box

About Bitcoin#Security, another interesting issue is the "secure storage" (bitcoins banks), like "Xapo bank". --Krauss (talk) 16:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

See Bitcoin#Wallets (Security, theft and loss), some comment about "external storage" can be issued with this case explanation. --Krauss (talk) 21:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Tone of the Leading Summary

The lead summary of for the article has a distinct negative bias with a single positive remark "fees are lower", and 5 negative remarks "European warning", "bitcoins stolen", "illegal activities", "silk road", "China restrictions" in the last 2 paragraphs:

Bitcoin as a form of payment for products and services has seen growth,[13] and merchants have an incentive to accept the digital currency because fees are lower than the 2–3% typically imposed by credit card processors.[14] The European Banking Authority has warned that bitcoin lacks consumer protections.[15] Unlike credit cards, any fees are paid by the purchaser not the vendor. Bitcoins can be stolen and chargebacks are impossible.[16] Commercial use of bitcoin is currently small compared to its use by speculators, which has fueled price volatility.[17]

Bitcoin has been a subject of scrutiny amid concerns that it can be used for illegal activities.[18] In October 2013 the US FBI shut down the Silk Road online black market and seized 144,000 bitcoins worth US$28.5 million at the time.[19] The US is considered bitcoin-friendly compared to other governments, however.[20] In China, buying bitcoins with yuan is subject to restrictions, and bitcoin exchanges are not allowed to hold bank accounts.

But most importantly, the lead does not explain why some people are interested in Bitcoin. The answer to the question "why does this thing even exist?" is the most important answer in any Wikipedia article. So we need some words about its independence from central banks, its rapid worldwide transfer, zero transaction fees, the inability to have funds confiscated or transactions blocked, etc.

For controversial (and undecided) topics an article has to report the bias without being biased itself using words like "Proponents of the currency use it because..." Gandrewstone (talk) 17:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you read the article carefully. I think most probably all the items you mentioned are already reflected in the article, properly referenced and in consensus. For example, we already know there is no such thing as generally zero transaction fees. MonteDaCunca (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

My observation here is that the leading summary summarizes the "cons" of Bitcoin but not the "pros". This sets the tone and bias of the rest of the article. So in my opinion the "cons" should be removed from the leading summary, or the "pros" added, (regardless of whether they are repeated in the rest of the article). WRT zero transaction fees: as a user of Bitcoin I assure you that providing a transaction fee is generally optional. I've made lots of transactions with 0 txn fees. The only time you need one is if your transaction is small or it moves recently moved coins. In that case it is mandatory in an attempt to reduce transaction "spam". Regardless, please remember that the txn fee that we are talking about is a couple of cents so even WITH a transaction fee Bitcoin is still much cheaper than other transfer methods. Gandrewstone (talk) 03:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Gandrewstone, "negative bias", or what you describe as tone, has been brought up in several talk page sections by me and others (eg criminalizing) over the last 4 months, if you check the archives. Ladislav Mecir, Agyle, and i have copy edited and added facts watching WP:UNDUE trying to balance this. we've come a long way, if you check a February 2014 version of Bitcoin. you'll also learn about why things are where they are now and that it wont be as simple as what you write above. i agree with you that the article can be improved.

Both Gandrewstone and MonteDaCunca please use indents, when filing responses, it's netiquette.--Wuerzele (talk) 18:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the opening paragraph as of today, it seems to me to be extremely neutral in tone, neither pro nor con. The fourth and final paragraph of the opening section includes information on illegal activity involving bitcoin, which I can see as a negative coverage, and perhaps is undue weight, but I don't see any negativity in the first three paragraphs. Per your specific suggestions, The first paragraph already states that it's "not controlled by a single entity, like a central bank," which I gather you consider a "pro", and others consider a "con"; to me, that's just a neutral fact. The opening section also already covers transaction fees. The opening section doesn't say anything about the speed of transactions (either individually or in relation to payment/money transfer methods), or explicitly about the international/worldwide nature of bitcoin, and perhaps those should be added. Agyle (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes those would be good. The gestalt I get when I read the first 4 paragraphs is "techie terms (P2P, open source)... digital currency... lots of techie stuff about mining... save CC fees... lots of dangers". I'm looking for something that explains why this thing exists. That would of course necessarily be the "pros"... maybe "Bitcoin is seen by its proponents as having or having the potential to become a worldwide currency and payment network, featuring instant payment notification, confirmation times in minutes, no chargebacks, no central bank inflation, no way for any third party to block payments or freeze accounts, and zero or trivial transaction fees. Materially, Bitcoin is not a company or organization; it is free software you can load onto your computer or smartphone (or access via the web) that implements the payment network and holds the keys to individuals' bitcoins." [Did I miss anything?] With a statement like that at the top people who are not nerds suddenly know WHY bitcoin exists and WHAT it is. This is a LOT more important (for the first 5 sentences) then details like how payments are recorded, how bitcoins are minted, and whether some people call it a "currency" or merely a "digital currency" :-) Gandrewstone (talk) 22:45, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: MonteDaCunca (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock of PennySeven (talk · contribs) and has been blocked. If you see an editor with similar editing patterns (obvious from the SPI discussion), I suggest a quick revert and then filing an SPI report. LK (talk) 06:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

90% of this article contradict the reality about bitcoin: see BBC article

"Most articles in Wikipedia contained "many errors"."

BBC is a Reliable Source.

Reality check!! ReadThisContributors (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

"They printed off the articles on 25 April 2012 to analyse, and discovered that 90% of the entries made statements that contradicted latest medical research."

I'm sure the same is true for this bitcoin article and generally all articles on Wikipedia. ReadThisContributors (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

90% of what is stated in Wikipedia contradict reality! lol ReadThisContributors (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a good score. Never take anything on wikipedia at face value. Maybe this could be added to the History of Wikipedia article. Jonpatterns (talk) 19:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Non-distinction between real money and bitcoin

Currently, there are two citations used to support the 'Some media outlets do make a distinction between "real" money and bitcoins, however.' sentence. There is a problem with the second citation, however - the second citation does use the "real money" notion, but it does not make a distinction between bitcoin and the "real money". Thus, there is no reason to use it in the article for this purpose. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it clearly does. The article is in a Q&A format, and the question "How does 'real' money gain value" comes immediately before and contrasts with the question "how do bitcoins gain value." The idea that the article makes a distinction is distinct from the idea that the article explicitly states that such a distinction exists. Fleetham (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Since the article states that "bitcoin became a real currency" it actually states that bitcoin is a real currency now making no distinction. Also, why use the second, and questionable, citation, when one should suffice? This article is overcited anyway. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, as the two citations are bundled together I'm not sure it's that important to remove it (I think the problem with overciting is that it makes an article hard to read because there are too many numbers after sentences)... but if you want to, go ahead. Fleetham (talk) 07:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, it may not be that important, but keeping the first relevant citation looks cleaner. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)