Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 38

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Ponzi scheme

The lead section mentions that "journalists, economists, investors, and the central bank of Estonia have voiced concerns that bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme". This claim is backed by three sources from 2014 which is a relatively long time ago (bitcoin was much smaller and less known back then) and one article from 2017 citing billionaire Howard Marks who has since retracted his claims. There have been good refutations arguing that bitcoin doesn't fit that definition, and it doesn't take more than reading the first paragraph of Ponzi scheme to see why. Unless this claim can be backed by more recent reliable sources, I don't think it should be in the lead section. (In contrast, bitcoin being a speculative bubble is a widely and repeatedly cited claim so that should definitely stay.) AVDLCZ (talk) 00:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the problem here. The article doesn't claim it's a ponzi scheme, but cites reliable sources who have discussed whether or not it is. The article even notes that some have come to the conclusion that it is not. That's the problem exactly? - Aoidh (talk) 00:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)See my comment below Aoidh (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The WP:WEIGHT given in the WP:LEDE is probably WP:UNDUE as AVDLCZ points out. This was added a few months ago on a user pushing a particular POV it seems, who was very interested in this being in the lede and not just the article body. I think it is discussed above on this talk page. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry, I completely missed the word "lead" above and thought it was talking about where it discussed the ponzi stuff later in the article. I completely agree that the ponzi scheme wording in the lede is WP:UNDUE. Even just going by weight of text/sources in the article, there's no reason for the lede of the article to mention something so minor, it gives a disproportionate amount of weight to those claims, when they are not that prevalent. I do think the content about it later in the article text itself belongs, but not in the lede certainly. - Aoidh (talk) 19:18, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Because it seems to be giving too much weight to an issue which is neither true nor noteworthy enough. Vgbyp (talk) 11:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The increased attention of regulators and market conditions means that the topic is getting a lot of press, with comment for/against on both sides. I don't think that people making the Ponzi analogy are necessarily relying on any technical definition as such, just a "built on sand" type argument. Given the coverage, the fact of the debate is worth a brief mention in a lead, but in the lead of Cryptocurrency perhaps, its not just Bitcoin. Selfstudier (talk) 11:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I imagine we can find a better, more encyclopedic manner of describing the Ponzi concerns in the lead with better and more recent sources. Time (especially the recent crash) has not reduced concerns of its enrichment-through-others-misfortune structure. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 19:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Please detail the recent additional ponzi scheme press. This article subject is bitcoin, not cryptocurrency. Bitcoin is only one of many cryptocurrencies and is not a catch all article everything crypto. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:11, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 July 2022

Where it says "... have adopted Bitcoin as legal tender, ..." an link can be added to relevant Wikipedia article at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender Dilum Bandara (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

We have a link down farther in the article already. We dont link every instance of a word. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:48, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 August 2022

Change

Legal status, tax and regulation

Further information: Legality of bitcoin by country or territory

to

Legal status, tax and regulation

Further information: Legality of bitcoin by country or territory

On 22 October 2015, the European Court of Justice ruled that bitcoin transactions would be exempt from Value Added Tax. Alcuin MacAlcuin (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Done, i have made the changes. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Clarify origin of energy consumption analysis

I suggest to add some information to a sentence in the section "Energy consumption and carbon footprint", to clarify the origin of one of the analysis.

The current text reads:

One study done by Michael Novogratz's Galaxy Digital claimed that bitcoin mining used less energy than the traditional banking system.

And I suggest adding the kind of business in between parenthesis:

One study done by Michael Novogratz's Galaxy Digital (a cryptocurrency investment firm) claimed that bitcoin mining used less energy than the traditional banking system.

This extra information is in the cited source: https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/bitcoin-mining-environment-climate-crypto-b1849211.html

Cheers

Chtfn (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Issues with Electronic Waste section

The references supporting the Electronic Waste section are all based on a single paper by Alex de Vries & Christian Stoll and the WP:SPS WP:BLOG "hobby site" Digiconomist.net, which is solely run by de Vries. De Vries is WP:COISOURCE and currently employed by De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB), otherwise known as the Dutch central bank. DNB is collaborating with the European Central Bank on a "Digital Euro" or Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), which is expected to compete against Bitcoin as a payment rail and store of value. DNB also facilitates central bank Real-time gross settlement of transactions, which Bitcoin was specifically designed to disrupt, without the need for central banks. De Vries publishes his “Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index” on his WP:SPS WP:BLOG Digiconomist.net. The index was first published in November 2016, which coincides with his first round of employment with DNB — giving the appearance that DNB encouraged (and continues to encourage) his critique of Bitcoin’s energy consumption. DNB is now promoting his research, which underscores the WP:COISOURCE. He is effectively a paid opposition researcher. Because Digiconomist.net is a "hobby site" WP:SPS WP:BLOG and entirely run by WP:COISOURCE de Vries, it cannot be considered a WP:RS for a reliable estimate.

Additionally, the claim of a Bitcoin transaction generating the waste equivalent of an iPhone is also a false equivalence — iPhones have batteries with toxic materials in them, whereas Bitcoin ASICs have no batteries and are mostly made of aluminum, which has economic value and can be easily recycled. De Vries' "per transaction" estimate is also misleading as it excludes transactions from the Lightning Network, which can potentially batch hundreds of thousands or millions of retail payments into a single on-chain transaction.

De Vries' co-author, Christian Stoll, is also WP:COISOURCE. Stoll is a co-founder of the Crypto Carbon Ratings Institute (CCRI), a for-profit company founded in April 2021 that sells data on the carbon exposure of cryptocurrency investments and related business activities. The company makes its money by writing carbon accounting reports that are commissioned by "green" Proof-of-Stake cryptocurrencies that use those reports to advertise eco-friendly investments as an alternative to Bitcoin. Stoll's company profits by exaggerating Bitcoin's environmental footprint to sell alternative "green" cryptocurrenices.

Furthermore, the de Vries & Stoll paper is a model based on two weak assumptions: 1) That mining equipment is instantly thrown out when mining equipment becomes unprofitable. And 2) that mining equipment instantly and permanently becomes unprofitable after 1.29 years. This is easily refuted by on-chain data, which has shown 7-year old Bitmain S7 mining machines being used on the Bitcoin network (usually in renewable energy markets where rates can temporarily go negative during curtailment). The paper does not attempt to verify the veracity of these two assumptions with real world data and the conclusions do not match industry filings and research. For example, Galaxy Digital estimates that a "cautious" and "conservative" depreciation schedule for ASIC mining equipment is at least 3-years, perhaps longer. Marathon Digital, one of the largest North American miners, estimates 5 year life spans for their equipment in SEC filings, which are required to be disclosed, by law. De Vries & Stoll made no attempt to source real world data from the industry.

Even when ASIC mining rigs become unprofitable, they can be used in deregulated markets with negative wholesale prices. Finally, even if you were to believe the de Vries & Stoll model and its assumptions, Bitcoin would still only account for an 0.05% of global e-waste if none of it was recycled. This all highly dubious. There is no actual evidence presented, anywhere, of real electronic waste from mining.

I would recommend that the Electronic Waste section be removed for not providing any actual evidence of a problem, being entirely based on WP:COISOURCE, sourcing an WP:SPS WP:BLOG, ignoring real world data and observations, and exaggerating an impact that applies to any and all technology. JamesPem (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

In this talk section you are attempting to introduce WP:OR to discredit the reliability of sources in a way that is not appropriate even on a Wikipedia talk page.

Regardless of how Digiconomist originally started, it has since been cited by other reliable sources, and has a positive reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. which is, at least at a basic level, the main criteria for a reliable source. So the claim that because he may be employed at a bank he there for must automatically have such an extreme conflict of interest that he is no longer reliable at all is not supported. It also undermines your own position here. Without a source directly saying this, this claim is bordering on being a WP:BLP-violating conspiracy theory.

To briefly respond to the parts worth responding to, being involved with economics and banking is not a conflict of interest for these schemes, in much the same way that working for a legitimate hospital is not a conflict of interest when discussing quack medicine, even if that quack medicine supposedly "competes" with legitimate medicine. One of the ways sources become reliable is by demonstrating their expertise. This is one example of that.

As for the bit about ASICs, if you are concerned about COI sources and reliability, citing a tweet from an executive at a cryptocurrency analytics firm, and then also an 'estimate' from a company which sells "investment" services to miners is... ironic, to put it politely. Citing a report from Marathon is very odd, too. Mining companies pretty famously use technicalities in depreciation rules to over-state their long-term profitability. Don't agree? That's fine, but that's why we would need a reliable, independent source supporting their claims. None of the sources you have cited are reliable in this context. Grayfell (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

"when discussing quack medicine". This is not WP:NPOV and should be avoided as an example. De Vries is employed by De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB), the central bank of the Netherlands government. It states this right in his paper. Furthermore, De Vries has been widely criticized for his WP:COISOURCE.. De Vries also has no professional or academic expertise in electronic waste or energy, which would be a requirement for WP:BLOG references.

Stoll has been criticized for running a company that publishes paid reports commissioned by altcoin companies that compete against Bitcoin ("altcoins" by definition compete against Bitcoin). This COI was disclosed in a recent paper. Again, this is the exact definition of WP:COISOURCE. Neither De Vries nor Stoll can be considered WP:IS due to these COIs.

Per WP:COISOURCE, income sources must be considered: "The peer-review process does not guarantee independence of a source. Journal policies on conflicts of interest vary. Caution is needed on topics with large commercial interests at stake, where controversy may be manufactured, and genuinely controversial topics where there may be a great deal of honest debate and dissent. Much scientific research is funded by companies with an interest in the outcome of the experiments, and such research makes its way into peer-reviewed journals. For example, pharmaceutical companies may fund research on their new medication Pax-Luv. If you are a scientist doing research funded by the manufacturer of Pax-Luv, you may be tempted (or pressured) into downplaying adverse information about the drug; resistance may lose you your funding." I fail to see why we would ignore these two blatant examples of WP:COISOURCEs and not use caution here.

Digiconomist WP:BLOG was previously warned against in this Talk page and its validity was discussed by @Jtbobwaysf: in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_236#digiconomist. I do not see why it would be included now. JamesPem (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC) JamesPem (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I would also add that the Digiconomist WP:SPS WP:BLOG was criticized in a Joule commentary by researchers, including Stoll, for employing a model that exaggerates Bitcoin's impact.. "Digiconomist applies a top-down approach (which has been criticized for potential overestimating in the past)." (Stoll co-authored this paper prior to founding his WP:COISOURCE company). The researchers cite a detailed critique of Digiconomist, written by Marc Brevand, including a correspondence between Brevand and de Vries. Brevand is an expert on the subject matter — he peer-reviewed Cambridge University's Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index.. De Vries ignored Brevand's critiques, concerns and questions. This is evidence that Digiconomist does not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," which is a requirement for a WP:RS. JamesPem (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Associated ideologies : Globalism

https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1481911/FULLTEXT01.pdf مهدی بهرامی مطلق (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

This appears to be a paper written for an undergraduate class. It is not reliable. Grayfell (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Never Have So Many Words Said so Little

The article is written to an audience who at least understands something about the topic already. Someone like me, who is completely bitcoin clueless yet is highly educated and intelligent, cannot make hide nor hair of it. The explanations of terms assume some understanding of the topic. Links to other pages that define the terms within the topic also assume some foreknowledge of the topic. Sure, I know that bitcoin is kept track of on a public ledger called a blockchain. But, I have no concept of a bitcoin, a blockchain, or WTF a public ledger is or how it all works. Unfortunately, I have zero ability to fix the article because I have zero knowledge about what gives.There can be only one...TheKurgan (talk) 10:25, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, but it's not an easy problem to fix, for a few reasons. My explanation of the underlying problem is that being confusing isn't a bug, it's a feature.

The distributed ledger is just a ledger (or database, or spreadsheet) that is stored online in a very redundant and inefficient way. This inefficiency is an attempt to prevent any one party from taking control of it. That ledger stores a series of transactions which are computationally difficult, and therefor energy intensive and expensive. Bitcoins are these entries. Buying bitcoin is just buying control over a ledger entry.

Reliable sources rarely try to explain these fundamentals. This is partly because they are largely unrelated to the reason most people care about bitcoin in the first place. That reason is speculation. In other words, people spend money and resources for these ledger entries under the assumption that they will be able to sell them later. While the article is hampered by poor sources, there is still a huge amount of room for improvement. Grayfell (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Add CAR as second country

I suggest to add a sentence right after the El Salvador sentence in the section "Use by governments"(ending with fn 261):

In April 2022, the Central African Republic was the first country in Africa and the second globally to adopt Bitcoin as legal tender.

Two sources to add as footnotes:

https://www.reuters.com/world/africa/central-african-republic-adopts-bitcoin-an-official-currency-2022-04-27/

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-61248809 Digisus (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I've added the mention using the two sources we have for a similar mention in the History section. Vgbyp (talk) 09:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Good call. Having these in the 'history' section seems like it was causing some confusion, so I've tried to consolidate more of this in the 'use by governments' section. Since we already have a History of bitcoin article that sections seems like it should be the shorter one to me. Some redundancy is probably a good thing for a longer article, but striking a balance is tough. Grayfell (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Proposed update

The article currently mentions that the Wikimedia Foundation began accepting donations in Bitcoin, but it doesn't mention that this is no longer true. This is an easy fix, but since was one of the many dozens of editors who commented on the Wikimedia proposal, I suppose I have a WP:COI, so I'm proposing an update here, first:

In May 2022, following a vote by Wikipedia editors the previous month, the Wikimedia Foundation announced it would no longer accept donations in Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies.

This could either be placed in chronological order or directly after the original sentence mentioning the 2014 decision. If someone else wants to add this or something similar, that would be good, or if nobody objects I will assume that's enough consensus for me to add it later. Grayfell (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added this at the end of the History section, but mentioned the 2014 event to provide some context. Vgbyp (talk) 08:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks. Grayfell (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

This is interesting, where wikipedia itself is the news and that is covered in wikipedia mainspace. Can we wikilink to the discussion Wikimedia proposal in the bitcoin article? Not super important, but I thought I would ask. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia comes to mind as an example where Wikipedia's internal discussions are cited as primary sources. That's mainly for convenience, though, as reliable secondary sources do all the heavy lifting there. In that case, it was the central point of the article, whereas in this case it's a couple of sentences as part of a much longer time-line. Grayfell (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

In this particular case we link to Wikipedia, why not link to the discussion itself? Do you consider the discussion to be encyclopedic? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:38, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I think wikilinking to the discussion from that sentence would be a good idea. Vgbyp (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Including a link as a citation is fine, but I do not think this is an appropriate use of Wikilinks. For one thing, Wikimedia.org is not the same as Wikipedia. Basically, it's just another website, so it should not be treated differently from any other WP:EL simply because the formatting makes it easier to do so. For another Wikipedia is not reliable source, nor is this an impartial source in this case. Secondary sources help preserve neutrality and due weight. Including this primary source as a wikilink would be encouraging readers to bypass reliable sources, which defeats the point. Third, it is very rare to link to non-namespace pages from the body of mainspace articles. Per WP:PLA we should avoid surprising readers in this way unless we have a good reason. Grayfell (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

What about something like this? I dont think linking to wikipedia is an external link. Nor am I proposing removing the RS. In this circumstance we have RS covering a wikipedia action. For me it is nice to show the democratic process of wikipedia. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:55, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

While I'm proud of Wikipedia, and also appreciative of the Wikimedia foundation, I think a light touch is called for here. Per WP:EL, we should not include external links in the body of the article. For that edit, the discussion was an external link. While it is also possible to format it as an internal link (per Help:Interwiki linking) to the Wikimedia site, the discussion wouldn't be included at all without context from other citations, so I think it would be better to include it with those citations instead.

There are more sources out there, also. I chose a couple because they were a relatively convenient way to add an update to the 2014 paragraph, not because they are comprehensive. Maybe other sources could be used to provide more context. That might change the weight. Grayfell (talk) 02:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Updating the Lede Section

Hi guys, I was thinking we should update the Lede section to include the recent widespread acceptance of Bitcoin. The lede reads a tad critical to me, in particular with the sentence "Bitcoin has been described as an economic bubble by at least eight Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences recipients.", taking it from section 11.1. I feel we should have a sentence that balances this statement, such as some general facts from section 7.5, which is even longer than section 11.1 and more recent. Something to indicate to the reader that it has had its critics but it also has some very big supporters as well. Just my 2 cents. I'll let you guys handle it from here. (First edit!) Artimaeus Creed (talk) 01:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

This is here are there are a few editors that feel it is necessary for WP:NPOV. It is probably WP:FALSEBALANCE, however I think there is broad support that wikipedia fall on the negative side of NPOV on this one so as not to be seen promoting the article's subject. Not everyone at wikipedia supports bitcoin, far from it in fact. Its up to the reader in this case to make their own opinion. But yes, to a reader the stand alone sentence that makes up its own paragraph, does appear to stand out in a strange away. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:49, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The current lead does a relatively poor job of summarizing the entire body of the article, but as a placeholder until that's fixed, the Nobel line is a useful summary of the mainstream view of the topic. If anyone has any reliable sources for this recent widespread acceptance of Bitcoin please present them. No reliable source I have seen recently has made any such claim, nor does this seem likely, tbh. Grayfell (talk) 07:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Excerpting Environmental impact of bitcoin

If no one has any objection I am thinking of copying the "environmental impact" section to the lead of Environmental impact of bitcoin which is much too short, and excerpting back to here. And this might make the 2 articles easier to keep up to date in future. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I think I waited a reasonable number of days for comments so I did it Chidgk1 (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Greenhouse gas emissions statement in the lede

The addition to the lede of the statement on the bitcoin mining emissions seems meaningless to me. The statement can be applied to just any industry. E.g., "Because not all angle bending uses low carbon electricity it worsens climate change by emitting greenhouse gases." In my opinion, this statement has to be either removed or changed to be encyclopedic. Vgbyp (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Many, many reliable sources emphasize this aspect of bitcoin mining, and Wikipedia summarizes reliable source. If anything, the paragraph is an understatement. Per reliable sources, bitcoin is extraordinarily wasteful, and I have added a bit of context to explain why. Grayfell (talk) 22:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not arguing whether bitcoin mining is a wasteful industry or not. My point was that statements that we include in the article should have some meaning. A statement that can be applied to nearly any human activity isn't encyclopedic. Now, with the clarification that its environmental impact is significant (according to the provided source), it makes the statement worthy of inclusion. Vgbyp (talk) 09:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I see. Yes, it is vague. Part of the difficulty is that any comparison to other industries (or just basic activities like angle bending) is going to be incomplete or misleading. Other industries are cost-incentivized to waste as few resources as possible. By design, bitcoin is less energy efficient than conventional finance, which is the only category it directly competes with. With bitcoin and other proof-of-work schemes, consuming electricity is specifically incentivized by adjustments to difficulty, so it is not in the same category of wastefulness as angle bending or farming or credit card transactions or any other industry. Grayfell (talk) 00:47, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it is correct to say that "consuming electricity is specifically incentivized" in PoW schemes. Miners are incentivized to use as little electricity as possible by electricity costs. PoW only incentivizes increased computer processing power. Electricity consumption normally increases with the computer processing power, but miners are incentivized to decrease the consumption per unit of power. However, this has little to do with the issue at hand. As I have said, if we have the RS that is saying that the greenhouse gas emissions are significant and this 'significance' is mentioned in the article, then it is fine by me. Vgbyp (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

With manufacturing or finance, the output is tied to the market's demand for those services much more directly than it is with bitcoin, since there is no algorithm which artificially makes new production less efficient than old production. When a bitcoin mining consortium figures out a way to use less electricity per unit, they are still incentivized, by the algorithm itself, to use all the electricity available to them. This is different from other industries. The act of processing a credit card transaction doesn't directly increase the cost of the next transaction, for example. Indirectly, sure, maybe, but bitcoin isn't exempt from those externalities, either, so this isn't an excuse.

There's also the related issue that any energy consumed must be weighed against what's actually being accomplished. With the beef industry, which sources compare to bitcoin, the work is pretty obvious: it feeds people, and pets, and provides leather and industrial applications, and so on. With bitcoin, on the other hand, the work is still mostly within a walled garden. The primary use is money transferring. Any other type of work being done in the outside world by bitcoin is, so far, a rounding error. Bitcoin is so much less efficient than other, older technologies at transferring money that it's absurd to even try and compare them. People aren't using it because it's efficient, they are using it because its intentionally inefficient design provides some specific benefit to them. Grayfell (talk) 19:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I would say that your opinion on the mining industry doesn't quite match the reality described to me by some bitcoin miners, who specifically aim to reduce electricity consumption instead of using as much as is somehow available to them. But we are deviating into WP:NOTFORUM here. After all, it matters little what our opinion is on mining or on the network's utility. We should rely on RS for that and convey their findings in clear and concise way. Vgbyp (talk) 11:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

I am attempting to summarize sources which are cited here, at Environmental impact of bitcoin, and at several other articles. The reason I bothered explaining any any of this at all was to make it easier to summarize this information in these articles. The goal with this article, as with every other article, is to summarize sources. As I'm sure we're both aware, your conversations with bitcoin miners are not reliable, not verifiable, and not impartial. Reliable sources which explain this are not hard to come by, or at least, they wouldn't be if mountains of unreliable sources didn't actively attempt to drown-out legitimate information. Grayfell (talk) 00:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree it is probably WP:UNDUE and maybe WP:SYNTH as written in the lede. Issues is that we have RS that state the majority of bitcoin mining is renewable energy. It warrants examination in the article and summarization in he lede (with summarization being that the findings are mixed). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not it's a majority or a minority, it's still significant per an overwhelming number of reliable sources. It's a subtle bit of editorializing to decide, as an editor, that being a majority makes any sort of difference to how encyclopedically significant this is. It also doesn't address the more nuanced issue of externalities, which many sources talk about, but often in less direct terms which are more difficult to summarize succinctly. Being difficult to summarize, of course, isn't by itself a valid excuse to leave something out, so this would also have to be addressed. Grayfell (talk) 02:51, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

OK, I took a more neutral stab at the wording. We dont need the full linkfarm in the lede, that can be done in the article body. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Here you reverted my edit and called the statement fringe. Please provide a more neutral wording. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:02, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

There is absolutely no dispute among reliable sources that bitcoin mining is tied to dirty power which releases greenhouse gasses. Calling this "controversial" is misleading and loaded. Even if some bitcoin mining is clean, nobody of any credibility is claiming that all bitcoin mining is clean. Implying that this is merely "suspected" is completely unacceptable. Grayfell (talk) 06:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Now it became even worse with the latest changes by User:Jtbobwaysf. What does this phrase even mean?

The environmental impact of bitcoin is controversial as its proof-of-work algorithm for bitcoin mining uses electricity...

I thought it is controversial because of its significant usage of electricity, of which still a significant part is derived from "dirty" sources. Something using electricity isn't a reason for it being controversial, is it? Vgbyp (talk) 13:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

"Significant" is not an encyclopedic term and is subjective to the reader. The whole reason that the energy use discussion is being added to this article is that it is considered controversial. You will note that there are others that consider the proof of work system to be a feature rather than a flaw, hence the controversy. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:25, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree that "significant" isn't an encyclopedic term. The same term is often used to described results of scientific research. If something is deemed significant or insignificant by a RS, it is encyclopedic. PoW being considered a feature has little to do with a statement that something using electricity is controversial. Vgbyp (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Statistically significant is a scientific term and maybe WP:OSE. If you can find it in the sources, please show us here. If you think it is significant it is only your WP:OR. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

We have an entire article on the environmental damage caused by bitcoin, and that article is summarized in this article. There are thousands upon thousands of reliable sources which now mention the climate change damage caused by bitcoin mining. Even though only a small sample of these sources are cited at these two articles, it's still almost overwhelming. To put it another way, per sources, this is one of the most important, if not the single most important, issue facing bitcoin. Again, this is not just my opinion, this is per sources already cited in this and other articles. Any attempt to ignore sources to artificially downplay this issue is whitewashing. The sources are already in the article. Asking for even more sources is wikilawyering to demand WP:CITEBOMBING. Grayfell (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I think the article isn't summarized, the lede of the other article you refer to is quoted verbatim to create a section in this article correct? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

As explained above, that lead of that article is now excerpted here. This is not the same as a verbatim quote (that would potentially be a WP:COPYWITHIN problem, among other things).

As I said, per an overwhelming number of sources, this is a defining issue with bitcoin, so the article will need to cover it proportionately and without euphemisms, and without editorializing to add whataboutism. Grayfell (talk) 20:38, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The defining issue of bitcion is environmental issues? Do you have some evidence of that or only your own WP:OR? What method did you use to determine due weight in the lede for this content? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:49, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

As I said this is not just my opinion, this is per sources already cited in this and other articles. The method I used was WP:DUE: I looked at reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Please show me the source that says bitcoin's defining characteristic is its environmental issue as you have claimed. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, as I already said: per countless sources already cited this is one of the most important issues facing bitcoin. If you understand what I'm saying, you're not going to ask for "the source" which says this, because countless sources say this.

Here is a small sample of sources which mention this issue, in whole or in part:

• DeRoche, Mandy; Fisher, Jeremy; Thorpe, Nick; Wachspress, Megan (September 2022). "The Energy Bomb: How Proof-of-Work Cryptocurrency Mining Worsens the Climate Crisis and Harms Communities Now" (PDF). Earthjustice / Sierra Club. Retrieved 1 November 2022.
• Dhanesha, Neel (18 April 2022). "The daunting task of making cryptocurrency climate-friendly". Vox. Retrieved 4 November 2022.
• Starn, Jesper; Saul, Josh (29 March 2022). "Analysis | Why Bitcoin's Environmental Problems Are So Hard to Fix". Bloomberg. Retrieved 4 November 2022 – via Washington Post.
• Allen, Hilary J. (September 2022). "The Superficial Allure of Crypto". IMF.
• "FACT SHEET: Climate and Energy Implications of Crypto-Assets in the United States | OSTP". The White House (Press release). 8 September 2022.
• Huang, Jon; O’Neill, Claire; Tabuchi, Hiroko (2021-09-03). "Bitcoin Uses More Electricity Than Many Countries. How Is That Possible?". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-10-26.
• Gonzalez, Oscar. "Bitcoin Mining: How Much Electricity It Takes and Why People Are Worried". CNET. Retrieved 2022-10-26.
• "Tesla will no longer accept Bitcoin over climate concerns, says Musk". BBC News. 13 May 2021. Retrieved 13 May 2021.
• Howson, Peter (1 June 2022). "Cryptocurrency price collapse offers hope for slowing climate change – here's how". The Conversation. Retrieved 4 November 2022.
• etc.
• etc...

As I said, this is just a sample. Some are more reliable and weighty than others, but the over-all picture here is clear. This is a major issue which has attracted a large amount of attention from outside of the crypto-niche. Grayfell (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

You have given a list of sources that discuss the matter. Bitcoin is discussed in thousands of sources regarding all different angles. Please provide the sources that substantiate your assertion that this matter deserves a greater weight in the lede. Your list of sources doesnt address that point as far as I can see. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I've already answered your request. As we both agree, countless sources have documented bitcoin's country-sized energy consumption. Those sources have specifically described this as wasteful and damaging to the climate. I have, for your convenience, provided a sample. You mention other sources, but on Wikipedia, past discussions of about the weight of those other thousands of sources and their different angles have been skeptical, for whole lot of reasons.

To put it another way, the mere existence of hypothetical other sources isn't really meaningful, because experience has given us many valid reasons to doubt the reliability and neutrality of most of them. Many, many reliable sources discuss the damage to the climate caused by bitcoin mining. Our goal is to summarize reliable sources.

As for different angles, sources discuss this problem from different angles. Among those source I sample above, I tried to include those which show that this isn't merely a technical issue, it's also very much the popular perception of bitcoin. Per sources, this is a facet of bitcoin that people want to know about.

Since this is extensively documented by many reliable sources from multiple perspectives, it would be inappropriate to downplay this perspective in the article. Grayfell (talk) 05:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2022

Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency. This needs to be clarified. 2A00:23C4:DE4A:B901:CC73:2EA3:8A6:DAEE (talk) 19:58, 25 November 2022 (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. It's in the 3rd sentence of the lead already. What further clarification would you suggest Cannolis (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

marketcap

@Grayfell: I see you removed the market cap seeking an WP:RS for this. I think we can use things such as bloomberg or other quote engines, there are plenty of these. This is non-controversial content. @David Gerard: care to comment? For example bloombergcrypto Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

See Template talk:Infobox cryptocurrency#Market cap, again. Regardless of whether this field belongs or not, every single instance of this should be supported by a reliable source.

But I think it's more controversial than it might appear. To briefly explain my issue with the template: It is potentially misleading to present the market cap as a bland statistic. It's more complicated than that. Infoboxes are a bad place to put complicated info that needs context.

But again, every single use needs a reliable source. Without a reliable source, or with an unreliable source, it is definitely controversial content. That's why I removed it. Grayfell (talk) 05:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

yeah, that field arguably shouldn't exist in the infobox - it's a bad number, and people keep putting it in and citing it to non-RSes - David Gerard (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia runs off of WP:RS, if there isn't much / any coverage by reliable sources. It probably isn't notable enough to be on Wikipedia. --MaximusEditor (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Acceptance for donations

I currently don't have >500 edits, so I cannot edit this article due to it being locked with Extended Confirmed Protection. Instead, can someone with >500 edits please add the following to the Bitcoin article in a new section titled "Acceptance for donations" directly below the section titled "Acceptance by merchants"? Thank you.

Acceptance for donations

In 2008, Nakamoto introduced Bitcoin as an alternative to existing electronic payment systems that was specifically designed to reduce transaction costs by eliminating the inefficiencies caused by requiring a :trusted third party. By storing the transactions on the blockchain, Bitcoin was able to allow "any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party."

A side-effect of making transactions peer-to-peer without a trusted third party was that all transactions became permissionless. A permissionless currency is one where there is no third party that can block or reverse a transaction. Many protest movements and nonprofit organizations started accepting bitcoin because permissioned financial institutions froze their accounts or blocked their donors' transactions.

In 2011, the Occupy Wall Street movement started accepting bitcoin after PayPal blocked the demonstrators from being able to withdrawal their donations from the platform.

In 2011, WikiLeaks started accepting bitcoin after PayPal blocked the non-profit from being able to accept donations on their platform.

In 2019-2020, protestors in Hong Kong accepted bitcoin when HSBC froze an activist's bank account holding over $9 million.

In 2022, the government of Ukraine raised over $50 million in cryptocurrency.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltfield (talk • contribs) 19:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The content about being permissionless appears to be original research. It is also a crypto WP:BUZZWORD. We would need to summarize reliable, independent sources to explain something like this without hype.

Likewise, Wikilinks is not independent of Wikilinks, for example. For the Forbes source, see WP:FORBESCON.

For the Ukraine story, this would need more context, but one specific issue is that the Washington Post story is about donations in general, with only a single paragraph about cryptocurrency specifically, and the article doesn't mention "bitcoin" at all. That source cites a crypto analytics firm (which is not itself reliable) and that source specifically says that bitcoin was less popular than other cryptos for donations due to being more expensive. If we're going to mention this here, we shouldn't imply to readers it's more significant than sources say it is. Grayfell (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

"Permissionless" isn't a buzzword. It's a term used, for example, by the Bank for International Settlements in its research of cryptocurrencies and CBDC:

• https://www.bis.org/publ/bisbull56.pdf
• https://www.bis.org/publ/arpdf/ar2018e5.htm
• https://www.bis.org/publ/arpdf/ar2022e3.htm

Regarding the poor quality of references, I agree. This would need better refs to be added. Vgbyp (talk) 18:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Whether or not it is a buzzword is decided by context. In this context being 'permissionless' was presented as a reason for a perspective's significance, but the word isn't informative as to why that perspective is significant. More simply put, the word tries to tell readers that this is impressive, but it doesn't really add useful information. A reliable source would need to explain what permissionless means and why that would make any difference in this specific situation for this to not be a buzzword. Grayfell (talk) 21:47, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

This is exactly the right context for this term. Permissionless means that there is no controlling third-party for transactions. The importance of it lacking such control is obvious to the protest movements mentioned in the proposed edit. Of course, the term can be avoided by repeating its definition instead, but why do it if the term is already defined and widely accepted when discussing cryptocurrencies? Vgbyp (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, this all comes down to reliable sources. One of the problems is that "permissionless" is jargon, because it's used in a narrow field to mean something different from what the word implies in normal, conversational English. As a general-audience encyclopedia, we have to be aware of what words mean to everybody, not just those inside the niche. Specifically, placing this word in a redlink as permissionless is broadcasting to readers that this word has a definite and important meaning. That is very much using it as a buzzword, regardless of how accurate it it. Further, I don't accept that this term is as well-defined as you do, which is why we need to look at it in context as used by those (hypothetical) sources. When bitcoin advocates talk about it being 'permissionless' they are including several unstated assumptions which are not accepted by outside observers (such as the BIS, which you've cited). If the ONLY use of this term in the article is this vague suggestion of something positive while glossing over all of the many serious problems, then it's a buzzword. Instead, we could use sources to explain the term neutrally and then introduce this as one example. If handled well, that would be informative, but as we agree, it depends on reliable and independent sources.

Likewise, just because something is obvious to some editors doesn't mean it must also be obvious to readers, nor does that mean it's factually correct. That why this looks like original research to me. Grayfell (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Please feel free to find some better sources, this would be good content to add. BIS is of course a good source as is the wikileaks official website. But we are not using contributor sources on cryptocurrency articles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

No, Wikileaks is not reliable per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. It might be usable in some limited cases as a WP:PRIMARY source, but only if a reliable independent sources provides context. Forbes' "contibutor" content should be avoided everywhere, not just crypto articles. For the Bank for International Settlements, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Grayfell (talk) 21:56, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for clarification. I was referring to wikileaks as a primary source about the organization's own acceptance of bitcoin, if that is what we were discussing. I recall that wikileaks was the first major organization to accept it, it caused consternation with Satohsi, and was quite a notable event (at least in regards to early bitcoin history). There should be WP:RS for this I would think. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 December 2022

Hello,

My team at CryptoHut really appreciates the work you all do but we have noticed a few broken links which may affect the quality of the article.

On the box where it stated External Images the second link 'infamous photo of the two pizzas purchased by Laszlo Hanyecz for ₿10,000' no longer exist (linking to: http://heliacal.net/~solar/bitcoin/pizza/IMG_0984.jpg).

Fortunately, we have an article that contains the same type of image. The image can be found on our site at: https://cryptohut. x y z/storage/2022/12/Crypto-Bitcoin-Pizza-2048x1365.jpg

The image was part of an article we wrote about Bitcoin Pizzas which can be found here: https://cryptohut. x y z/guides/the-first-bitcoin-purchase-the-start-of-bitcoin-pizza-day/

There were quite a few broken source links as well but our article should be able to cover any gaps in the information.

I really hope this helps with this small issue.

Feel free to contact me with any additional questions.

For some reason, Wikipedia also seems to have a protection filter against websites with XYZ domains. I'm working to find a solution to this. When trying to access our website using the links above please connect the .x y z together to visit our site!

Thanks! CryptoHut (talk) 14:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Our links seems to still not work so trying this:

Fortunately, we have an article that contains the same type of image. The image can be found on our site at: cryptohut. x y z/storage/2022/12/Crypto-Bitcoin-Pizza-2048x1365.jpg

The image was part of an article we wrote about Bitcoin Pizzas which can be found here: cryptohut. x y z/guides/the-first-bitcoin-purchase-the-start-of-bitcoin-pizza-day/ CryptoHut (talk) 14:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Lemonaka (talk) 14:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 February 2023

Under the Software implementation section:

Change: "which has reached more than 235 gigabytes in size as of Jan 2019"

To: "which has reached more than 516 gigabytes in size as of Feb 2023" HoodTon (talk) 11:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Paragraph on renewable energy use

This is a strange thing to put in the body of the article rather than under environmental impact, and with the way the paragraph is written it seems like it's simply trying to justify the energy use. I'm a good boy I swear (talk) 03:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The second source was a WP:FORBESCON which doesn't even mention bitcoin at all, and the conclusion being made was WP:OR and WP:SYNTH based on the remaining two sources. I have therefore removed the paragraph. Grayfell (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

There is an npov issue in the article relating to energy use, as in fact bitcoin is often consuming unused carbon energy (energy that comes out of plants that have spare capacity). However, I havent seen this in any RS so agree that this should be removed for now. I do understand the point the editor was trying to edit in btw. Eventually in time the mainstream press will cover this POV and we can add it here. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

To be useful to this article, these hypothetical sources would necessarily also need to explain why this matters enough to even mention.

Bitcoin mined by clean or surplus energy is indistinguishable from bitcoin mined via its own coal plant, or from electricity stolen from the grid. Sources which claim bitcoin is incentivizing clean energy tend to be unreliable or couched in hypothetical projections based on debatable assumptions. Grayfell (talk) 09:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand why there are two paragraphs on environmental issues in the Introduction, since these details should be listed in the section on environmental impact. I'm not the person to reduce these two paragraphs to one reference regarding "stated impacts," however. I just feel that the two last paragraphs stand out as avoiding the main subject; perhaps the entire Intro should be rewritten for better balance. Cormagh (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Introduction is too technical fails to explain what Bitcoin is and what it is used for

The current first paragraph reads:

Bitcoin (abbreviation: BTC or XBT; sign: ₿) is a protocol which implements a highly available, public, permanent, and decentralized ledger. In order to add to the ledger, a user must prove they control an entry in the ledger. The protocol specifies that the entry indicates an amount of a token, bitcoin with a minuscule b. The user can update the ledger, assigning some of their bitcoin to another entry in the ledger. Because the token has characteristics of money, it can be thought of as a digital currency.

My issue is that while this is technically all correct information, most of it is irrelevant. Remember that the first paragraph of articles is usually used by people and search engines to provide a quick and easy explaination for the gist of what something is. With respect to that, I think most people who would read what's there now would just get confused about what it's saying. Remember that while we, as Wikipedia editors, are probably more technically inclined, Wikipedia readers likely aren't. Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency first and all the implementation details are secondary to that. People want to know what Bitcoin is, not how it works. Although I understand that this isn't a primary consideration of Wikipedia, I would say that a good benchmark for this is if you asked someone "what is Bitcoin?" and they responded with the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article, you should have been given enough information to draw a general idea of what Bitcoin is and what its purpose is, which is a network which hosts a cryptocurrency of the same name. The Bitcoin network has secondary uses, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that the overwhelming majority of its use isn't to transact in its native cryptocurrency. I propose rewriting the introduction and merging the second paragraph into it to read:

Bitcoin (abbreviation: BTC or XBT; sign: ₿) is a digital currency and a decentralised public network. Bitcoin transactions are verified by network nodes through cryptography and recorded in a public distributed ledger called a blockchain. The cryptocurrency was invented in 2008 by an unknown person or group of people using the name Satoshi Nakamoto. The currency began use in 2009, when its implementation was released as open-source software. The word "bitcoin" was defined in a white paper published on October 31, 2008. It is a compound of the words bit and coin.

This answers the basic "who, what, when, why, and how" about Bitcoin. Details come later.

• What is Bitcoin?
• What is Bitcoin used for? (Why was it invented?)
• Who invented it?
• When was it invented?
• How does it work?
• Why is it called "Bitcoin"?

NateNate60 (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Lede junk

Put here per WP:PRESERVE: The UNESCO World Heritage Site, Virunga National Park, in eastern Congo, Africa pays for its operations, using a profitable Bitcoin mining operation powered by the Park's hydroelectric plant. Oil and gas giant Exxon mines Bitcoin using the natural gas flared by oil mining operations to generate their electricity. Mining Bitcoin this way makes use of an otherwise "monumental waste of a valuable natural resource". Still other miners reduce their overall energy bill by using the heat generated by their computers to heat their homes, or hot tubs. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

References

@Grayfell: i removed above from the lede and Haxwell (talk · contribs) readded it. Maybe we should summarize the environmental pro and con arguments in the lede. Basically we have two POVs both seeking excessive weight in the lede. Bitcoin clearly is controversial in relation to environmental issues, but right now half of the lede goes into this. thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this doesn't belong. General sources do not treat this as a defining example of anything, and these specific sources are bad for this content. Braiins.com is absolutely not a reliable source. The World Bank source doesn't mention bitcoin at all, so its use here was WP:SYNTH and in this context it was therefore also not reliable. I have questions about the reliability of the Capitol.com source, but the other two would, at best, be used for sentence each in the body of the article. If there is a connection between the park and Exxon's use, it needs to be made by a reliable source, not by an editor, and that connection needs to be spelled-out, not merely implied. This all needs to be fixed in the body first, not in the lead. Grayfell (talk) 06:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, after looking at it closer, I also have some questions about the reliability of Protocol.com as well. This all just seems very flimsy. There are a lot of sources about bitcoin mining's environmental harm. If this is the best that can be found as a counter-example, than it's false balance. I guess WP:RSN would be the place to discuss specific sources, but regardless, they would have to be summarized much better than this. Grayfell (talk) 06:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Decentralization

The current text in the decentralization section has a bit which is supposed to cast doubt on Bitcoin's decentralization. It uses several year old statistics, which, while probably correct, are misleading as there is no recent update to them. Also, there is a lot more to be said about Bitcoin's decentralization, so I'm thinking of adding another paragraph on it's importance, etc. (Esp. see that bit about being "controlled by a small set of entities")

Anyone have any thoughts, or want to work with me on an update?

Haxwell (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 27 December 2022‎ (UTC)

Capital letter of Bitcoin

It's consensus among the worldwide crypto community (coders and users) to write Bitcoin with leading capital letter if referring to the Bitcoin protocol/project, while bitcoin in lower case is used as monetary unit (like 1 bitcoin). This needs thus to be changed in the entire WP:EN. Maybe a bot can help. CryptoCrawler (talk) 00:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

"Official" logo

There is no "official" in Bitcoin, so there can not be an official logo. I recommended to remove the word and merely say "Logo of Bitcoin". 2A02:3035:11:D173:6B2C:AD7B:BE83:D1E0 (talk) 08:07, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2023

The source Reference for citation 118 "U.S. government makes its first-ever Bitcoin seizure" is not a primary source. Let's Talk Bitcoin article "Users Bitcoins Seized by DEA" is a prinary source which was archived on the Way Back Machine on June 26th, 2013 and was published June 23, 2013. https://web.archive.org/web/20130626163620/https://letstalkbitcoin.com/post/53700133097/users-bitcoins-seized-by-dea

The Daily Dot references the above source article. Sampson, Tim (2013). "U.S. government makes its first-ever Bitcoin seizure". The Daily Dot. Archived from the original on 12 July 2013. Retrieved 15 October 2013. Bidofthis (talk) 10:23, 29 May 2023 (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. Lightoil (talk) 10:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Change Sampson, Tim (2013). "U.S. government makes its first-ever Bitcoin seizure". The Daily Dot. Archived from the original on 12 July 2013. Retrieved 15 October 2013. To Cohen, Brian (2013)

"Users Bitcoins Seized by DEA" Let' Talk Bitcoin Archived from the original on 23 June 2013. Retrieved 26 June 2013.

https://web.archive.org/web/20130626163620/https://letstalkbitcoin.com/post/53700133097/users-bitcoins-seized-by-dea Bidofthis (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Change Sampson, Tim (2013). "U.S. government makes its first-ever Bitcoin seizure". The Daily Dot. Archived from the original on 12 July 2013. Retrieved 15 October 2013. To Cohen, Brian (2013) "Users Bitcoins Seized by DEA" Let' Talk Bitcoin Archived from the original on 23 June 2013. Retrieved 26 June 2013. https://web.archive.org/web/20130626163620/https://letstalkbitcoin.com/post/53700133097/users-bitcoins-seized-by-dea Bidofthis (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Bidofthis (talk) 12:45, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Let's Talk Bitcoin was the name of Andreas Antonopoulos's podcast. Wikipedia strongly favors reliable, independent sources, and also WP:SECONDARY sources. The podcast's blog doesn't appear to be a reliable source by itself, so it is better to use the Daily Dot for context. Grayfell (talk) 06:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

The podcast was the brain child of Adam B Levine and not Andreas.... although Andreas was a co-host. Technically the primary source was the DEA Drug Enforcement Agenct Bulletin. Dozens of news articles reference the blog post on Let's Talk Bitcoin. Bidofthis (talk) 21:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

How many of those dozens of other news articles are reliable sources? Grayfell (talk) 19:25, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

as you know the Daily Dot cited Let's Talk Bitcoin.

Here are a few more

https://archive.nytimes.com/bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/08/todays-scuttlebot-pulling-the-plug-on-msn-tv-and-computers-guessing-emotions/

https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2013/06/24/bitcoins-seized-by-drug-enforcement-agency/

https://www.pcworld.com/article/452572/trouble-with-bitcoin-as-the-government-muscles-in.html

https://techcrunch.com/2013/06/27/the-dea-seized-bitcoins-in-a-silk-road-drug-raid/?guccounter=1

https://reason.com/2013/06/27/bitcoin-reaches-new-milestone-dea-swipes/

https://gizmodo.com/u-s-feds-make-their-first-ever-bitcoin-seizure-607748728

https://www.theregister.com/2013/06/27/american_cops_make_first_ever_bitcoin_seizure/

https://www.theverge.com/2013/6/26/4468302/drug-enforcement-agency-seizes-11-bitcoins-in-south-carolina-bust-silk-road

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2357954/First-Bitcoin-bust-Feds-seize-electronic-currency-connection-shadowy-internet-drug-bazaar-Silk-Road.html

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/07/arrested-suspect-denies-that-dea-seized-bitcoins-are-his/ Bidofthis (talk) 22:11, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

More

https://www.vice.com/en/article/ypp797/the-dea-just-seized-11-bitcoins

https://charlestoncitypaper.com/2013/09/04/a-fistful-of-bitcoins/

https://cointelegraph.com/public/index.php/news/governments-seize-the-opportunity-to-control-bitcoin/amp

Bidofthis (talk) 08:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Finally here

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_bitcoin Bidofthis (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I've added the PCWorld source, as well as some additional context from that source. I still don't think this blog post is necessary or helpful here. Since this is an encyclopedia article, the best option would be a more recent source which contextualizes what happened, why this mattered, etc. Lacking that, a couple of reliable secondary sources seem sufficient.

At a glance, less than half of those are even plausibly reliable. See WP:COINDESK, WP:DAILYMAIL, etc. All sources are evaluated in context. The NYT source, for example, mentions this as a brief link with minimal context provided as "scuttlebutt".

Other Wikipedia articles should not be used as sources on Wikipedia, per WP:CIRC. I have removed this blog from History of bitcoin. The section also included a direct link to a Google translation page for a dead link, which I also removed.

Grayfell (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

We are not using cyrpto sources as WP:RS on any of these articles nor are we using blogs. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

This policy Re:Crypto sources needs to be updated. For instance Coindesk was cited numerous times in the US Treasury's (official U.S. Government agency) report Illicit Finance Risk Assesment of Decentralized Finance.https://twitter.com/inthepixels/status/1663835533682900996 Bidofthis (talk) 08:54, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#c-Bidofthis-20230602091300-Crypto_Sources_as_reliable_sources Bidofthis (talk) 09:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Consensus on Wikipedia has been established not to use these outlets in almost all cases. While sometimes cited by legitimate sources, overall these outlets still lack a positive reputation for accuracy and fact checking. Among other problems (many other problems) they constantly fail to differentiate between editorial content and reporting content. Another issue is a common failure to disclose conflicts of interest, or disclose them only in the most superficial way, or fail to actually enforce any editorial oversight based on those conflicts. Again, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Consensus on Wikipedia is that these outlets are seldom reliable, and this talk page isn't the place to change that.

As for that tweet, please review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. If you are affiliated with this any other outlet being discussed, you have a conflict of interest. You may also find Wikipedia:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide helpful. If you are compensated for editing, you must disclose this, per Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Finally, please stop posting mobile URLs to other Wikipedia pages. You can post them as wikilinks. Typing this: [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard]] will lead to this wikilink: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard.

Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I haven't written or edited etc, for crypro media new in over 5 years. Thanks. Bidofthis (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

news Bidofthis (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

• if the subject of this request is that we should cover the first seizure of bitcoin in 2013 by the US govt, that seems non-controversial and any of the sources could be used. Noted we are not using coindesk. But it could even be unsourced, and I dont see any reason to remove it as the content is non-controversial. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Sources should always be WP:RS. The significance of this is not decided by editors, it is decided by reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 07:14, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

There are plenty of RS above in the list, techcrunch, etc. I dont see the issue. Maybe I am confused. Anyhow I think we agree we are not using these crypto sites regardless. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Bitcoin is not a cryptocurrency

Per the SEC’s Gary Gensler, Bitcoin is a commodity 73.58.243.201 (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Given the overwhelming amount of reliable sources that make plain that it is a cryptocurrency, saying that all of those sources are wrong and it isn't is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim that would need much more than a comment (with no link to the actual source) that is summarizing what one singular person has opined. Though if you're referring to the Binance thing, that's an issue of whether cryptocurrencies of any kind (not just Bitcoin) would be securities or commodities, not whether Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency (though the SEC and CFTC prefer to use the term "virtual currency"). - Aoidh (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Let’s start all the way back at the white paper. There is nowhere in the white paper that calls it or refers to it as a cryptocurrency. Yet alone a currency.

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf 73.58.243.201 (talk) 15:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

No, start by reading relevant Wikipedia policies: not least, WP:RS and WP:NPOV. WE decide which sources we use in articles, and if the overwhelming proportion of such sources describe something in a particular way, so will we. This is fundamental to how we work, and not open to negotiation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Absence of Evidence does not mean Evidence of Absence. Finding a source that doesn't say a specific word does not mean it doesn't fall under the description of that word, especially because that white paper predates the usage of "cryptocurrency" to define such things, so it's not unexpected that it wouldn't use that term. Later sources overwhelmingly do, including the SEC itself. Reliable sources describe it as such, so Wikipedia does as well. The SEC doesn't say it's not a cryptocurrency. - Aoidh (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Don't think we want to mix up the regulatory aspects with other matters. Selfstudier (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

It's buck wild to see someone use the whitepaper to try and claim that bitcoin is not a cryptocurrency. I've seen this argument that it's not a currency before, but usually from people who are actively trying to downplay its history. The title of that document is Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Per the paper, and per every credible secondary source on the history of bitcoin, it was created to be an alternative to cash, with the intent that it be used for commerce over the Internet. To say now that it's not a currency is either trying to rewrite history, or it is saying that Satoshi's idea was objectively a failure. Grayfell (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• Bitcoin is the largest and probably most important of all the cryptocurrencies in that it probably defined it. Gensler doesnt get to define things, whatever he may think. We use WP:RS and in the case of this subject, there are thousands. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why fuss about it so much. Something can be a cryptocurrency and a commodity at the same time. Crude oil is a commodity but it's also a liquid mix of hydrocarbons. While cryptocurrency defines the nature of Bitcoin, commodity relates to how it is treated by financial regulators. Vgbyp (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

That statement can certainly be included. But we are not going to revise the article to say it is a commodity as the OP was suggesting. The position of a US regulator that it is instead a commodity in the eyes of the US would be WP:DUE in my opinion, although probably not in the WP:LEDE. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

How about cryptocommodity instead of cryptocurrency because it doesn’t meet the full criteria of a currency as there is no governing body issuing bitcoin? There is currently only one country that recognizes it as a currency, that being El Salvador and they are not an issuer. 73.58.243.201 (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

You have sources calling it cryptocommodity? If not, then no go. Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

A few source would make no difference. The consensus in the overwhelming majority of sources we cite is entirely clear. We don't ditch core Wikipedia policy because some random contributor doesn't like a word. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

We cannot invent new words that sources do not use. Sources (even the SEC you initially mentioned) overwhelmingly refer to it as a cryptocurrency. Arguing that it doesn't meet a specific definition of currency, and therefore is not a cryptocurrency, is very much WP:OR. Wikipedia calls it a cryptocurrency because reliable sources do, and it's not even a disputed label amongst reliable sources, so there's absolutely no issue with it using that term in the article. Even if there was some opposition to this term in reliable sources that would just mean that the dispute might be mentioned (per WP:DUE) but that's it. Given the usage in reliable sources there is nothing that would warrant the removal of the term. - Aoidh (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Removing the internet pillory

I see, Adam2us is mentioned prominently on this talk page in a sort of internet pillory, claiming to have a COI. Adam Back has been known as a contributor to the Bitcoin project since the very earliest days, so you certainly won't be mentioning every Bitcoin developer with a COI as soon as he makes contribs to this article. Adam has clearly stated who he is on his user page, so absolutely no reason to put him in a warning box at the top of this page. CryptoCrawler (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

So what you saying DorothyTorress (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 July 2023

Under: Price and Volality: Change to: <<Bitcoin's highest-ever price is $68,789, reached on November 10, 2021.>> Currently listed is a random price with a random date. 147.140.233.14 (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

In the mining section: there's the below sentence of proportionality that requests a better source. I suggest making the explanation more clear because the explanation is confusing to a layman, and suggest citing from a section on proporionality from here: https://99bitcoins.com/bitcoin-mining/pools/

"The vast majority of mining power is grouped together in mining pools to reduce variance in miner income. Independent miners may have to work for several years to mine a single block of transactions and receive payment. In a mining pool, all participating miners get paid every time any participant generates a block. This payment is proportionate to the amount of work an individual miner contributed to the pool.[better source needed]" FrostFlower984 (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

We are unable to use these type of cryptocurrency sources. Please find a WP:RS, say something like fortune, bloomberg, or a book in google books. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Ohhh Ok I understand, maybe something like this?

Page 103-110

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Cryptocurrency_Mining_For_Dummies/-dK8DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=bitcoin+mining,+shares,+proportion&pg=PA104&printsec=frontcover

Or Page 188 here

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Ultimate_Guide_to_Bitcoin/4oEhBQAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=bitcoin+mining,+shares,+proportion&pg=PA188&printsec=frontcover

Thank you FrostFlower984 (talk) 09:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

True supply and circulation of Bitcoin

Weiss. 15 August 2023 14.59 million circulation 92.65 percent of BTC already issued 1.54 million to be mined next 120 years Total 17.03 million versus official 18.925 million of BTC and Total 21 million 197.184.165.180 (talk) 12:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

In popular culture....should potentially include visual art section

"In popular culture" should include fine or visual arts. eg In the autumn of 2018, Nelson Saiers positioned a 9-foot, white, inflatable rat adorned with Bitcoin code right outside the New York Federal Reserve. This act was intended as a tribute to Satoshi Nakamoto. The visual semblance of the inflatable rat bore a certain resemblance to the brown inflatable rats commonly utilized by unions for street protests in the streets of New York City.

https://fortune.com/2018/10/12/giant-inflatable-bitcoin-rat-wall-street-facing-feds-building/ https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2018/10/09/theres-a-giant-bitcoin-rat-on-wall-street-and-its-staring-down-the-fed/ https://news.bitcoin.com/a-bitcoin-rat-is-occupying-wall-street/ https://www.theblock.co/post/1490/whats-up-with-rat-art-sends-a-message-about-the-fed-bitcoin-and-the-financial-crisis-10-years-later https://bitcoinist.com/nelson-saiers-inflatable-bitcoin-rat-is-back-to-take-on-the-fed/ 2600:4040:95F9:800:B4BC:6422:7EAB:B98E (talk) 18:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

 Implemented

I added it, FYI we are not using most of the sources you provided as WP:RS, since we are not using cryptocurrency sources. But I did find the content already existing over at Nelson Saiers so I more or less just copied it over here (was already properly sourced on that article. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible to remove Extended confirmed protection?

The voce has been protected in 2017 (!!!) I think is a very very too long period!!!93.147.242.136 (talk) 07:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

It is protected under Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies, which would rather mean "no". Lectonar (talk) 08:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok, i did not know. But it is related back to year 2018, it's a geological era for internet and wikipedia. Don't you think it's time to move on, maybe now in year 2023? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.147.242.136 (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Given the ongoing issues Wikipedia has had with cryptocurrency-related topics, 'moving on' would seem unlikely. Too much promotional editing. Too much linkspam. Too much misuse of questionable sources. Undeclared paid editing. Etc, etc, etc... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia was functioning full-on in 2018. The sanctions on this article and other crypto articles has been really helpful in dealing with all the WP:PROMO content. You can always make an account and contribute, its free and we welcome you. Be advised we only allow content anchored by mainstream sources, such as fortune.com, bloomberg, wsj, forbes, nyt, etc. We dont allow crypto websites such as coindesk, theblock, etc. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Good idea. I have a username now. Now I need only to wait and contribute. P. S. I love relevant sources, specially NYT, WSJ, Nature ecc Brawler1982 (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I find your this to be biased heavily

Policy on sourcing and WP:NPOV has been adequately explained. We are under no obligation to engage in repetitive discussion regarding the OP's personal opinions, and nor are we going to cite the 'bitcoinminingcouncil.com' website for anything whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The first 2 paragraphs do nothing but focus on what the contributors feel is negative and it paints it in a terrible light. Why not talk about the positives in the opening paragraphs along with some of your perceived negatives, besides, I think the book is closed on bitcoins and it’s found it’s niche as simply a digital store of value and not as a currency. As a store of value it functions well and has some features fiat cannot even match. I think you should revise those first paragraphs. Anyone reading that would think bitcoin is a bad thing and may just stop reading. 67.183.112.160 (talk) 18:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC) Wikipedia goes by reliable sources. If reliable sources seem "negative" to you as an editor, so be it. The article will summarize those sources. Being "negative" isn't necessarily a problem, and adding "positive" content just to balance it out would be false balance. Grayfell (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC) The lead is probably false balance and has weight issues as it stands, I do tend to agree with the OP. The statement by the US in the LEAD is particularly undue. Bitcoin has varying levels of legality globally, its not particularly worth a full paragraph in the LEAD. For example Cannabis (drug) doesnt even get into legality until the end of the LEAD and the weed topic legality would be subject to much much more widespread coverage. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC) You will have to propose real sources for this to be actionable, and your comment doesn't really address my response. The comparison to cannabis is misleading and ignores context. Among other issues, since they are completely different categories of things, reliable sources will cover them very differently. Reliable sources on bitcoin as a broad topic (as opposed to specific incidents) tend to be skeptical for a large number of reasons, and that skepticism has grown over time. As a tertiary source Wikipedia should reflect that. Grayfell (talk) 04:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC) Seems to me it’s pretty clear the source and indeed the mods here have a pretty clear anti-bitcoin bias here. These “reliable sources” also have a bias. Bitcoin itself has many positives and they deserve to be addressed in the lead along with the negatives. If you truly knew anything about bitcoin then you’d know that the real negatives in crypto are not from bitcoin but other shady organizations and individuals. Bitcoin actually has a very good reputation and is an excellent store of value and a wonderful hobby that millions of people all over the world have enjoyed for 14 years. This page has an outsized impact on people’s perceptions of bitcoin and I feel it should be changed to not lead in with nothing but the sources perceived negatives. 67.183.112.160 (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC) Your personal opinions on the merits of Bitcoin are of precisely zero relevance to article content, as has already been explained. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC) Page needs an update for the environmental impacts from bitcoin, which is currently outdated and based on FUD, monied interests, central banks, financial service firms, and disillusioned climate change followers. Currently, there is a mention that bitcoin is responsible for 0.4% of global emissions since 2009, which is impossible, as bitcoin has no emissions, other than heat (not CO2). Emissions are generated by power production companies. Additionally, a note should be included to portray the impacts of bitcoin mining on the grid, which has led to an expansion of renewable energy in geographical regions hosting mining rigs. Data shows that bitcoin mining is the world's most prevalent industry using renewable power sources, and as of Q2-2023 was ~59.4%. Incremental power capacity production has recently been utilized to provide excess or even emergency power when faced with electricity supply issues. Further, bitcoin mining companies have agreed to a number of contracts with major oil and gas companies to curtail flaring of natural gas and methane by capturing heat, leading to less CO2 and M4 pollution. Lastly, a transition to bitcoin from the current fiat regime would provide for a broad reduction in overall greenhouse gas emissions as economies would transition from wasteful and useless consumer focused production to value add products. Website links should be pointed to: https://bitcoinminingcouncil.com also, don’t delete notes - they need to be maintained for the record. That goes against protocol thank you 206.55.183.239 (talk) 13:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)