Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 36

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30 ← Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 → Archive 40

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 January 2021

Change 4tochka (talk) 06:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Grayfell (talk) 07:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Simpleshow video

The recently added Simpleshow video is reasonably good, but I'm not sure if it's good enough. It contains at least one factual error: "There is a fixed amount of Bitcoins." (at 2:16) And directly after it says "But over time, existing Bitcoins become divided, to maintain a consistent value." This is totally confused. It can also be discussed whether it's neutral enough (To me, it seems to promote it's subject and implicitly assume that it will become more and more accepted and used as a day-to-day currency. I'm removing it for now. –– St.nerol (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Deletion review of genesis block image at wikimedia

Satoshi Nakamoto message embedded in the coinbase of the first block

Hi, there is a deletion review of the genesis block image that was located on Satoshi Nakamoto located here. If you would like to participate, please comment over at wikimedia, I dont believe comments here would be in the incorrect venue. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 February 2021

Found a replacement link for http://www.wired.com/2013/12/fbi_wallet/ McMillan, Robert. "Who Owns the World's Biggest Bitcoin Wallet? The FBI" .Wired. Condé Nast. Archived from the original on 21 October to new link https://www.wired.com/2013/12/fbi-wallet/. Tompiyatonnid4631 (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done SkyWarrior 04:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 February 2021

The second section: "Bitcoin is a decentralized digital currency, without a central bank or single administrator that can be sent from user to user on the peer-to-peer bitcoin network without the need for intermediaries." A comma should be inserted after "administrator"; this way the sentence gives a better sense. Daffoory (talk) 09:48, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

To editor Daffoory:  Done thanks, DigitalChutney (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2021

Found a replacement link for https://www.wired.com/2011/11/mf_bitcoin/ Wallace, Benjamin (23 November 2011). "The Rise and Fall of Bitcoin" .Wired. Archived from the original on 31 October 2013 to new link https://www.wired.com/2011/11/mf-bitcoin/ Tompiyatonnid4631 (talk) 11:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done --C o r t e x 💬talk 21:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2021 (2)

Found a replacement link for https://www.technologyreview.com/news/515391/bitcoin-millionaires-become-investing-angels/ Simonite, Tom (12 June 2013). "Bitcoin Millionaires Become Investing Angels" .Computing News. MIT Technology Review. to new link https://www.technologyreview.com/2013/06/12/15919/bitcoin-millionaires-become-investing-angels/ Tompiyatonnid4631 (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done --C o r t e x 💬talk 21:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2021 (3)

Found a replacement link for https://www.technologyreview.com/news/518816/mapping-the-bitcoin-economy-could-reveal-users-identities/ Simonite, Tom (5 September 2013). "Mapping the Bitcoin Economy Could Reveal Users' Identities" .MIT Technology Review. to new link https://www.technologyreview.com/2013/09/05/176558/mapping-the-bitcoin-economy-could-reveal-users-identities/#:~:text=Analyzing%20the%20public%20traces%20left,often%20assumed%20to%20offer%20anonymity.&text=The%20digital%20currency%20Bitcoin%20has%20a%20reputation%20for%20providing%20privacy. Tompiyatonnid4631 (talk) 13:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done --C o r t e x 💬talk 21:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2021 (4)

Found a replacement link to http://www.ledgerjournal.org/ojs/index.php/ledger/about/editorialPolicies "Editorial Policies" .ledgerjournal.org. Archived from the original on 23 December 2016 to new link https://www.ledgerjournal.org/ojs/ledger/about Tompiyatonnid4631 (talk) 13:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done --C o r t e x 💬talk 21:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2021 (5)

Found a replacement link for https://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Here-s-The-Problem-With-The-New-Theory-That-A-4529573.php "Here's The Problem with the New Theory That A Japanese Math Professor Is The Inventor of Bitcoin" .San Francisco Chronicle. 19 May 2013. Archived from the original to new link https://www.businessinsider.com/did-shinichi-mochizuki-invent-bitcoin-2013-5 Tompiyatonnid4631 (talk) 14:00, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done --C o r t e x 💬talk 21:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 February 2021 (6)

Found a replacement link for https://motherboard.vice.com/blog/cyprus-spain-when-governments-take-your-money-bitcoin-looks-really-good Your Money, Bitcoin Looks Really Good" . Motherboard. Archived from the original on 7 February 2014 to new link https://www.vice.com/en/article/ypp9v5/cyprus-spain-when-governments-take-your-money-bitcoin-looks-really-good Tompiyatonnid4631 (talk) 14:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done --C o r t e x 💬talk 21:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 February 2021 (2)

In Bitcoin#Price_and_volatility change "As of 16 November 2020, the closing price of bitcoin equals US$16,717." to "As of 6 February 2021, the closing price of bitcoin equals US$38,045." KT322 (talk) 11:25, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: It was a few months out of date, so I updated it. The price I added was today's closing price, which is significantly higher than that quoted in the edit request (yay volatility!) Vahurzpu (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Bitcoin Treasures

Can you please update the page with the link to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bitcoin_Treasuries

And also invite people to fill in Bitcoin_Treasuries with more details?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by EcclesiastesBTC (talk • contribs) 02:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@EcclesiastesBTC: No, as the draft has been declined. I can't understand exactly what the draft was supposed to be about. All three companies currently in the draft are discussed in context within the article, and all three have their own articles. I don't see the value of having a separate page, especially because the quantity of holdings is going to fluctuate over time. Vahurzpu (talk) 06:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Vahurzpu: @Sulfurboy: I hoped we can create something like https://bitcointreasuries.org/ or https://bitcointreasuryreserve.com/ or https://www.kevinrooke.com/bitcoin

However it seems you do not understand why it is useful. I won't pursue it further. EcclesiastesBTC (talk) 13:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Section 6.2 Energy Consumption Update

Would it be possible to update the first paragraph of section 6.2 with a short additional sentence near the end? I currently, do not have the requisite edits to make changes but feel free to copy/paste. Thanks!

  • A recent 2021 estimate from the University of Cambridge suggests Bitcoin consumes more than 178 (TWh) annually, ranking it in the top 30 energy consumers if it were a country.[1]Bob (talk) 12:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 Done Enivid (talk) 11:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "How bad is Bitcoin for the environment really?". Independent. 12 February 2021. Retrieved 13 February 2021. requires nearly as much energy as the entire country of Argentina

Inconsistency

The start of section Criticism is inconsistent. An article from 2015 is described as referring to a report from 2018: ″The Bank for International Settlements summarized several criticisms of bitcoin in Chapter V of their 2018 annual report. [...] In 2015, The Economist described these criticisms as unfair ...″ The second paragraph starting with ″In 2015, The Economist described″ should be removed. --Uxh (talk) 13:04, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Has been reworded by Jtbobwaysf with this edit. If you still think this is inconsistent please discuss. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
thanks Emir, I should have left a note here. Must have got distracted after I made my article. Edit. Indeed please let me know if the text requires additional attention. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Insertion of poorly sourced and wrong material

This revert inserted a poorly sourced material to the article. Per the standards used here, none of the sources the edit adds to the article is reliable. Moreover, the claim "Bitcoin is ... encrypted with the ECDSA algorithm." is false. The fact is that the ECDSA algorithm can be used to digitally sign bitcoin transactions. It certainly is not used to "encrypt bitcoin". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC) Also, the caption containing the words "algebraic number field of real numbers" does not look encyclopedic. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC) Another nonencyclopedic text inserted to the article by the disputed edit is the text "the field of prime numbers p". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC) Finally, the text mentioning the ECDSA algorithm is misplaced. In my opinion, a properly cited and correct information about the digital signature algorithm used in bitcoin belongs to the "Ownership" section, which already describes the public and private keys used to sign bitcoin transactions. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2021

Opening section should refer to the original Bitcoin white paper by Nakamoto. Suggest adding ref at the end of first or second sentence to Nakamoto, Satoshi (2008). "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" (PDF). Retrieved 28 Feb 2021. Squirrellly (talk) 08:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Squirrellly, it looks like the white paper is already linked in the info box and via this note. ~ Ase1estecharge-paritytime 09:58, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Possible Wikilink needed?

Readers may require more context to the meaning of "reference implementation" in the opening sentence to the last paragraph in the 2011-2012 header in the "History" section. The sentence reads, "At the moment On 1 November 2011, the reference implementation Bitcoin-Qt version 0.5.0 was released." It might be helpful to include a Wikilink, or otherwise explain what "reference implementation" means in this context. Pyrrho the Skeptic (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, makes sense. Thanks for suggesting! Enivid (talk) 11:06, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Nature

See WP:NOTFORUM. This talk page is for discussion of Wikipedia article content only. Such content is based on published reliable sources. We do not enter into debate concerning contributors theories regarding the subject matter.

Commentators have questioned whether Bitcoin constitutes a legal currency because no registered body can defend the interchangeability of a Bitcoin, unlike, say, the US Dollar which is backed by US State and the US army. To resolve this issue, a Bitcoin should rather be considered an account of unitary value and a bitcoin wallet registered to a legal person as a private bank. A Bitcoin transaction would therefore be the act of exchanging bank accounts of unitary value between private banks, recorded in a public - albeit encrypted - record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C22:B84F:AD00:1536:AB1E:5FC:1EE8 (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC) For a good audio explanation of these principles, listen to the song „Wall Street Shuffle“ by the British rock group 10cc from 1974. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:c22:b84f:ad00:1536:ab1e:5fc:1ee8 (talk • contribs)

Being a bank has a rather strict definition and legal consequences nowadays. I don't think it is a good idea to redefine Bitcoin holders as "private banks" in this article's context. Enivid (talk) 10:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
IMO this is not a redefinition, it is the nature of bitcoin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:c22:c053:ce00:a5d8:3e3e:5653:a2ec (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia based article content on published reliable sources (or at least, it is supposed to). A random contributor's own opinions, even when backed up by 10cc, don't belong there. See WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. We need definitive links to the definition of currency in international law, i.e. what currencies are mandatory for all times to be exchanged by all nations at all times under UN Charter.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:c22:c063:1c00:28ad:c882:281b:704d (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback, but would welcome a more rational explanation, for example, on the origin of minting rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:c22:c053:ce00:a5d8:3e3e:5653:a2ec (talk) 22:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM. This talk page is for discussion of article content - which is based on published sources. If you want general discussion on cryptocurrencies, you'll have to look somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

If Bitcoin is a derivative of cryptocurrencies, then the same principles should be inherited, i.e. Bitcoin is of the class Cryptocurrency and inherits all the characteristics of Cryptocurrency. Vice versa does not automatically apply. In essence, this is a logic problem with how Wikipedia works, not how users use it. It should be corrected by correct coding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:c22:c063:1c00:28ad:c882:281b:704d (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Blockchain explorers

I've just done some work on the article to give better information on blockchain explorers for bitcoin.

Firstly, I removed the entry from the info box that pointed to just one blockchain explorer and replaced it with the text 'Many implementations'.

Then I added a new subsection in the article about blockchain explorers (under the Blockchain main section) and made a brief description of what a blockchain explorer does and then listed some well known explorers. This is just a first effort. It should be referenced and there should be some discussion about the perils of using online explorers (i.e. giving away privacy). There should also be some detail on the various implementations listed such as whether the code that runs them is open source.

(Unfortunately I pressed save on this edit before entering a summary note. Annoyed at myself for that.)

Happy to receive any feedback on this change to the article. Oska (talk) 02:25, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Field of prime numbers

In the second sentence of the section Bitcoin#Design, there is a mention of "the field of prime numbers p". This is obviously wrong, prime numbers do not form a field. Maybe what is meant is "defined over the field for each prime ". But I can't tell for sure from the source cited. Maproom (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I think whoever added that read "prime field" and misunderstood what it meant. " for each prime " would presumably make sense given it's a bona fide finite field, though I know almost nothing about the math of crypto. The source used is user generated content anyway, so it shouldn't be used. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Alex de Vries as an expert on use of coal in Bitcoin mining

Regarding this edit:

Alex de Vries is an economist with the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. He has been widely cited by multiple outlets specifically for this issue spanning several years:

Further, he has been published for this exact issue in outlets with editorial oversight:

For this reason, I think it would be useful to include and attribute his position, such as "Economist Alex de Vries..." or if necessary, "Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam economist Alex de Vries..."

Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

First, apologies for the reverts, I think we were both editing the same section at the same time and it was in fact unintended. Thank you for the comment on my talk page to alert me of this! :-) On to the content, to me this statement we know to be incorrect and an oversimplification. We can see it is WP:OBVIOUS that bitcoin is being mined with renewable sources, and there is an entire paragraph dedicated to it. Furthermore, the crypto-energy researcher (or blogwriter?) who publishes this content (that does get considerable press as you note) is not an expert on bitcoin mining and would not be qualified to comment on bitcoin mining ROI. If we can find this from a bitcoin miner, it would be DUE. If we are going to add it from this guy (assuming it is due), somehow we need to address why it is being mined in China, Iceland, Canada, etc using renewable energy, so why does this guy think differently and how do we deal with that? To me, it looks so fringe to be absurd, as direct widespread global evidence of hydro mining contradicts it. His earlier statements are widely covered in the article (I think many of the existing estimates we use for energy consumption come from him). But his analysis on top of it comments on profitability in an industry he has no experience in? Nah. Is your reading of the content different? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. If mainstream media cites him on this issue, it should be enough. Otherwise, it would be an WP:OR from our side not to include this statement. "That bitcoin is being mined with renewable sources" doesn't contradict the discussed statement. Enivid (talk) 11:45, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Satoshi Nakamoto and the early story of Bitcoin

I've never seen much about the history of Bitcoin, beyond the main canonical facts that get regularly repeated: white paper in 2008; went live and made first block, the genesis block, in January 2009; solved the 40-year-old cryptography problem of double spending, allowing value to be transferred digitally over electronic/computer networks; the person or persons who is behind the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto is shrouded in mystery; etc.

Well, published today was this piece: THE LAST DAYS OF SATOSHI: WHAT HAPPENED WHEN BITCOIN’S CREATOR DISAPPEARED — 10 years ago today, Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto's disappeared, Pete Rizzo, Bitcoin Magazine, 26 April 2021. I got a really big cup of coffee and have read it through now. I know a lot more now about the early year and a half of bitcoin, and much more about the pseudonymous Satoshi. Suspect this article, and other research like it that I would expect to eventually see in books and other articles, will be useful to improving the article on Bitcoin, or Nakamoto, etc. Cheers. N2e (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Awesome, I will read it and we can all keep a look out if it shows up in better RS soon. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:39, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

What IS Bitcoin?

For any like me who don't know what Bitcoin IS, (nor has this article illuminated me), and have come to this Talk page to see if there's any more explanation, I offer this cut/paste (from 5 February 2021), with source indicated below.

"Bitcoin, often described as a cryptocurrency, a virtual currency or a digital currency - is a type of money that is completely virtual. It's like an online version of cash. You can use it to buy products and services, but not many shops accept Bitcoin yet and some countries have banned it altogether. However, some companies are beginning to buy into its growing influence. In October last year, for example, the online payment service, PayPal, announced that it would be allowing its customers to buy and sell Bitcoin."

And, How Does Bitcoin Work?:

"Each Bitcoin is basically a computer file which is stored in a 'digital wallet' app on a smartphone or computer. People can send Bitcoins (or part of one) to your digital wallet, and you can send Bitcoins to other people. Every single transaction is recorded in a public list called the blockchain. This makes it possible to trace the history of Bitcoins to stop people from spending coins they do not own, making copies or undo-ing transactions."

More information at https://www.bbc.co.uk/newsround/25622442

UnderEducatedGeezer (talk) 02:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Agree, I think we need to do a better job of this. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:47, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
It is probably worth noting that the source quoted is from the Newsround web page. Newsround is a BBC children's TV program, and thus liable to over-simplify things. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Tags

@Emir of Wikipedia: you tagged the article for cleanup and Ysangkok removed a few of the tags. I have a couple of times looked at the article and I can't figure out what to cleanup. Do you want to remove the sub-headings? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I removed them because they were duplicates. The tags that were added had already been added. There is no value to having the same tag twice. I removed the duplicate tags to that each tag would only exist once. The duplicate tags could have been added by accident. If you look at the automated edit description, you'll see that the description is the same. I suspect that the Emir did not mind that I removed the duplicate tags. I don't know why the tags were added in the first place, you must ask the Emir. Personally, I think the tags are useless on a giant article like this. Big changes have to be discussed on the talk page anyway, and by simply adding the tags, without starting the discussion, I don't know what a contributor is expected to do. Who knows how many contributors even agree with that assessment? Now thousands of people will have to endure this eyesore because the Emir thought that somebody might randomly choose to fix a giant article with no guidance or coordination? It's not a sensible tradeoff. --Ysangkok (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you and that is why I started this discussion. I too dont see the justification for the tags on something that is as you said daunting (large article) when looking at it (I looked twice and went away with my tail between my legs). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I think that the lead could possibly be rewritten, but I understand this can be difficult with such a topic unlike anything we have ever seen before. I think that there are too many sub-headings, but I accept that might be a problem of the article trying to contain everything in one instead of splitting into other articles. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I agree, I think the history section is particularly long. There is a lot of mundane history about Bitcoin's price action. Perhaps we can mention large moves (say the rise to $30, then the rise to $1000, then to $20000, then this current cycle), but I don't think it's necessary to be so granular. Hocus00 (talk) 05:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I disagree with the removal of price moves as it is encyclopedic. Most of what the general press finds interesting is price moves. There is no reason nor justification to remove the history. I think the tags should be removed if there is no consensus on even what we are going to do, or what the problem is. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Should the price moves be in this article though, or some separate article like "Price of Bitcoin"? We do not remove tags if we do not know what we are going to do, we remove them when the action is actually done. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
A "Price of Bitcoin" sub-article makes sense to me at this point. Otherwise as time goes on, the history section is just going to get longer and longer with more and more price action. Hocus00 (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm a bit skeptical. If Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency, then it is a currency, so its price is the main thing about it. Any spin-off article would still need reliable, independent sources. Those sources would have to treat this as a separate aspect of the topic, but I'm not sure that's accurate. Any fair summary Bitcoin as a topic would emphasize its volatility. It would also likely mention the 2017 spike and subsequent crash, and the recent ATH. Beyond that, how important is any of this price movement going to be to people who just want an overview of the topic? Grayfell (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I think a summary of the major points of Bitcoin's price action is appropriate for the main article. Something like, "in 2013, Bitcoin reached a new all time high of $ before subsequently falling to $. By 2016, Bitcoin's price began to rise again and reached a new all time high in 2017 of $". If users want more granular price information of "this date the price was $" and on "this date the price was $", I think a sub-article may be better. Hocus00 (talk) 04:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I removed two section headers that were unnecessary, and I think the main real fixable problem left is that the history section is just far too long. The rest of the article, I think, just has too much content to be able to condense with less headers. A lot of the time we need to have a section heading just so we have a place to put the {{main}}, {{further}}, and {{see also}} templates, and I don't really see places for trimming headers further other than the history section, where the problem is just that it's too long.
As a side note, I think there is also way too much fluff in the analysis section. Probably the material in "other critical opinions" should be moved up to the introduction of the section, and much of it trimmed. Edit: I've gone ahead and done just that, though I'm very open to opposing opinions. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 17:19, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
@Volteer1: Normally per WP:PRESERVE you should move the content to another article, not just delete it. For example, there are editors that come around every year or so want to add critical information about bitcoin (bitcoin is bad for whatever reason) and they would be unhappy this was removed. I personally find it undue, but it would be better if you find another article to move it to, rather than deleting it. If you cant find an article to copy it to, then the generally accepted principle is to copy it to this talk page (then someone who is interested in it can find it later) Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
It's still there in the page history if others want to view it. There's also no other place other than this article where detailed critical/positive analysis about bitcoin would make sense to be, so nowhere to really copy it over. It's perfectly fine to remove content that has problems, and other editors are free to disagree and revert if they think that the material is in fact noteworthy and due – I don't think there's any problems here. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Regarding this edit at least, the content doesn't need to be preserved anywhere else. "David A. Marcus calls bitcoin a 'great place to put assets'..." This was from 2013! He also said it "wasn't a currency" and "Whenever the regulatory framework is clearer, and the volatility comes down, then we'll consider it." (Well, has the volatility come down in the last eight years?) Cherry-picking like this doesn't belong in this article, but it also doesn't belong anywhere else. If the article contains other selective or misleading quotes like that one, then more trimming will need to be done. Grayfell (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
OK, seems I was wrong about the preserve comment at least in that case. Please be aware that some of this 'criticisms' content was added for balance, and there have been RFCs on some of this in the past such as Talk:Bitcoin/Archive_31#Bubble/Ponzi/Illegal. If you search the talk page articles you will get lots of hits. Greyfell stated the edit summary from Paypal was in 2013, (I understood to be implying it was not relevant today). I have moved this content to History of bitcoin noting that early statements of support/opposition for the nascent currency are encylopedic. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The only content I removed was the piece described above, and commentary on this Economist article [1], stating that criticisms against Bitcoin's volatility and "shady image" were unfair. There was no presented criticism in this article that bitcoin had a "shady image", so it's not defending against anything here, and the volatility bit was just saying that Bitcoin wasn't very volatile in 2015. Well, it's 2021 now, does it matter how much it was volatile in the year 2015? Neither of those insights have much relevance. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 20:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
"Balance" is subjective. We should summarize source according to due weight, not according to how flattering they are. We should not assume that every criticism needs to be answered, and one of the worst things we can do it preemptively answer a criticism that isn't actually supported. In other words, we cannot presume that bitcoin is shady, but we also cannot presume that it isn't shady.
Using primary sources to indicate the historical view of something is sometimes acceptable, but it's always better to summarize secondary sources. Surely enough ink has been spilled on this topic that there is a retrospective on how Bitcoin has been viewed over its short history? Using obscure opinions from random years in no particular order is not neutral or balanced. Of course it would be better to summarize a source which explains why bitcoin is "shady", and best of all if we can do it without cramming it into a thinly-disguised WP:CSECTION.
Also, a 2017 RFC on bitcoin's bubbly nature seems like a good candidate for revaluation, and changes should still be judged on their own merits. Grayfell (talk) 21:38, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Grayfell be advised we are not using primary sources on cryptocurrency articles. We can also revisit the RFC, but we cannot do WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Last you also reverted the paypal text I moved to the history article. Note that I did check the cnet article and it did seem largely confirmed by the text. Meaning you revert my re-add on this article and then went and reverted my move of the text on the other article, all to the same text. Do you have a major issue with the text itself? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
An opinion article is a primary source for that opinion, so that only supports that this content should be removed. For example, the many opinions of The Economist are primary sources for those opinions, while they may (or may not) qualify as reliable secondary sources for specific information about bitcoin. Generally, for all topics, we can include attributed primary opinions in some cases, but we should avoid them whenever a secondary source is available, and we are not required to include such opinions. This is especially important for topics like bitcoin, which have thousands upon thousands of primary opinions that could potentially be cited. It is not hard to find people expressing opinions about bitcoin, so our job as editors is to summarize this fairly. There has to be some specific reason, supported by reliable, independent sources, to include any particular quote. Otherwise any particular opinion we include will be selective or arbitrary. This is a subtle form of editorializing, because we are adding opinions based on editor preference, rather than because reliable, WP:IS have chosen to highlight or discuss those opinions.
So yes, and for this and other reasons, I have already explained my issue with the CNET cherry-picked quote multiple times. It is flimsy, decontextualized, and uninformative. Therefore it violates WP:NPOV. Not every single quote from every barely notable personality over the past decade needs to be included in this article. Another issue is that the inclusion of superficial and arbitrary opinions like this reads to me, and will read to many readers, as damning with faint praise. Nobody is disputing that this quote is technically accurate, but that is not sufficient for inclusion, because technically accurate content can still be misleading or undue. If a reliable source explains why Marcus' opinion from 2013 was encyclopedically significant, please cite that source and include that context. Grayfell (talk) 20:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I too don't see much importance currently for including the opinions of the supporters or haters or bitcoin, there are plenty of both. The list of economists calling for its immediate demise is also undue. I think it was all added over time for some sort of balance, although that may be false. It seems new editors are coming to this article, seems to happen in each hype cycle. Good to get some fresh eyes on it. I have noted that some of this (supports/haters pov inclusion) has been subject of much debate in the past, probably between two sides of POV editors, good that more balanced editors (hopefully at least) are arriving. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I did not say the opinions of economists, I said opinions from The Economist, meaning the publication. The problem with the Marcus quote i a lack of context, and in context, it's still flimsy. Academic economists are experts commenting on their academic field of expertise, so their statements are more likely to be due in an encyclopedia article and will need to be judged on a case-by-case basis. There, as everywhere else, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Wikipedia is, ostensible, an academic work, after all. The Economist is famously anonymous, so opinions from that magazine would have to be attributed to the magazine as punditry.
Dividing between supporters and haters is probably false balance, because that presumes that both are equivalent. Contrary to popular opinion, Wikipedia does takes sides: we seek to reflect reliable sources. As I said, a summary of opinions from an independent source would be preferable, as this way we can summarize reliable sources without editorializing.
As for "hype cycles", be mindful of WP:OWN. Grayfell (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I dont recall discussing the economist source here. Marcus would be commenting in his opinion as an expert on payments no? I would think the ceos of paypal, visa, & mc would be the very definition of experts in payments. I certainly dont own this page (nobody does), nor do my edits exhibit that, WP:AGF please. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:28, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
You restored the Economist source. That's the source that said bitcoin had a "shady" image. Volteer1 and I both mentioned The Economist in response to your revert. If you are not interested in discussing these sources, you should not be restoring them when other people try to clean-up the article.
As I said, several times, the Marcus quote was cherry-picked. It was poorly-summarized and its significance was not demonstrate by the source itself. He has said several potentially relevant thing in that article, including a couple of things that were much more closely related to his supposed area of expertise. Further, he's said hundreds of things in other sources. Including only one arbitrary and uninformative thing is selective and non-neutral. Further, a CEO is not inherently an expert on an academic topic. He is a non-neutral expert on his own business. Any other expertise would have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Grayfell (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Apologies, forgot I reverted economist source. Your response makes sense. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:49, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, so from that, I have removed the Economist source. It was an isolated anonymous opinion from 2015 which was being used as a response to an analysis from 2018. Since it was not a response to something that did not exist yet, its placement in the article was a subtle form of synth for editorializing purposes. Even without that, it was also false balance, since it was a flimsy source to counter-balance a more substantial one. Further, the source was not actually defending bitcoin itself, it was defending blockchain from criticisms of bitcoin. Per the source, Bitcoin itself may never be more than a curiosity, etc. The source also makes several dubious or at least wildly over-broad claims which would need much, much more reliable sources to justify. At the very least, the status of Bitcoin has changed enough in the past few years that this opinion article should be treated as a primary source of historical opinions. Grayfell (talk) 21:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I've gone ahead and put it all in the same section now, as it seems odd under it's own heading (I'll note that all this talk page deliberation lead to exactly the edit that was originally made in the first place...) ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 12:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me in the Analysis section we could also merge a couple of sub-sections. Carbon usage and electric usage are all essentially environmental concerns. Much of it links back to one primary source called diginomics (or something like that). The other two sub-sections that could be merged are ponzi scheme and bubble, both largely economic concerns (aka johnQpublic is getting ripped off). Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is the kind of discussion I hoped the tags would inspire. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: I did a bit more section merging today. Do you think now ok to remove the tags? Or needs more work? @Grayfell: fyi. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:09, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you a lot for the work you did, it is definitely in a better place that it was before. I still think there needs to be more work, but it might need a more focused approached than just tagging and hoping someone sees the tag. For the time being I will remove the tags. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Musk said tesla no more accept bitcoin

Cause on energy waste and pollution by coal. Voice need to be update.--93.147.242.143 (talk) 08:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Bitcoin symbol renders weirdly on this page – is that just me?

On this page (and other pages where the Bitcoin symbol ₿ is used), the Bitcoin symbol renders for me as appearing like an "Ộ", a letter O with a circumflex above and a dot below. But when I copy and paste the symbol, it appears correctly as the letter B with the vertical lines. While I don't think it's an issue specific to Wikipedia, has anyone else noticed this problem with this symbol on this Wikipedia page or any other page? Paintspot Infez (talk) 17:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Renders normally for me, maybe try asking at WP:VP/T? ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2021

Musk said tesla no more accept bitcoin, cause of energy waste and pollution by coal. Voice need to be update--93.147.242.143 (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Run n Fly (talk) 13:38, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Are you unable for a google search?--93.147.242.143 (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 May 2021

In the design section, there is a graph of the elliptic curve secp256k1. The caption of the photo says this picture is over the algebraic number field of real numbers R^2. The real numbers are not an algebraic number field, it would be more correct to just say the field of real numbers. Also, writing the R in blackboard bold latex font would also be more clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.75.112 (talk) 23:41, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Suggested Change: Change the caption of the photo "Graph of the elliptic curve named secp256k1 over the algebraic number field of real numbers, " to "Graph of the elliptic curve named secp256k1 in " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.75.112 (talk • contribs)

 Partly done: I did that, except just linked real coordinate space as R^2 could be confused with other things anyway. The confusion is that it's actually defined over Z/pZ for primes p, which is a field, but I think whoever originally added it copied it over from bitcoin wiki without understanding what it meant. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 June 2021

citation added.

As of 11 May 2020,[2] the reward amounted to 6.25 newly created bitcoins per block added to the blockchain,[3] plus any transaction fees from payments processed by the block. Wish.big (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: SEC filings—like court filings—are considered either WP:PRIMARY or self-published sources and are not considered reliable. JBchrch talk 16:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Energy

Nice source from Harvard Business Review on energy consumption Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

might be better to put this in the template:refidea, so it does not get archived away if not added quickly. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Info about Salvador the infobox

Hi, I don't know whether the legal status of Bitcoin in El Salvador should be in the lead or not, but I think it should be in the infobox in any case. Template:Infobox currency has a field called "using_countries" but Template:Infobox cryptocurrency does not. Should we add such a field to the cryptocurrency infobox only to cover the case of El Salvador and Bitcoin (for now)? A455bcd9 (talk) 09:28, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree probably infobox template should be edited. Probably need to have a discussion on the template itself. @David Gerard: thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
I think it would be better to wait and see whether more countries adopt cryptos as legal tender. For the moment, it may be an isolated event. JBchrch talk 11:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Plausible, but this entire El Salvador bitcoin deal is weird. I would say this is a case for not-immediatism. The law being passed this morning is pretty article-significant, I should be clear - David Gerard (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Agree on the wait and see position of David and JB, infobox is the ultimate level of wikivoice, we should be cautious Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Also worth noting: the law does not take effect until 90 days from now, or when (per art. 14) the Trust is established, whichever happens second - David Gerard (talk) 15:05, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
It appears it has been added anyhow, apparently without talk page consensus. My concern about the current version of the infobox states "users" as El Salvador. However, we also have in the article that Zug accepts bitcoin for some type of payments, and we also have millions of bitcoin "users" (aka people). I think this requires more thought, and I dont see the urgency to add this to the infobox prior to the 90 day time period that David has referred to, as it implies it can be used today. Can bitcoin be used today in El Salvador? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, Yes sorry I posted this message about the infobox then thought actually I should do it and didn't wait for answers, sorry... Regarding the terminology, "Official user(s)" is the one used in Template:Infobox currency, that's why I used it, assuming there was a consensus for this terminology. But I think that the name of the variable ("using_countries") is probably better. A455bcd9 (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The taproot update

Taproot has met the requirements for the activation process. It has gained the support of 90% of qualified blocks mined in the last two weeks. This happened on 14-6-2021. This is quite a big update. Maybe this can be added to the page

Hi @Freedom.to.distribute.information: , i read cnbc. Are there other mainsteam sources? Does anyone know if this upgraded included Schnoor signatures or it didnt? I have seem some sources saying Schnoor and MAST were included, but others didnt say. We need mainstream sources for this (like CNBC). On twitter pundits were saying this CNBC article contained a lot of incorrect information, but I am I suppose not versed enough in the subject to understand it. Ladislav Mecir comments? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Bitcoin is money and a legal currency

Since Bitcoin has become legal tender in El Salvador, Bitcoin is a legal an supported currency, and there is not neccessary for a currency to be issued by a Central Bank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.38.50.243 (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Date of adoption

A455bcd9, all the sources say that the law was adopted on the 9th. [4][5][6] Why are you changing it? JBchrch talk 09:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi,
I understand from the text of the law and the official website of the Legislative Assembly of El Salvador that the law was adopted on June 8th: "La Asamblea Legislativa decretó este 8 de junio de 2021 un total de 10 artículos como disposiciones generales" [7]
The tweet of the president was posted 5 minutes after midnight, El Salvador time (CST). And by the way, I remember that during the vote, on the live Twitter Spaces, the president and his brother said that the law had been adopted just before midnight (CST). There's a 2-hour difference between El Salvador time and time in NYC (EDT) so for journalists in NYC (and even more in London) the law was adopted on the 9th.
But I agree it's not 100% clear. A455bcd9 (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Just found the Diario Oficial 9 de Junio de 2021.indd which says on page 15 about the Ley Bitcoin: "Dado en el salon azul del palacio legislativo: san salvador, a los ocho dias del mes de junio del ano mil veintiuno." But then: "Casa presidencial: San Salvador, a los nueve dias del mes de junio de dos mil veintiuno." If it works as it does in France (and I assume it does because most countries in Latin America were inspired by the Napoleonic Code), then a law adopted on one day is published on the official journal on the following day, but the publication date is not the date of adoption. So I conclude that the law was published on June 8th. A455bcd9 (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@A455bcd9: I understand your point, but in presence of ambiguous WP:PRIMARY sources, it is necessary to rely on reliable WP:SECONDARY sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. And here we have the FT, the WSJ and Bloomberg telling us the date is the 9th. Besides, in my experience, it's impossible to determine these kinds of things by looking at government documentation and without a solid understanding of how the specific government in question works. Often—and not only in developing countries—laws are enacted, on one day, adopted on another, published on yet another, officially published on yet another etc etc. It's very confusing. JBchrch talk 10:11, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
The primary sources aren't that ambiguous to me. Regarding secondary sources, I read the Bloomberg article, but which part of the article mentions it was adopted on the 8th? On the WSJ is says: "according to the three-page bill that was submitted Tuesday evening and swiftly approved after midnight by lawmakers of President Nayib Bukele’s New Ideas party", so we have again this question of before/after midnight. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the FT, what does it say about the publication date? A455bcd9 (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
WSJ says El Salvador passed a new law on Wednesday. FT says The legislature, which Bukele controls, passed the bill with 62 of 84 possible votes on Wednesday. It's true Bloomberg doesn't state the date, but it's easy to find more sources from top sources: Reuters [8] says El Salvador became the first country in the world to adopt bitcoin as legal tender after Congress on Wednesday approved President Nayib Bukele’s proposal. JBchrch talk 15:57, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. So we don't know if it's Wednesday Salvador time or Wednesday for the author. Given the uncertainty I removed the day, I think the month and the year are enough for this article. But the problem persists for the Bitcoin Law article. A455bcd9 (talk) 16:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Do newspapers date their stories with the time at their headquarters? I would be very surprised if that was the case. I am pretty sure that the dates are given relative to the timezone of the relevant place that is being discussed? In addition, I think the exact date is important encyclopedic content, so we have to come to a consensus decision one way or the other. But the consensus among the reliable, secondary and independent sources looks clear to me. JBchrch talk 16:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the exact date is important for Bitcoin Law (where someone else wrote June 8th) but that for this article about Bitcoin in general I think it's not. And yes the consensus in secondary sources is June 9th (even though it seems wrong to me). I asked the President + the gov on Twitter by the way, but I guess they won't answer... A455bcd9 (talk) 16:29, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
On the website of the Legislative Assembly they have:
I guess next week both links will be updated. A455bcd9 (talk) 16:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
I think the key point is that here at wikipedia we follow, we dont lead. We just follow the sources and be careful of what we say in WP:WIKIVOICE. If we editors dont know here on the talk page, we shouldn't be saying it in the mainspace. Bitcoin Law itself says the law is not yet in force, so if it is not in force how can we use it the bitcoin article (this article) as legal tender? Seems these two wikipedia articles are conflicting with each other in a WP:POVFORK (not ok). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, there's, unfortunately, a conflict between these two articles. Regarding the date of adoption, I think Lexology is a quality source, and this article says: "Una vez incorporada la propuesta de Ley BTC fue aprobada a las 00:01 horas del día miércoles 9 de junio, con 62 votos a favor." If true, then the law was indeed adopted on June 9th. Regarding the enforcement date, the 90-day delay is not mentioned in all secondary sources (WSJ and Bloomberg for instance), as if for these journalists it was already taken for granted. But a note could be added to mention that it'll be legal tender on Sept 7th 2021. A455bcd9 (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)  A455bcd9 (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
According to the summary of the June 8th plenary session: "Se aprobó con 62 votos, a las 00:01 horas, del día miércoles 9 de junio de 2021." So it seems it was indeed adopted on June 9th but during the June 8th session. The page with all Decretos hasn't been updated yet. A455bcd9 (talk) 11:34, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Update on the gov website: the law is said to have been adopted on June 8th ("Fecha Aprobación" / "Datos de la Ley" / "Fecha de Emisión"), and it was published in the Official Journal on the following day ("Datos de Publicación" / "Fecha de Publicación"). Should we conclude the law was adopted on June 8th? I think so. A455bcd9 (talk) 18:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what the big fuss is? We have to follow what independent, reliable, secondary sources say. JBchrch talk 18:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
No, we are not going to use wikipedia editors interpretation of the law posted in another language. Wait for this to be in the WP:IRS as Jbchrch says. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I don't think it is "wikipedia editors interpretation of the law" but just reading the date of adoption written on the official government website, and in the official press release of the legislative assembly. Regarding secondary independent sources, here are some that mention the adoption date is June 8th:

Yes, AFP, AP, Reuters, etc those are great sources. WSJ and FT also. If there is a dispute which are accurate, I am not sure what we we would use. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:40, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

What if we add a footnote saying that the some media outlets have said that the law was adopted on the 8th (cue refs) and others on the 9th (cue refs)? JBchrch talk 17:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, we could add a note like this: "The law was voted during the June 8th plenary session (cue refs), and published in the official journal on June 9th (cue refs). Some media outlets consider that the law was adopted on the 8th (cue refs) and others on the 9th (cue refs)." A455bcd9 (talk) 20:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I am not inclined to add info based on your original research in primary sources. We can perfectly limit ourselves stating what reliable, secondary, independent sources said. By the way, EY and ICEFI are self-published and therefore sub-optimal compared to the sources available. Anyway, I have now implemented the proposed wording. I hope that we can close this thread. JBchrch talk 00:21, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for revamping your comment to tone down the bad tone; I appreciate it 🤗 I totally understand your point. However, the sentence I suggested was not based on my original research in primary sources but on a reliable, secondary, independent source, namely, the first paragraph of the El Mundo (El Salvador)'s article: "El Diario Oficial publicó el 9 de junio de 2021 la Ley Bitcoin aprobada el 8 de junio por la Asamblea Legislativa de El Salvador, por lo que se espera que su vigencia inicie el 7 de septiembre de 2021." Other Salvadoran newspapers confirm this information:
  • La Prensa Gráfica: [9] "La ley de 16 artículos fue aprobada en la plenaria del pasado martes por la Asamblea oficialista" "La Ley Bitcóin fue publicada esta tarde en el Diario Oficial, en su edición correspondiente al 9 de junio; esto representa el último paso del proceso de formación de ley, según la institucionalidad salvadoreña."
  • La Pagina: "La Ley Bitcóin, aprobada por la Asamblea Legislativa el pasado martes 8 de junio, fue publicada este viernes en El Diario Oficial, lo que significa que las transacciones con la criptomoneda se harán a partir del próximo 7 de septiembre en todo el país."
  • Teleprensa: "En el tomo Número 431 del Diario Oficial fue publicada la Ley Bitcoin aprobada el pasado 8 de junio por los diputados de la Asamblea Legislativa. La iniciativa fue sancionada por el presidente salvadoreño, Nayib Bukele, un día después de ser aprobada por el parlamento."
That's why I thought (and still think) that it could be added, with the relevant references, in the article. And thanks for your edit! A455bcd9 (talk) 08:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
El Mundo is an WP:RS in my opinion and any problems in an English publication out of the country, I think we would use the local publications. It's ok to use a Spanish language source for English wikipedia. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I think using reliable Spanish-language sources is fine, especially for an event happening in a (rather small) Spanish-speaking country. What do you think JBchrch? Here are two other sources by the way:
  • Salvadoran government: "El pasado 8 de junio los diputados de la Asamblea Legislativa aprobaron la denominada Ley Bitcoin"
  • Nasdaq / Bitcoin Magazine: "El Salvador’s bold and groundbreaking move to declare bitcoin legal tender on June 8, 2021"
A455bcd9 (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
An article in the WSJ Opinion mentions that: "On June 8, with little debate, deputies approved the law by a wide margin in the middle of the night." The WSJ is currently among the 3 sources (with FT and Reuters) after the statement: "According to others, it was approved on 9 June." Should we remove the WSJ ref? A455bcd9 (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I dont see a reason for deleting a source at this point in time. Also bitcoin magazine is not an RS for crypto articles. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
A455bcd9, Salvador government website is WP:PRIMARY, Bitcoin Magazine is looked down upon as a crypto-centric publication and WSJ opinion columns are subjects to WP:RSEDITORIAL (i.e. not reliable for statements of fact. It's actually a big deal, btw). Regarding Salvadoran sources: local news are generally considered to be less reliable than highly-reputable international journalism (see also User:Levivich/Tiers of reliability), so we have to be careful with the amount of WP:WEIGHT that is given to them. So we could include "The law was voted during the June 8th parliamentary session (cue refs), and published in the official journal on June 9th (cue refs)", but I would prefer if it could be added at the end of the current footnote.JBchrch talk 21:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, you're right regarding Bitcoin Magazine, but because this article was re-published by Nasdaq, I thought it would be of higher quality. However, all articles from Bitcoin Magazine may be republished automatically on the Nasdaq website... Regarding WSJ Opinion, I thought there was at least some editorial control, but it appears there's not (thanks for the NYT article, btw, quite interesting). I agree on the quality of local sources vs. international newspapers. Still, on something as factual and non-controversial as the date of adoption, I think we can give them a similar weight. Yes, your suggestion to add this sentence at the end of the current footnote makes sense. Feel free to implement the proposer wording, otherwise, I can do it. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 August 2021

Add a users section in the infobox, like other currencies, with El Salvador as a user

Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-09/el-salvador-president-says-nation-adopts-bitcoin-as-legal-tender Username1350 (talk) 19:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done  𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗹𝗸 19:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
@FormalDude: I have undone your edit because a discussion above (§ Info about Salvador the infobox) has established some sort of consensus that the infobox should not be updated for the moment. However, you and Username1350 are free to reopen the discussion and attempt to change the consensus. JBchrch talk 20:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Launch is Sept 7, still a month out. Plenty of RS for this, so when the lauch comes I will also support inclusion. We should not add it today as it is WP:CRYSTAL and like talking about a space ship launch at a future date. We will have plenty of sources in a month, we already have FT, NBC, etc. I suspect an avalance of news will hit in a month. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 August 2021

Please consider editing this section: Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss, the founders of the Gemini Trust Co. exchange, reported that they had cut their paper wallets into pieces and stored them in envelopes distributed to safe deposit boxes across the United States.[147] Through this system, the theft of one envelope would neither allow the thief to steal any bitcoins nor deprive the rightful owners of their access to them.[148]

Neither sources 147 nor 148 specify whether or why the rightful owners would retain access to the bitcoins if a piece of the private key is stolen. Either the last sentence should be removed, or it should be clarified how the rightful owner would retain access. SororityBodyguard (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

We are not in a position to speculate if/how someone might gain access. I think we were just following a WP:RS on this, but you might be saying it is WP:UNDUE? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
But the problem is that neither source 147 nor 148 do not support this part of the statement: "nor deprive the rightful owners of their access to them." Vgbyp (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Source 147 and 148 suggest that the theft of one envelope would not allow the thief to steal any bitcoins. They do not suggest that the theft of one envelope would not deprive the rightful owners of their access to them. SororityBodyguard (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Since neither source supports the "nor deprive the rightful owners of their access to them" part of the sentence I have removed it per the edit request. - Aoidh (talk) 02:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
One final note, can we change "neither" to "not"

"Through this system, the theft of one envelope would neither allow the thief to steal any bitcoins." to "Through this system, the theft of one envelope would not allow the thief to steal any bitcoins." SororityBodyguard (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Done, not sure how I missed that. - Aoidh (talk) 20:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit of section 3.1 on "Austrian economics roots"

It's worth highlighting differences between Hayek's idea of the denationalization of money and cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin. For Hayek denationalization meant that private banks issuing their own currencies would still retain centralized control over decisions such as supply and interest rates. This is not the case with bitcoin which is decentralized "all the way down". I've discussed this on the following blog: https://csgs.kcl.ac.uk/friedrich-hayek-prophet-of-cryptocurrency/ 37.26.74.78 (talk) 13:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 September 2021

There is a slight error in the section on Mining, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence. I include the correct language here in brackets. If you can delete the brackets below so that the words "difference in the nonce and the" are included, the passage will be correct.

The PoW requires miners to find a number called a nonce, such that when the block content is hashed along with the nonce, the (difference in the nonce and the) result is numerically smaller than the network's difficulty target. Ffclr1 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ffclr1: could you please state again what we need to correct? I dont understand your suggestion. Maybe you could use strikethrough if you want to delete some text or suggest what to add. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:38, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I believe what Ffclr1 wants to change is to swap this sentence:

The PoW requires miners to find a number called a nonce, such that when the block content is hashed along with the nonce, the result is numerically smaller than the network's difficulty target.

with this:

The PoW requires miners to find a number called a nonce, such that when the block content is hashed along with the nonce, the difference in the nonce and the result is numerically smaller than the network's difficulty target.

Unfortunately, the change isn't supported by the source currently cited. Vgbyp (talk) 11:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Proposed rearranging headings

Hi, I propose that we switch around the History and Design headings; that is, so that the Design heading comes first, and then History. I would argue that the design of the Bitcoin software is more important than its history; I think it's likely that more people ask "how does this thing work" than "where did this thing come from". I like that the article for the Euro lays out what it is and what it's like before its origins. I was wondering what you all think about this idea. Roll 3d6 (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. Seems most pertinent to describe what it actually is first, which as you pointed out is also what people would be most interested in ("what's a 'blockchain'? how does one 'mine' a bitcoin?"), and then the history and original ideological aspirations behind the project afterwards. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 23:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 September 2021

History 2020 - Present Add: On September 8th, 2021, the Ukrainian Parliament passed a law that legalized and regulated bitcoin in the country. Eqartimus (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.   melecie   t 02:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 October 2021

Hi, Change Invented in 2008 to 2007, In An email which you can find online from Satoshi to Hal; He mentions working on Bitcoin for a year & a half, this Email was sent in November 2008, meaning Bitcoin was invented in/around June 2007.

You can find The email by searching for Emails between Hal & Satoshi to confirm this; as 2008 is technically incorrect due to the definition of "Invented" See below;

make up (an idea, name, story, etc.), especially so as to deceive someone. "I did not have to invent any tales about my past"

Thx 84.67.76.48 (talk) 17:29, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done You need to provide a reliable source. JBchrch talk 17:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 October 2021

SEC approved Bitcoin ETF and it`s a great news on bitcoin. So I suggest to add the following content:

On 16 October 2021, SEC approved Bitcoin Futures ETF.[1] And the first Bitcoin ETF began trading on 19 October 2021.[2] Newknowlegde (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

 Done RFZYNSPY talk 07:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 November 2021

The creator of bitcoin is Raymond Paul Evan McCarthy from USA... Who disappeared from bitcoin in 2011 due to marriage issues and a divorce by January 2012. 99.164.40.245 (talk) 06:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC) 99.164.40.245 (talk) 06:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —twotwofourtysix(My talk page and contributions) 06:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested edit

Would someone please create a new subsection in the "criticisms" section, title the subsection as "Noise pollution," and please add the following content. Thank you.

People who live near bitcoin mines have complained about the loud noise from the fans that are used to cool the mines, saying that it annoys them constantly, induces stress, and prevents them from being able to sleep at night.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

Baxter329 (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: WP is not for news reports. Other businesses make noise, pollute air, park too many cars. kbrose (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Nikhilesh De, Danny Nelson (16 October 2021). "SEC Approves Bitcoin Futures ETF, Opening Crypto to Wider Investor Base". Coindesk. Retrieved 2021-10-22.
  2. ^ Paul R. La Monica (19 October 2021). "The first bitcoin ETF finally begins trading". CNN Business. Retrieved 2021-10-22.
  3. ^ Washington Commission to hear from BrightRidge about bitcoin mining noise complaints, timesnews.net, July 25, 2021
  4. ^ Elected officials weigh in on noise at Tennessee Bitcoin ‘mine’, wreg.com, May 24, 2021
  5. ^ Professor: Bitcoin mining’s model brings not just noise, but environmental cost that’s under scrutiny, wjhl.com, May 18, 2021
  6. ^ Extra Extra: Bitcoin Buzz Rattles Unhappy Neighbors, gothamist.com, November 13, 2021
  7. ^ Bonner Bitcoin data center noise a continuing concern, missoulian.com, February 3, 2018
  8. ^ What’s that noise? One of world’s largest bitcoin facilities is too loud, VB neighbors say, wavy.com, August 15, 2018
  9. ^ Bitcoin Mining Noise Drives Neighbors Nuts—a Giant Dentist Drill That Won’t Stop, Wall St. Journal, November 12, 2021
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bitcoin/Archive_36&oldid=1066998116"