Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 March 2021

Electricity consumption of the bitcoin network since 2016 (annualized) and comparison with the electricity consumption of various countries in 2019. The upper and lower bounds (grey traces) are based on worst-case and best-case scenario assumptions, respectively. The red trace indicates an intermediate best-guess estimate. (data sources: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index, US Energy Information Administration; for details, see methodology)

A plot of Bitcoin electricity consumption would be very suitable for the section "Energy consumption".

I suggest adding this plot right before the sentence "Bitcoin has been criticized for the amount of electricity consumed by mining.":

Elikrieg (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

@Elikrieg: I think you just need the "estimated" line; the upper and lower bounds aren't that important, especially when the recent spike "squishes" everything else to not be so legible. Also, on the graph, you have to specify at what time was the country equivalents measured and give a source. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree with above comments, the maximum red line looks absurd and clouds overall picture that the estimated is telling. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I updated the plot to version 3 (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bitcoin_electricity_consumption.png). The estimate is now clearly highlighted. Maximum/minimum encompass the shaded area (I think we should not entirely exclude upper/lower bound from the official data. This is also the way the researchers display the data at https://cbeci.org/). The time point of each country's electricity consumption is now indicated in the figure legend. I also increased font sizes and changed the aspect ratio for better legibility.

Elikrieg (talk) 11:43, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Elikrieg:: It would be nicer if the image is in vector form, but this is not a blocker for this request. See commons:Commons:Media for cleanup#PNG or JPEG images that should be SVG.

I presume that the software used to make this image should have a way to export graphs as .svg instead of .png, though I cannot be sure as there is no Exif data to tell. ~ Aseleste_{charge-parity}^time 12:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@Aseleste: I tried to save directly or convert to SVG format, but direct save is not supported and conversion creates errors. I'll use a different software the next time I create a figure. Would appreciate inclusion as it is. Regards, --Elikrieg (talk) 14:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I am opposed to inclusion until the outlier content (upper and lower bounds) is removed, particularly the ridiculous upper bounds. Inclusion would lend WP:UNDUE weight to data that is considered by the author to be likely unreliable (the reason he included it as outer bounds). The section already has due weight without the chart, and if we are to add the chart it must be neutral and not WP:FRINGE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

A user asked me to comment on this issue. I think a graph like this would be relevant, and we have decent peer-reviewed sourcing for the data. May require notes (from sources like CBECI and De Vries' peer-reviewed papers) on calculation methods and the degree to which this sort of thing is a best-effort estimate, which is why CBECI and De Vries' numbers vary. No opinion on including the outliers - David Gerard (talk) 20:38, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

@David Gerard: I updated the figure, as there seems to be an overall preference by commenters for removing the outliers. I also added a reference to the methodology in the figure caption. See below.

--Elikrieg (talk) 08:53, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a tricky one - comparing the two, I actually like the fuzzy version of the graph, as it gives the correct impression that these are best-effort approximations. OTOH I'm fine with the non-fuzzy version going in - David Gerard (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@David Gerard: Yes, I'd also have a small preference for the first graph with grey shading because it demonstrates the uncertainties involved. However, I am also fine with the second. It's up to the person with editing rights to implement either version (cannot do it myself). --Elikrieg (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Estimated electricity consumption of the bitcoin network since 2016 (annualized) and comparison with the electricity consumption of various countries in 2019. (data sources: Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index, US Energy Information Administration; for details, see methodology)

I am for keeping the minimum and maximum lines in the plot. Reasons: a serious estimate should not just show the estimated value, but also the error of the estimate, which, according to the plotted difference between the minimum and maximum is rather extreme. Also note that this is what the source says, and not just some modification hiding the inaccuracy (error of the estimate). Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

I too believe that the version of the graph with the minimum and maximum levels is more useful, since it is telling us of a rather large estimate range. Enivid (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

It looks like everyone else here likes the version with the shading, and I see the logic raised by others, so i retract my objection to it. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks like there is a consensus that the picture with the shading should be added right now. Will close the discussion and add the image after the initial edit request is seven days old and the consensus has not changed by then. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 13:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Doing... ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done - @Elikrieg: See Special:Diff/1012759715. ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 04:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 March 2021

change "psuedonymity" to "pseudonymity" in the second paragraph Gduverger (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 May 2021

an US company -> a US company Troll Control (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 09:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 May 2021

Change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin#Analysis to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin#Criticism. "Analysis" is somewhat of a misleading euphemism for what the section contains: criticism. CynicusRex (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2021

In the section "Ownership", after the sentence: "The vast number of valid private keys makes it unfeasible that brute force could be used to compromise a private key."

It could be added the following, to help clarify it all:

To see what a private key and a public key look like (which after all are just long numbers with no more than 256 bits, but that can be compressed to less than that using a complicated mathematical mechanism involving numbers, letters and cryptographic hashing), one can safely visit a client-side "bitcoin paper wallet generator" that can be saved as a file, and run on any clean computer that may not even have physical access to the internet. The most popular ones are very trustable and have many levels of security which keep being all the time under strict scrutiny of the whole bitcoin open-source community of developers. More information on this topic is on the section "Paper Wallets", down the page on this article.

(feel free to edit, change it, and adapt it to what you think is finer. My aim is to make it as easy as possible to introduce this specific topic to noobs) Unisight (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Unsight, thank you for your contribution. All content added to Wikipedia requires sources - do you have any sources that we could use for that? Thanks! BeŻet (talk) 11:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi BeŻet,

It gets very technical, and I didn't copy and paste it from anywhere, so it is a bit hard for me to provide a specific reference that that fits.

But if you find it strictly necessary and important then I would recommend these sources:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Technical_background_of_version_1_Bitcoin_addresses

https://developer.bitcoin.org/devguide/wallets.html

https://github.com/bitcoinbook/bitcoinbook/blob/develop/ch04.asciidoc

https://bitcoinpaperwallet.com/bitcoinpaperwallet/generate-wallet.html

If you need any further clarification, please ask, I will be here for all clarifications necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unisight (talk • contribs) 19:53, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Unisight: I understand how it works myself – I'm a software engineer, and have a degree in distributed systems – but any content added to Wikipedia needs to be based on reliable sources and have adequate citations, so that is verifiable. It doesn't matter if someone is an expert or a specialist, or claims to be one, they still have to follow the same rules, which require all of us to provide quotations/sources and use inline citations, so that we don't end up adding original research. Hope this makes sense, and you understand why I'm asking for sources, but if you're still unsure, please let me know! BeŻet (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi @BeŻet:

Okay, let's read what it is saying:

"To see what a private key and a public key look like (...)" >> Does that need any reference? I don't thing so, since in the previous paragraph private keys and public keys were being mentioned and this is just telling that there is a way to see how they look like.

Let's continue... "(which after all are just long numbers with no more than 256 bits, but that can be compressed to less than that using a complicated mathematical mechanism involving numbers, letters and cryptographic hashing), (...)" >> Does this need references or clarifications? Well, yes, actually it does, namely if you want to be strictly technically correct. >> Okay, so I will have to agree, in this specific point and taking into consideration the Wikipedia editing rules we will probably need to do some work here. >> Let's see. The first thing pretty much everyone calls the bitcoin address: public key. >> But, as you know, if you want to be strictly technical, which means you will be making more than 99.9% of the world population more confused about it all, and not >> understanding it at all, public keys and bitcoin addresses are not the same thing. >> The reason I used the words "no more than 256 bits" was firstly because private keys go from: >> 0x1 to 0xFFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFE BAAE DCE6 AF48 A03B BFD2 5E8C D036 4140 >> and not from 0x1 to 0xFFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF FFFF. >> Indeed, that doesn't mean the private key can be less than 256 bits, but it is still true that as was said "is no more than 256 bits" >> And makes that subtle details more salient for the more strictly technically and precising oriented. >> The second reason for using the words "no more than 256 bits" was that though both private key and public key are 256 bits, >> when you look at them in a bitcoin paper wallet generator they don't look at all like long numbers (of 256-bits). >> The private key will probably be shown in the "Wallet Import Format (WIF)" [1] >> which makes it look much more compact than a 32 bytes number in hexadecimal. >> Technically, it is still 256 bits, otherwise we would be losing information. And technically you are not compressing it, you are just encoding it into >> a different format that is more handy for people to scan with their mobiles. Also note that once you import your coins you should consider the >> bitcoin paper wallet discarded and you should not think that you can spend coins in your bitcoin software wallet and later import the remainder coins >> from that paper wallet from which you already import. You should be very aware of that risk when using paper wallets. >> More info on that specific detail, for instance, at: [2]. >> And secondly, I used the words "no more than 256 bits" because the bitcoin address has only 160 bits and not 256 bits. Actually 25 bytes (200 bits), >> due to the adding of the version byte to the RIPEMD-160 hash and the adding of 4 bytes checksum of (SHA-256(SHA-256(ripemd-160WithVersionByte))). >> The bitcoin address has less information than the public address. As you know, there is no way to compress 256 bits into less than that according to >> "Information theory". Though it is theoretically possible to use very short expressions with irrational numbers and later compute them into much longer >> pieces of information, and conversely. >> On the other hand, it is such commonplace that bitcoin public keys and private keys have 256 bits, that using a reference seems to be supererogatory. >> Saying "no more than 256 bits" is just a subtle way of saying that you can go more deeply into technical detail, without actually be lying. >> And regarding "(...)that using a complicated mathematical mechanism involving numbers, letters and cryptographic hashing" >> What would actually be needing a reference there? "complicated mathematical mechanism", "involving numbers, letters", "cryptographic hashing" >> I really don't see what kind of references you would need there. It is all commonplace in plain English? What >>would be needing a reference there? >> I really, don't see what would need a reference in that part of the sentence...

Okay, let's keep going, let's continue...

"one can safely visit a client-side "bitcoin paper wallet generator" that can be saved as a file, and run on any clean computer that may not even have physical access to the internet." >> Well, here we may need to think a bit. Who says that is safe to visit them? Well, I don't think any bitcoin >>developer would disagree on this. >> You can ask any of the hundreds of bitcoin core developers and I would be extremely surprised if there is one >>that thinks it is unsafe to visit a client-side website, that can be accessed even anonymously, with Tor Browser, >>for instance. >> And of course, if they are client-side websites you can save them as a file and later on use them on fresh >>installation that comes with a browser. >> It is a complete no-brainer. Is there really a need for a reference there? What kind of reference? A reference to >>explain what is a client-side website >> and in what sense it is safe to visit them? Or a reference to explain why it is safe to save that client-side >>website into a pen-disk and use it >> in a fresh installation without access to the internet? >> Or, would the reference be to state that these websites are indeed client-side websites? You can just look at the >>code in any browser and save that code into a webpage. They are static web pages. What kind of reference is >>needed? It is a no-brainer, again.

Okay, let's keep going, let's continue...

"The most popular ones are very trustable and have many levels of security which keep being all the time under the strict scrutiny of the whole bitcoin open-source community of developers." >> That's for sure. Does anyone think millions of bitcoiners would trust bitcoin paper wallets with millionaire >>funds if it was otherwise? >> Who would think for a split second that these client-side websites to generate keys are not under constant >>scrutiny by some of the best minds in the world in Mathematics, Cryptography, Computer Science and Programming, >>with all sorts of levels of security being well thought of?

Okay, let's keep going, let's continue...

"More information on this topic is on the section "Paper Wallets", down the page on this article." >> This makes sense. There is a section on the article about "Paper Wallets". >> But the paragraph I want to add is for better clarification of what was being discussed there and makes perfect >> sense there as an additional clarification. When I explain bitcoin private key and public key to someone new to >> bitcoin, they understand it, but usually, the first thing that they will then ask is: "Okay, can you please show >>me an example of those?". >> And that is exactly the point of what I wrote to be put on that Wikipedia page explaining bitcoin: to show how >> they look like.

And there is no need to tell a specific "bitcoin paper wallet" generation client-side website. Because people, can search for it obviously, and search engines will probably rank the most popular and reliable ones first. Of course.

Still, I am totally willing to collaborate and sort it out. We could even talk with some hard-core bitcoiners, for sure. No probs, I will be here to discuss it and collaborate.

Unisight (talk)

@Unisight: Appreciate your effort and willingness to improve the article. I understand that some of our rules and guidelines might feel strange to newcomers or infrequent editors. Let me try to explain in more detail. Wikipedia is not intended to be a guide and we try to adhere to a formal, encyclopedic tone. Moreover, in order to avoid synthesis, you simply need a source which more or less says what the sentence is stating. Finally, we need sources to establish whether the content is given due weight (in other words, is it worth including that information at all). So for instance, the first sentence should avoid phrases like "which after all are just" (tone), and should use a source which states what the stentence is stating (that you can see what a private and public key looks like, by accessing a "bitcoin paper wallet generator"). If you don't have a single source that states all of this, you are running into original research, which is not allowed. The second sentence needs sources to confirm that "the most popular ones are very trustable" (this also has a peacock phrasing problem), that they have "many levels of security" and that it is all the time under "strict scrutiny of the whole bitcoin open source community". Finally, we don't tend to write things like "for more information, see x" - instead, we have templates like {{Main}} to point at other articles; we never tend to point at different sections within the same article - this also makes me wonder whether your addition isn't just really repeating what the "paper wallet" section is already saying? BeŻet (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Since there is nothing else I can do, can I ask you to at least add the following sentence there:

"One of the ways of generating a bitcoin key-pair is using a bitcoin paper wallet generator." Unisight (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2021 (GMT)

This is already mentioned: A paper wallet is created with a keypair generated on a computer with no internet connection; the private key is written or printed onto the paper and then erased from the computer. BeŻet (talk) 13:00, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi @BeŻet:

Okay, in that case, I ask you to add the following sentence there with a reference link: "The computation to generate a bitcoin key-pair can be done by everyone with a computer. [citation reference link: https://medium.com/coinmonks/how-to-generate-a-bitcoin-address-step-by-step-9d7fcbf1ad0b]" Unisight (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2021 (GMT)

We have these sentences: Creating a bitcoin address requires nothing more than picking a random valid private key and computing the corresponding bitcoin address. This computation can be done in a split second. I think that adding that a computation can be done on a computer might be a bit of a blue sky statement; moreover, you can do it with a calculator, or even with a pen on a piece of paper if you have the patience. Finally, your source doesn't actually state what you're trying to say, and is on Medium.com, which is not allowed. Sorry, not trying to be difficult, just trying to help. BeŻet (talk) 16:34, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi again, @BeŻet:

Theoretically yes, you can do it with pen and paper but I don't think anyone in the world ever did that, not just because it is very time consuming but because you would have to know all the internals of the Elliptical Curve Digital Signature Algorithm and of the cryptographic hashing algorithms which are very difficult to get to grips with. The same with calculators, it would take you endless time and knowledge, not just patience. The fundamental difference between a calculator and a computer is that a computer can be programmed in a way that allows the program to take different branches according to intermediate results, while calculators are pre-designed with specific functions (such as addition, multiplication, and logarithms) built-in. So, if you don't want to be extremely picky with words, yes, people will need a computer to do it. I ask you 1-2 days, to see if I can find a better phrasing of words and a more reliable article to be referenced on Wikipedia, for what I think is important to highlight for better information on this. And we can remove the last three words in my phrasing ("with a computer") if you think that that will make it less of a "blue sky statement". Unisight (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2021 (GMT)

Hi @BeŻet:, what about this phrasing and reference link?

"The computation of a key-pair is cumbersome (though there are many tools available to facilitate it). [3] " Unisight (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2021 (GMT)

Perhaps it would be just easier if you explained what is the issue with what we currently have in the article, and what is it that you are trying to improve? The difficulty of calculating the public key manually isn't because of time and knowledge required, but mostly because of the large numbers involved in the calculation (for instance, the order of group is 115792089237316195423570985008687907852837564279074904382605163141518161494337). The formulas involved are relatively simple. BeŻet (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@BeŻet: Good luck finding people that do it manually. And if they don't have much knowledge and don't require much time to do it, I would really like to know them. You seem the most stubborn Wikipedia editor ever. I will most likely report you for that. Wouldn't be better to admit that you don't want to change a single bit in this Wikipedia article? You have not a good reason for this denial of adding this piece of information (to complement what was said before): "The computation of a key-pair is cumbersome (though there are many tools available to facilitate it). [Reference link: https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/mastering-bitcoin-2nd/9781491954379/ch04.html] " Unisight (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2021 (GMT)

@Unisight: Report me for what? I'm just trying to help you, but if you don't appreciate that, I'll leave you alone, and another editor can help you out. BeŻet (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@BeŻet:

What is the reason you don't want to add this final remark there to make the introduction to the concept of a bitcoin key-pair more clear to anyone reading that section of the Wikipedia article? In what sense can you say this is not relevant (when I am here crafting the words with great care to make it much more clear and concise, in this effort to collaborate to have a better article)? Any real good reason? You think what I am adding is not important, and that's it? Or are there real reasons? "The computation of a key-pair is cumbersome (though there are many tools available to facilitate it). [Reference link: https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/mastering-bitcoin-2nd/9781491954379/ch04.html] " Unisight (talk) 13:17, 12 December 2021 (GMT)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ellenchannn, Amraphenson.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Briansurguy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2020 and 18 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hennock,l. Peer reviewers: Jimmyk578, TylerSukovski.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Market Cap

It's about 10% out of date now. I'd fix it, but the article is edit-locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.21.70.95 (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Bans: "Legal status" section, "Criticisms" or elsewhere?

I wonder where we should mentioned bans (proposed or already in force).

For instance, @Selfstudier: mentioned the proposed Russian crypto ban in both the energy consumption section and the "Economic concerns" one, which makes sense as the Central Bank of Russia used both these justifications. We repeat the same information twice (which is not efficient) and in one case we don't give the "real" explanation behind this proposed ban (to defund the opposition to Putin, according to Bloomberg & Meduza).

So should these bans be instead in "Legal status, tax and regulation"?

But even there it's not obvious. 24 countries have, de facto or de jure, banned Bitcoin and most, if not all of them, citing "Economic concerns" and/or "Energy consumption and carbon footprint" and/or "Use in illegal transactions". Should we cite all these countries in the "Criticisms" section as well? Why would we only cite the Russian proposal?

Because of WP:NOTNP I also don't know how much weight we should give to these proposals and they could be moved to Legality of bitcoin by country or territory instead.

What's more, many bans target Bitcoin and all other cryptocurrencies (there are 17,000 cryptocurrencies as of Jan 22, Bitcoin represents ~40% of the total market cap): should the bans be mentioned on the Bitcoin article? Or the Cryptocurrency one? It seems to me it's like mentioning on Budweiser that it is banned in Saudi Arabia because all alcoholic beverages are banned there.

I don't know what the best solution would be. We could maybe in "Legal status, tax and regulation" after the list of countries where Bitcoin is banned add the list of jurisdictions considering a ban (EU and Russia at the moment for instance). And only mention in the Bitcoin article bans that are Bitcoin-focused? A455bcd9 (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Good questions. Personally I think we are going to see more and more questions of "global governance" if I can phrase it like that, the bans are probably a first step in a cycle of increasing regulatory and governmental activity on the non technical questions raised by crypto in general. So I agree with "Legal status, tax and regulation" or something of that sort as being an appropriate place but "regulations" does cover a lot of space.Selfstudier (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Overall, I feel like the "Legal status, tax and regulation" and "Criticisms" sections should be moved to Cryptocurrency (where the "Environmental impact" section links to... "Bitcoin § Energy consumption and carbon footprint"...) and/or Proof of work and/or Cryptocurrency and crime (and/or Environmental impact of cryptocurrencies). There's no reason to single out Bitcoin when regulations and criticisms target all cryptocurrencies (or at least all PoW cryptocurrencies). Looking at Ethereum, even though it's also (as of today) a PoW pseudonymous cryptocurrency with the same issues as Bitcoin (maybe not in the same propositions, but it's a difference of degree and not of nature), the words "legal", "tax", "crime", "energy", "carbon"... do not appear at all.

This situation is probably the legacy of the time when Bitcoin was the first and only cryptocurrency. Is it time to change it? A455bcd9 (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The parent cat is Cryptocurrenc(ies) and Legality of bitcoin by country or territory is in there. So, yes, as you say, a hangover from the early days. Selfstudier (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

What would be the best way to proceed to solve this apparent problem? Discuss in Talk:Cryptocurrency about moving stuff from Bitcoin to Cryptocurrency? A455bcd9 (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't see how anyone could object to that, leave a note on the talk page and set about moving stuff that is better there than here, because it applies generally and not just to Bitcoin specifically. If I get a chance, I'll help. Selfstudier (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Here it is: Talk:Cryptocurrency#Move some content from "Bitcoin" to "Cryptocurrency"

Thanks for your help! A455bcd9 (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Shall I move Legality of bitcoin by country or territory to Legality of cryptocurrency by country or territory? Selfstudier (talk) 14:09, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I think so as the lead explicitly says:

The legal status of bitcoin (and related crypto instruments) varies substantially from state to state and country to country, and is still undefined or changing in many of them. [...] While this article provides the legal status of bitcoin, regulations and bans that apply to this cryptocurrency likely extend to similar systems as well.

And in the article most regulations apply to all cryptocurrencies. A455bcd9 (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, I made that move.Selfstudier (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I'll wait a bit to get more feedback before transferring content from here to Cryptocurrency. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

A proposal for a new article: Environmental impact of Bitcoin

As the "Energy consumption and carbon footprint" section indicates, the topic is highly complex, is covered in many reputable sources, and is notable.

I would propose to create a new article Environmental impact of Bitcoin, and move most of the section to it (note: currently, the link is a redirect).

The article could be modeled after Environmental impact of wind power, Environmental impact of concrete, Environmental impact of nuclear power, etc. --Thereisnous (talk) 09:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Good idea. Should it be named Environmental impact of cryptocurrencies (or "cryptocurrency"?) instead? I believe there's a large overlap between the environmental impact of Bitcoin and the one of cryptocurrencies. And the article could also, provided we find reliable sources, distinguish proof-of-work cryptocurrencies from proof-of-stake.

Similarly, there is already Cryptocurrency and crime. A455bcd9 (talk) 09:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning, Environmental impact of cryptocurrencies is better. Thereisnous (talk) 14:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The topic of focus in the literature is more the energy consumption of cryptocurrency than the environmental impact itself. I think the article should thus focus on the energy consumption, but it could of course cover the resulting environmental impact. JBchrch talk 15:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

As I understand, the issue has at least 2 aspects. On one hand, cryptocurrencies consume gigantic amounts of energy. On the other hand, they help with the transition to renewable energy sources, thus partially or fully compensating for the spent energy. If we focus only on energy consumption, it would present a one-sided view of the complex topic. Thereisnous (talk) 15:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the literature has mostly focused on the energy consumption and the resulting environmental impact

However, in a letter sent to the Congress, several environmental NGOs also mentioned the issue of electronic waste (on this subject, see also: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921344921005103 ).

"Environmental impact of cryptocurrencies" could discuss both these issues (and others if possible). A455bcd9 (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree, electronic waste is also an important issue that deserves its own section in the new article. Thereisnous (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I've created the article Environmental impact of cryptocurrencies, and copied the contents of the "Energy consumption and carbon footprint" section there, as per the discussion above. Please feel free to edit the new article. Additionally, please feel free to replace the section's content with some concise summary. Thereisnous (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The original text didn't have any structure. In the new article, I've organized the text into temporary sections. I think we can discuss how to improve the article's structure on the talk page of the new article. Thereisnous (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

language

@JBchrch: you reverted Markus1423 edit that core is in C++. I think this is non-controversial and well known that Satoshi wrote it in C++. I am no expert on this, but that is at least what google is telling me coinbase & tnw. But I didnt find any wsj, or bloomberg quality sources that said that. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

[4] I'm finding it hard to find sources myself using "bitcoin"AND"c++". A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf Thanks for starting a discussion. Why can't I find this information in legit sources though? Narayanan et al. 2016, Antonopoulos 2017 and Shär 2020 give me nothing. Nothing on GBooks and GScholar (as shown by @A. C. Santacruz) as well. Even Coinbase qualifies the claim by saying the first version and TNW by saying Bitcoin mining (which would be consistent with Narayanan et al. 2016 and Antonopoulos 2017 saying that the software for nodes is written in C++). I don't think this information has been proven to be verifiable, unfortunately. JBchrch talk 14:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we can find something in bitcointalk(dot)org where satoshi himself said he wrote it in c++. Here is one by https://bitcointalk(dot)org/ index.php?topic=41718.0 in the forum (this would obviously not be an RS). I do think satoshi himself in bitcointalk(dot)org would be an RS for this subject. But again, it probably would not be suitable for the infobox at this point in time, we would be dealing with more a historic comment. I noticed bitcointalk.org is in the blacklist, I wonder why that is, I would think it would be ok for historical purposes? Certainly, as the only known evidence of Satoshi's own words, it is encyclopedic. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf user-generated content is not RS, whether it be someone going by the satoshi username or not. Please note that there is no urgency to add the c++ mention to the article, and I would prefer you finding a more water-tight reliable source than a web forum. I hope I don't sound dismissive, I just personally place a high burden of reliability in crypto articles due to how endemic scamming and misinformation is. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 10:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz: yes, I think we are in agreement here that there is no urgency. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf@A. C. Santacruz: The Bitcoin Core repo is pretty clear on what language it's written in, and not original research from what I know. If same burden is applied to Ethereum's page which lists 'Go, Rust, C#, C++, Java, Python'. Pretty fundamental to state implementation, particularly for Bitcoin where the design choice was clear and factors into some of its behaviour. "I'd rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - George S. Patton :: markus1423 (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we can use primary sources like github for non-controversial content. But maybe the other user that reverted the edit disagrees. And if there is a disagreement, then the onus falls on the person adding the content to find RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Given that this is an apparently important claim not covered by multiple mainstream sources I would say that we are in WP:REDFLAG territory and would expect to see some more solid, secondary sourcing on this. The best we can do with the github (and the sources I've referred to above) is to say that the client software is written in C++. There's maybe an argument that in decentralized systems the client software is all we have, and so the language of the client software would be the language of the crypto, I guess? But we are falling into OR territory here, which is why we need proper, unequivocal sourcing for the claim that "Bitcoin is written in C++". JBchrch talk 05:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Citation source about fiat money incorrect?

The current article says:

Satoshi Nakamoto stated in his white paper that: "The root problem with conventional currencies is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust."

Actually, this statement cannot be found in the Bitcoin whitepaper. Instead, as also the referenced "New York Times" article shows, the original source is not the whitepaper:

"In a 500-word essay that accompanied the code, Nakamoto suggested that the motive for creating bitcoin was anger at the financial crisis: “The root problem with conventional currencies is all the trust that’s required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust.” [New York Times Sunday Review]

I did not check whether the Nakamoto quote actually can be found in the 500-word essay as claimed by the NY Times.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Emundo (talk • contribs) 20:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks Emundo. JBchrch talk 22:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine and Bitcoin donations

Is it really WP:DUE to mention that Ukraine is accepting Bitcoin donations, especially in a section entitled "Adoption by governments", which might be quite misleading? BeŻet (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Not in my opinion, especially when keeping WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS in mind. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I've removed it for now. If anyone feels it needs to be added, let's discuss here first. BeŻet (talk) 11:43, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Several major outlets wrote it about, including Bloomberg News(1), UNIAN (2), CNBC(3), Yahoo News(4), CleanTechnica(5).

Additionally, WP:DUE is not applicable in this case. The section is listing all national governments that are using Bitcoin in some capacity. And for Wikipedia, all countries have the same weight. --Thereisnous (talk) 15:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The section talks about "adoption by government". Arguably, being open to crypto donations would not count as "adoption by government". WP:RECENTISM should be considered, even if there are a lot of outlets talking about it. Moreover, outlets writing about it could justify including this information in an article about the invasion, not in an article about Bitcoin. BeŻet (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The Ukrainian government adopted Bitcoin as a tool for donations. That's adoption. In the context of Bitcoin adoption, I can't think of any definition of the term "adoption" that excludes this.

Notable outlets write about it. And, as far as I know, Ukraine is the first country in the world to use Bitcoin to fund its military efforts. I see a clear historical importance, way beyond recent news. Thereisnous (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

You can't just insert the word "adoption" in a statement and use that as an argument. None of the sources use this language. BeŻet (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I think if the "adoption" word is changed to donations, the content is clearly DUE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

To me the content is DUE, perhaps the section name can be changed to "Use by Governments" Mkwia (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

+1 for "Use by governments". There are many reliable sources mentioning this event. By the way, the Ukrainian government also pays with crypto: "About 40% of the suppliers are willing to take crypto. The rest are typically paid with crypto converted into euros and dollars, he said."" https://time.com/6155209/ukraine-crypto/ A455bcd9 (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine just legalized crypto (source). Among other things, the new law will guarantee judicial protection of rights to virtual assets. Additionally, according to the same source, they've raised more than $54 million in crypto donations [that's a huge sum for Ukraine: 1% of the country's entire military spending]. Thereisnous (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I too today read it was not legal tender, but was rather some sort of alternative legalization. Might need to follow this and see when that starts. I recall when El Salvador added it as legal tender we also added it in the infobox, but I think Ukraine doesnt qualify for this treatment until if/when it becomes legal tender. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

As I understand, crypto in Ukraine is treated similar to stocks: as a citizen, you don't have the right to buy bread with stocks (not a legal tender), but you have the right to own stocks, to sue your bank if the bank failed to protect your ownership etc. I agree, no reason to add it to the infobox. We could mention it in the "Adoption by govs" / "Use by governments" section, together with the info on the donations for the military, and the use of crypto to buy military equipment Thereisnous (talk) 06:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Bitcoin is treated as property in many countries and we have an article Legality of cryptocurrency by country or territory for that already. Unless it is legal tender, we dont need anything special on this article. If it gets a lot of press for the war we can add it to the article body, but not the lede (without a lot more press than now). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Thereisnous (talk) 04:26, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

More info on Ukraine: the official e-governance service Diia is now integrated with a crypto exchange (source). Thereisnous (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I've implemented the changes proposed in this discussion. Please feel free to edit. Thereisnous (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 April 2022

you need to update the value of BTC mined. it currently stands at 19,010,313 as of now 49.182.133.167 (talk) 04:47, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is not a real time bitcoin value tracker. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I think they are referring to Circulating supply Mkwia (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Again, Wikipedia is not a real-time tracker for this. Wait till the next time an independent RS mentions the circulating supply, and we can update and cite to that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:36, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Fool.com or Indian Express are probably sufficient for this non-controversial claim. I suspect there are more decent sources of it crossing the 19M milestone. But we dont include a play by play of the block height on a daily basis, there are block explorers for that. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Legal tender

I think we need to add Prospera in section(of Infobox_cryptocurrency) of countries where Bitcoin is a legal tender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkeke (talk • contribs) 06:09, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Próspera isn't a country. And it isn't at all clear from the source cited that the "officials of the zone" making the announcement are in any position to decide what is or isn't legal tender in Honduras. The Honduran Central Bank certainly seems not to be endorsing this proposal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree with AndyTheGrump on this one. I will say that SEZs are a complete shitshow btw so we need to be careful how we treat them. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 08:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)A

This is why i edit wikipedia, because i find out these really interesting things such as a special economic zone in a different country that allows bitcoin. That is cool. But, i do side with others above that this doesnt seem to meet the criteria for legal tender of a nation, at least not yet. A little bit too current news on this one. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:35, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

If confirmed (but so far it seems to be mostly marketing) we should add Madeira:

• Bitcoin's agenda: 'regime' change: "Miguel Albuquerque, the president of Madeira, an autonomous archipelago of Atlantic islands within Portugal (pop. 250,000), announced that the region was making Bitcoin legal tender."
• Two New Territories Are Adopting Bitcoin: "Prospera, jurisdiction on the Roatán island off of the northern coast of Honduras, and Madeira, an autonomous region in Portugal, are adopting bitcoin as de facto legal tender—the latest territories to do so, following El Salvador’s official recognition of the asset in September 2021."
• Bitcoin 2022: Celebrity speakers and a replica volcano as conference tries to stop consumers using cash: "The city of Prospera in Honduras - and Madeira in Portugal - did reveal that they're planning to adopt Bitcoin." A455bcd9 (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Those are all indeed WP:RS and justify inclusion. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Again, Madeira isn't a country. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:02, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, i wouldnt support infobox inclusion if that is what being discussed here. But for body text in the 2022 area, might be interesting. A running dialogue as new countries (and these small city type things) support bitcoin is encyclopedic. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

You don't need to be a country to have a separate currency or recognize another one as legal tender. For instance French Polynesia, New Caledonia, and Wallis and Futuna aren't countries but have their own currency (the CFP franc and not the euro). Same for Hong Kong and Macau. Or British_Overseas_Territories#Currencies. But let's wait to have more reliable sources, for now it's quite unclear what Madeira announced. And in any case, it hasn't been enacted yet. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Good point! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Conflicting reports about the Central African Republic adopting Bitcoin as legal tender: Forbes. Some other RS just mention a crypto-regulation without any legal tender: RFI. A455bcd9 (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

There is some chatter on twitter that this is not really what it has been made up to be. Probably nothing, a false alarm for now. There is one maybe decent source (in French, and I cant read it, linkedin from this bitcoinist source). The bitcoinist is of course not an RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Seems official: https://twitter.com/stromens/status/1519191150699163649 A455bcd9 (talk) 11:36, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

RS (AFP): https://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/la-centrafrique-adopte-le-bitcoin-comme-monnaie-legale-20220427 A455bcd9 (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

@A455bcd9: We are unable to use the yahoo source that you added. The french source you added Le Figaro certianly looks legit. I still personally am concerned about the validity of the content and would argue for its removal from the infobox until we are sure it is true. I think we should err on the side of caution here as the WP:WEIGHT is excessive unless we editors are convinced it is true. Are you? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Here's the BBC [5]. Besides, the Yahoo article [6] is an Agence France Presse release, so it certainly can be used. Not taking any position on inclusion in the infobox, though. JBchrch talk 19:53, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Agree, BBC is a good source. Wonder if we have any of the normal finance RS, such as fortune, bloomberg, etc Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:21, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Not yet as far as I can tell, but in general American financial news outlets cover Africa very poorly. JBchrch talk 21:26, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

As said, the Yahoo article was an AFP release. Besides the BBC, other RS include: Reuters, Euronews, TRT, and TASS. A455bcd9 (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Bloomberg A455bcd9 (talk) 14:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Checks out. I'll add it to the article. — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 14:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh nvm it's already there. — Ixtal ⁂ (talk) 14:48, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

2010 (real) hard fork, similar to 2013

In 2010 a vunerability(CVE-2010-5139) was exploited in the Bitcoin protocol causing two different addresses to receive 92.2 billion bitcoins each. A fix in the formet of a new version of the client was published within five hours of the discovery that contained a fork to the consensus rules that rejected the problematic transactions and rolled back the transactions, this required the chain to split in two by a hard fork(as by en.wikipedia's definition), with newer versions not being compatible with previous versions, until the newer one eventually prevailed.

In 2013 another vunerability(CVE-2013-3220) was discovered and also required the chain to split by a hard fork, invalidating previous versions once again.

As the 2013 split was written about, it would also be of significance to mention the previous and first split too. Not to mention "it's the only major security flaw found and exploited in bitcoin's history".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by S1L3nTtttt (talk • contribs)

The 2010 event was actually a soft fork, as the newer version was compatible with the older version, and the older version accepted the newer version's blocks once the new chain was the longest. A hard fork is when the newer version's blocks are not at all valid for older versions. Roll 3d6 (talk) 18:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah I see, you're right. Misread it, sorry.

Still, the suggestion still stands. S1L3nTtttt (talk) 02:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Do we have a high quality source for this? We can't use bitcoin.it, nor can we use crypto blogs. But yes, it sounds encyclopedic. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

There's an excellent explanation of the 2010 split in History of bitcoin § 2010. In Bitcoin § History, though, I think just one sentence mentioning that it had occurred and was quickly fixed is enough. I don't think it's necessary to mention here the amounts (which were unable to be spent) or the specific mechanisms through which it was fixed. A separate heading for technical problems might be a good idea; the 2013 split may even have potential for an article. Roll 3d6 (talk) 21:13, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 May 2022

change Paul, Sam (talk) 10:23, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: not clear. - AwfulReader^(talk) 10:29, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Hal Finney

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hal_Finney_(computer_scientist) Hal Finney as the original founder of the Bitcoin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Web3 student (talk • contribs) 06:56, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

This concept is discussed at the Satoshi Nakamoto article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:RUMOR content

This edit seems unnecessary, may violate WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RUMOR. Mkwia (talk) 14:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Yup. Noting but vacuous boosterism. The source doesn't even say who these "professional athletes" are. I've deleted it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with a revert if the consensus deems it so, and even with the reference to WP:NOTNEWS etc., though I'd suggest we try and edit and edit than a wholesale revert. What I am less okay with is the description of the edit as, "Noting [sic] but vacuous boosterism." That part seemed a little harsh to me, and I'd request we try and keep the WP:CIV core pillar in mind. Thank you. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 18:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the typo. As for the rest, I was referring to the source, not the contributor. It was clearly written to promote cryptocurrencies in general, and Bitcoin in particular, while saying nothing of substance to back up its claims. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Unsure what could be salvaged about this topic, individuals getting payed in bitcoin doesn't seem DUE for this article, although I would reconsider if a source was able to verify specific high-profile cases, particularly in elected office. Mkwia (talk) 20:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

leak sub-section

@Asukite: I removed a sub-section you created and moved it here to talk for discussion.

Data leakage
In June 2022, a team of researchers published a paper (not yet peer-reviewed) claiming that data leaks existed in the pre-2011 version of the blockchain. The researchers claim to have identified that around 64 individuals mined the majority of Bitcoin that was created in 2009 and 2010, and even identified a couple of the individuals already publicly associated with the early addresses, including one person using the moniker "Dr. Evil", and Ross Ulbricht. According to researcher Erez Lieberman Aiden, "…Bitcoin has been through extensive changes since 2011! So some forms of data leakage may work less well now, and some may work better.”

While the subject is interesting, and maybe noteworthy for inclusion, we do have a sourcing consensus in place that this runs afoul of. We are not using low-quality sources on crypto articles, and we are including all cryptocurrency sites (such as coindesk) in that. I guess the non peer-reviewed source also is included in that group. The NYT source would be a good source, and I do recall other mention of this news as well. Maybe you can re-formulate it, or if we cannot create a whole section just move the NYT part into the chronology part (higher up in the article) as one sentence. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm unaware of this consensus, but I'm sure it's buried in the archives somewhere here for my perusal. I'm also sure that there is a way this can be included in some form, as it does seem to be relevant. This may not have been my best writing, but I'm open to suggestions about how we can improve it. As far as sources are concerned, would CNET, ZDNET and Gizmodo help? I see that they are considered as reliable for tech coverage per WP:RSP.

The paper itself isn't groundbreaking in my opinion, but it seems to have gained enough coverage to warrant inclusion in some form. ASUKITE 04:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, we are also not using contributor sources for cryptocurrency articles, so that rules out the zdnet source. But the CNET and Gizmodo both look fine to me. Yes, I think it can be included. Please take another stab, here, or in the mainspace, using the kosher sources. I dont think we will link to the non peer reviewed source, but we can summarize what was written about it in NYT, CNET, and Gizmodo. I would suggest one sentence during the chronology section, probably using NYT and CNET as those are the highest quality sources (my opinion). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Lede reorg

I have added a few choice nuggets from the criticism section to the lede to create a more balanced introduction to the topic that reflects to total content of the article (not just the pro-Bitcoin stuff). I think this is a significant improvement to neutrality. We should not restrict the negatives to a "Criticism" section deep in the article where it might be overlooked by the casual reader. Criticisms of Bitcoin have become increasingly significant and need to be reflected in the lede. Jehochman ^Talk 14:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm comfortable with that, regulation is likely to get stricter too.14:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC) Selfstudier (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I moved it back down. Your lede edits are WP:FALSEBALANCE and should be further summarized. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Two of us disagree with you, but feel free to consolidate the content I'm going to restore to lede. I'm fine with summarizing that material in the lede. I am not fine with removing it entirely. This is in no way a matter of false balance. As is becoming clearer each passing day, Bitcoin is primarily a mania, not a financial asset. Jehochman ^Talk 23:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't go that far, it is fair to say that the levels of volatility exclude it from a conservative investment portfolio. Selfstudier (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Jehochman: You are seeking to push the ponzi, criticism, good/bad investment thesis POVs. There is no logical reason why one section is upweighted to the extent your are pushing, which you continue in your WP:RGW talk page comments above. Maybe some other editors will chime in. The 'his pet theory is better than her pet theory' argument is all a waste of energy and we can cover it in the body to some extent and summarize in the lede to a lessor extent, but your idea to put it at maximum weight in the lede is not even remotely NPOV and suggesting it is, is simply RGW & falsebalance. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:22, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Right now, the first paragraph of the lede is less about what Bitcoin is and more about how it is perceived, mainly by its critics. I don't think it's a good beginning for the article. Also, "primarily a mania, not a financial asset" sounds like non-NPOV. Bitcoin is primarily a technology, in my opinion. Vgbyp (talk) 07:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

We have to start by saying what it is. This basic fact is disputed quite seriously by reliable sources. Some think it’s a digital currency (meaning liquid asset, stable value) and more think it’s a mania or a scam or some of each. We have to expose all these views proportionally to present the reader with an answer to, “What is this?”

How it works (or doesn’t) is of secondary importance. Jehochman ^Talk 11:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

As much as I agree with the criticisms of Bitcoin I do agree the current lead is unencyclopedic. However I also do not agree with the proposed wording by Jehochman as it starts off too technical for many readers. I'll propose other wording soon and see what y'all think. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 11:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I think you might have confused my position with somebody else's, but that doesn't really matter. The lede must start by answering the question, "What is this?" If there are multiple answers, we should represent them proportionally. After that question is answered, we can then proceed to a high level summary of how it works, its history, and whatever other subtopics the article goes on to develop. Jehochman ^Talk 12:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Re "What is this?" I agree with pointing up the potential bubble aspect, that's notable for sure. I am not so sure that the Ponzi stuff is that relevant and isn't it the case that there are some governments, agencies and others intent on embracing these technologies? That's the flip side and ought to be in there as well for balance. Selfstudier (talk) 13:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree the Ponzi stuff is minor relative to Bitcoin. It may be more relevant to some of the NFT projects, but that's not the topic at hand. I think it's fine to point out which governments have attempted to adopt Bitcoin as legal tender. Those decisions are significant (though perhaps badly in error, but time will tell). Jehochman ^Talk 13:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I have undone the mention of negative coverage in the first paragraph [7]. Even then, the current state (as of the previous diff) gives a very heavy weight to the negative opinions of about the economics of Bitcoin which, frankly, does not reflect how Bitcoin is commonly presented in the reliable sources, including the academic publications and the government reports. Off my bookshelf, I can mention the preface to the MIT Press textbook on crypto [8], which begins with "The most important contribution in monetary economics in the twenty-first century is the paper 'Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System'." If you want to check out what a good negative introduction looks like, check out the G7 report on stablecoins [9], which states "The first wave of cryptoassets, of which Bitcoin is the best known, have so far failed to provide a reliable and attractive means of payment or store of value. They have suffered from highly volatile prices, limits to scalability, complicated user interfaces and issues in governance and regulation, among other challenges. Thus, cryptoassets have served more as a highly speculative asset class for certain investors and those engaged in illicit activities rather than as a means to make payments." This is the kind of sophisticated discourse we should be aiming for, rather than the current ab auctoritate name-dropping of northeastern American academics who—it should be reminded—do not have a monopoly on knowledge. JBchrch talk 18:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more, especially with the name-dropping. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 19:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree & in an article of this size we dont need all the details, names, and quotes in the lede. This can be summarized and the reader can go to the section (and this particular case there is even a sub-article). Criticisms of bitcoin are too vast to attempt to cover in the lead other than a summary. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:25, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

If you can source that statement, or similar statements, that may be an improvement. I agree that it's a bit weird to point out the opinions of these prominent experts, rather than citing to some sort of reliable publication that pre-synthesizes for us (since we should not do WP:SYNTH). For the moment we should just be careful that the reader understands that Bitcoin has serious risks. Thank you.Jehochman ^Talk 21:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure, that's OK, for now. There has been a lot of recent developments, might be worth going through the article again, are criticisms of bitcoin really that "vast" (so as to completely outweigh the approval of)? Selfstudier (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, they are that vast. Wikipedia strongly favors independent sources. The majority of reliable, independent sources which discuss Bitcoin's economics in any depth are skeptical of Bitcoin's economics. There are a lot of reasons for this skepticism. Also, this skepticism applies to both Satoshi's beliefs and claims for what Bitcoin would be and how it would work, but also how Bitcoin has been used in practice more recently. Grayfell (talk) 21:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, then Jehochman wasn't really in error for highlighting that up front, was he? All that was missing afaics was the pro-side in due proportion. Selfstudier (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

There are risks in all types of investments. There is a whole section on it and the name dropping in the lede and putting it in the second sentence is all RGW. If people invest in bitcoin and get burned it is not the responsibility of wikipedia nor its editors. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:28, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe I said that WP should be responsible for such, nor do I care myself whether investors get burned. I merely said that price volatility (a constant feature till now) rendered the asset unsuitable for a conservative investment portfolio which the section on volatility manages not to mention, instead focusing on hedge funds attempting to profit from it and as for the section "As an investment", the less said the better. Selfstudier (talk) 22:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

We are discussing if content is WP:DUE for inclusion in the WP:LEDE. We can only cover things that we have sources for, if you can find something that says it is not suitable for some portfolio types, then include it in that section. I know at one point in time we included that Buffett thought it was rat poison, that is pretty much the same in my book. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:19, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Since the discussion seems to have stopped I have moved the cites back down to article body and summarized in the lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

You can move them back up now :) Selfstudier (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The lede summarizes, refer to wikipedia policy. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm familiar, thanks, 20K edits , you pick up a few things. Selfstudier (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting you know better than to do that. Refrain from pushing your WP:RGW here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Your POV editing is self evident.Selfstudier (talk) 09:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

First Line: Bitcoin isn't a currency

This article is wrong in that it immediately calls bitcoin a currency. Currencies are used by courts to discharge civil disputes, by governments to collect taxes, by businesses to issue payroll. Bitcoin is, at best, a security. It's not a currency, and wikipedia shouldn't list it as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:AB10:85A0:F964:FE32:93DC:2E03 (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

'Digital currency' isn't the same as 'currency'. Moreover, it can be argued that Bitcoin is a currency because it is a legal tender in at least one country (El Salvador). Vgbyp (talk) 07:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

It appears false that El Salvador is using bitcoin in reality - outside of pro-crypto propogandists and bukele's tweets, citizens trade with dollars. https://www.protocol.com/newsletters/protocol-fintech/el-salvador-bitcoin-problems?rebelltitem=5#rebelltitem5 2600:1700:AB10:85A0:B439:A9B5:2671:858E (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't see where the cited source proves that Bitcoin isn't a legal tender in El Salvador. It says that its use isn't widespread, but that's a completely different point. Vgbyp (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I think if a president claims it's used, but citizens do not use it, and even those that appear to be using it are actually using a new virtual currency inside the Chivo ecosystem that is not actually moving bitcoins (hence no transaction fees), then El Salvador is not using bitcoin. 2600:1700:AB10:85A0:2038:CC30:C368:74B9 (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The claims of using or not using are irrelevant. The Bitcoin is either a legal tender in El Salvador or it isn't a legal tender there - there is no third option here. Existing RS support the statement that it is indeed a legal tender. Vgbyp (talk) 08:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

by your argument, it's true that Kim Jong Un shot an 18 stroke round of golf - since all that matters is that he said so, not that it actually happened. 2600:1700:AB10:85A0:C5CF:8496:5DB3:C1D (talk) 13:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

No, that's not "by my argument". The fact that Bitcoin is a legal tender in El Salvador is confirmed by reliable sources. Vgbyp (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

IP address editor, no we are not going to remove the content because WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

We would require WP:RS to promote this WP:POV. If you read the article you will note that Switzerland some places allow tax payments in it, as well as two countries have adopted as legal tender. The WP:LEDE summarizes the article, and doesnt introduce new theories (in this case the security theory that has started to be proposed in the past month or so in the US). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

This is fair. because journalists are bad at recognizing scams, it is encyclopedic to cite many articles that wrongly believe bitcoin is currency. It will take time for the truth to become encyclopedic. This is disappointing, but within the good rules Wikipedia uses. 2600:1700:AB10:85A0:B439:A9B5:2671:858E (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

TBH from my understanding consensus in academia backs the security theory (or neighbors), but I'd have to dig through some dources to back that up. Until then, RS consensus is on the digital currency term. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 15:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

We give due WP:WEIGHT already to the academic opinion in this article, for example all the nobel prize winners that consider it to be a scam. Very few (if any) high quality mainstream sources (eg WSJ, Bloomberg, FT, etc) refer to it as a security. I think it is doubtful that we would use a number of academic sources to over-ride mainstream description. But maybe we could create a security theory section to the article an then IFF it fully develops into a proper section, we add it to the lede. But insertion of pet theories into the lede without first developing a full section in the body is not something I would support, nor would WP:LEDE support this. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think it's worth adding to the lead nor was I suggesting that. I will say, though, that merely calling something a scam is not very informative as to how the scam works. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 13:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

In the past the some editors want to give more weight to the various economists that refer to it as a Ponzi scam, where I think the term Ponzi is quite descriptive. I dont think we have seen much in depth analysis of the bitcoin ponzi (if such a thing exists) it is mostly just economists saying it is one. But i could be wrong, maybe there are some in depth studies of people making a more in depth argument that bitcoin is a ponzi. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Countless RS on this page refer to bitcoin as a currency, and further, it is clearly a currency by a common sense understanding of the word 'currency.'

Also, from the Currency page:

"A currency is a standardization of money in any form, in use or circulation as a medium of exchange"

And from the Money page:

"Money is any item or verifiable record that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services and repayment of debts"

Not only am I quite happy with these common sense definitions, and not only do they clearly describe bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, but, again, the vast majority of RS call bitcoin a currency. If one particular economist has his own particular definition of "birds" which excludes penguins for some reason, we can mention it as a curiosity on the Bird page, but such a claim goes against both the academic and the common English consensus on what a bird is, and we are not going to rewrite the entire Penguin page to phrase it like penguins are not birds. Joe (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Bitcoin at this point in time is clearly a currency in some countries and meets all definitions. If there is there is a debate in the RS if it is or isnt a currency, that could make an interesting section. But we are not going to change WP:LEDE based on WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT. Remember the LEDE summarizes, not introduces new concepts (especially important in an article of this length). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

No mention of COLDCARD anywhere

Surprising that there is no mention of this device anywhere on Wikipedia 38.133.22.196 (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Ledger, KeepKey and Trezor also aren't mentioned in this article, nor should they be. Beyond general explainations about hardware wallets this article should not be used to promote any particular vendor in my view. Mkwia (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

We do already link to Cryptocurrency wallet. First we can include those wallets at that sub-article and if any are super noteworthy, then can be included here. Note I would think that to be super noteworthy we would need that wallet to be associated to a major event (eg Joe Biden was promoting his ledger, or Donald Trump was caught with a Coldcard falling out of his pants). My comments are just examples and could be anything, but needs to be super noteworthy (widespread coverage in mainstream press) to get included here at this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf would the BLOCKCLOCK classify here, given the widespread coverage it received during the US Congressional hearings when interviewing Jack Dorsey?

- [10]https://www.techtimes.com/articles/258423/20210326/jack-dorsey-bitcoin-clock-shows-twitter-congress-hearing-blockclock-mini-crypto-social-media.htm

- [11]https://www.newsweek.com/surging-bitcoin-boosts-profits-jack-dorseys-square-1589697

- [12]https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/25/22350705/jack-dorsey-bitcoin-clock-house-hearing-blockclock-mini

- [13]https://gizmodo.com/heres-the-weird-clock-on-jack-dorseys-kitchen-counter-1846553535 38.133.22.196 (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, this coverage might be sufficient (maybe) to create an article. But I think it will need to be more than one event other than just Jack. Are there a few different times blockclock has been mentioned in the press? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Just a note to say that the IP address geolocates to Montreal, Canada. I belive CoinKite is headquartered there. Keep in mind potential WP:COI when considering mentioning specific products on the Bitcoin article. Mkwia (talk) 13:45, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! FYI, if this is coinkite, I would suggest to create a wikipedia account so we can communicate with you. You are not prohibited from editing, but do need to note WP:COI. You could assist us with creating a coinkite or coldcard wikipedia article. First step is to find the mentions in the high quality sources, say 4-6 different mentions would often be sufficient. Things like wsj, nyt, fortune, bloomberg, etc. Coindesk, theblock, etc are all not acceptable. Here is an example of a COI editor that interfaced with us in the proper manner (fully disclosed) and we were happy to help, see this talk page Talk:Blockchain.com... Feel free to ping me for assitance. You can also create a draft page in your sandbox (after you create an account) and we can discuss it. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Linear chart misrepresents investments

Under the History -> "2020–present" section, the linear Bitcoin price chart is misleading. It makes it seem as if Bitcoin's price made very little movement until just recently. The logarithmic chart under Economics -> "Price and volatility" is the more accurate way to represent price changes over long periods. It should simply be copied to the first section, but I'm not able to edit this article. Thanks! Scott Teresi (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Security

I'm surprised there's no "Security" section.

One of the most important features of Bitcoin is that it is a push-based financial system. In tranditional finance transactions, you give your private keys to a merchant and hope they don't make a mistake in the transaction (eg overcharge you accidentally) or malicious (eg sell your credit card data). If they do, you have to dispute the charges.

In bitcoin, you never give your private keys to the merchant (pull). You *send* money to them (push). This is a fundemental paradigm shift from traditional finance to cryptocurrency finance. And one of the key design decisions by Satoshi was to prevent transaction rollbacks and all of the unnecessary waste.

Can we add a section describing how traditional finance uses a "pull" transaction system and bitcoin uses a "push" transaction system. I couldn't find anything on all of wikipedia that describes these two fundamentally different transaction models.

More info here https://www.coincenter.org/education/crypto-regulation-faq/how-are-payments-with-bitcoin-different-than-credit-cards/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltfield (talk • contribs) 10:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)