Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10

Bitcoin ISO Code

This is a notification regarding the standardization of the Bitcoin abbreviation 'BTC'. It will soon be modified and formalized as a standard ISO-4127 code for Bitcoin and no longer be an abbreviation.

For more information please see:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-stanish-x-iso4217-a3-00#section-2.3

http://www.ifex-project.org/our-proposals/x-iso4217-a3

Thanks,

JohnNBurke (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Bollocks. The first link you provided is J. Random Techie's proposal which says quite clearly it's a proposal, it's not binding in any way, it will expire in a few months, and please consider my proposal. Your Lord and Master (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 26 November 2012: Bitcoind/Bitcoin-Qt

#Mining_and_node_operation currently links to Bitcoind/Bitcoin-Qt, which just redirects back to this article. Bitcoind is the previous name of Bitcoin-Qt (according to that article), so the Bitcoind/Bitcoin-Qt redirection page should point there (or be removed), and the link in this article should just be [[Bitcoin-Qt]]

- Uusijani (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think I fixed this for you. Tell me if I am mistaken.
Regards,
JohnNBurke (talk) 17:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
That article has been redirected to this one, so I removed the link altogether. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Suspected flaw in the Theft and Fraud sub-section of Security

The first paragraph of the Theft and Fraud section suggests that MtGox canceled all the fraudulent transactions, but I see no source for this information, nor do I believe that it is possible to cancel bitcoin transactions. Some clarification and/or correction is definitely in order here. BlueMonkMN (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

MtGox "canceled all trades", i.e. money transfers inside exchange ("simply numbers with no wallet backing"). Outgoing money transfers was not cancelled - "thief was able to make a larger withdrawal (approximately 2000 BTC)" (last two cites are from https://mtgox.com/press_release_20110630.html) OverQuantum (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand where you're getting the word "canceled" from. It doesn't appear in the cited article, and I don't see how the phrase "no wallet backing" would lead to the term "canceled". Where does any cited article say anything about "canelling" anything? BlueMonkMN (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
"Mt.Gox shut down their exchange and canceled all trades that happened during the hacking period" - this is from current version of "Bitcoin" article. CLARIFICATION OF MT. GOX COMPROMISED ACCOUNTS AND MAJOR BITCOIN SELL-OFF says "We would like to note that the Bitcoins sold were not taken from other users’ accounts—they were simply numbers with no wallet backing." and "Again, apart from the compromised admin account, no individual user’s account was manipulated in any way. All BTC and cash balances remain intact.". This means (IMHO) that trades inside MtGox are just number transfers between user exchange-internal balances, without actual money (BTC/USD) transfers. Only to/in exchange transfers involvs BTC/USD transfers and hacker was able to withdraw only approximately 2000 BTC, not from users, but from exchange admin wallet. OverQuantum (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Remove the thai baht (฿) symbol from this article.

It's not cited as a Bitcoin symbol anywhere reliable. BTC is the defacto Bitcoin symbol because that's what it is exchanged as on Mt. Gox[1], the largest Bitcoin exchange and among all other exchanges. So, change the headline to "Bitcoin (sign: BTC)[2]" and change the infobox to this:

Bitcoin/Archive 7
File:Bitcoin-coins.jpg
A Digital Bitcoin WalletPhysical 1-BTC Bitcoins
Unit
PluralBitcoin, Bitcoins
SymbolBTC[3]‎
NicknameCoins
Denominations
Subunit
 0.01bitcent
 0.00000001satoshi
Plural
 bitcentbitcents
 satoshisatoshis
Coins
 Freq. used1-BTC
Demographics
Date of introduction3 January 2009Bitcoin Genesis Block
User(s)International
Issuance
Central bankNone. The Bitcoin peer-to-peer network regulates and distributes through consensus in protocol.[4]
 Websitebitcoin.org
PrinterVarious
MintVarious
Valuation
InflationLimited release
 SourceTotal BTC in Circulation
 MethodGeometric series until 21 mil. BTC[5]

--Hopkinsenior (talk) 23:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

There were previous discussions about this here and here. It seems that this is the symbol used by Satoshi in the original client and documentation, and is used by other third-party sources. I don't think a self-styled "largest Bitcoin exchange" is much of a reliable source in that regard, and quoting mtgox.com might be a circular reference, because that page apparently cites a Wikipedia article for at least some of its claims. - SudoGhost 00:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 01:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll vouch for removing the baht symbol when it is decided that the $ symbol will be removed from Mexican peso. Currency symbols aren't globally unique per currency, and ฿ meaning baht doesn't make it unavailable for meaning bitcoin. Casascius♠ (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The going proposal is to use Ƀ instead of the Baht symbol. Hgmichna (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Since this is a change to the article in particular, in order to avoid "edit war" fights, where might any sort of reliable source come to the conclusion this particular symbol you are suggesting here be considered widely used? While there may be some arguments to use other symbols, most of this is really just a convention and a variety of symbols and abbreviations have been used over the years. The Bhat symbol was explicitly discussed in the early days of the Bitcoin development on the forums when Satoshi was still active. Those discussions really don't count as reliable sources though.
Still, beyond convention and perhaps citing articles talking about Bitcoin using some symbols, what possible source can you find for any symbol usage? Using the $ for Mexican pesos and many other currencies is documented on "official" statements by the governments who issue those currencies as a suggested symbol for that currency. The crazy thing about Bitcoin is that there is no "official" designation that can be made, even if Satoshi were to come back into active development. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
BTC is really the only defacto currency sign for Bitcoin with it being used by most exchanges and merchants. However, it seems Silk Road uses the baht sign for Bitcoin and they take up half the Bitcoin economy...--Hopkinsenior (talk) 23:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
I've seen the Bhat symbol, as related to Bitcoin, mentioned in passing in a few "mainstream media" articles that could be deemed a reliable source. None of them really went out of their way to point out the symbol nor could that usage really be called precedent setting, but I have seen it used. I'll admit that BTC is more common, if it is used at all. While since removed from this article, the "official" logo for Bitcoin (as much as anything is official) as seen on bitcoin.org with the double vertical bars is fairly common in usage and is derived from the Bhat symbol. As for rationale to remove the symbol in this article, I just don't see any either compelling reason although a lack of reliable sources is at least an argument. Substitution for any other symbol is definitely not justified at all. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
BitPay uses Ƀ, and BitPay is payment provider for WordPress, Bitcoin Magazine, and others. FYI here is the main website dedicated to promoting Ƀ sergeymk (talk) 17:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
SilkRoad likely has more market volume than BitPay and its clients. JohnNBurke (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

hashcash relation and use!

In the history section, both Wei Dai's B-money (Nov 1998) and Nick Szabo's bit gold were extensions of Hashcash. B-money was published on the cypherpunks mailing list in the context of discussions on the list of possible applications for the Hashcash cost function, which had itself been published on the same mailing list the previous year, in May 2007.

You might like to look at https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/B-money_Proposal

I request to edit as follows:

In 1997 on the cypherpunks mailing-list Adam Back published .[6] and released source code for Hashcash the first secure efficient p2p cost-function which allows the distributed creation of cryptographically scarce stamps or coins. In 1998 Wei Dai published a description of an anonymous, distributed electronic cash system based on hashcash which he called "b-money".[13] Around the same time, Nick Szabo created bit gold.[14][15] Like Bitcoin, Bit gold and b-money were currency systems where users would compete to solve a proof of work function, with solutions being cryptographically chained together and published via a distributed property title registry. A variant of Bit gold, called Reusable Proofs of Work, was implemented by Hal Finney.[15]

It would also be useful to point out that Bitcoin uses the hashcash cost-function and stamp or coin mechanism in which ever section talks about the use of cost-functions for minting.

Adam2us (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Support: The history section needs this accuracy. JohnNBurke (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Not done: Sorry, but it doesn't look like hashcash.org qualifies under Wikipedia's guidelines on identifying reliable sources. If you can find a source that qualifies and that backs up the claims you are making, please reactivate the {{edit protected}} template. You probably want to replace the [14][15] text with actual references, too. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 Done, before I saw the above message. Mr. Stradivarius is probably right, so I have undone my edit. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

Please add http://cbitcoin.com to the sidebar under Central Bank > Website because it is a major Bitcoin protocol implementation too. 85.139.250.243 (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Any changes/additions to this page need to be discussed first. Request disabled for now. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Support: As long as Bitcoin.org is above or below it. Every serious Bitcoin implementation should be represented. JohnNBurke (talk) 05:55, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Not done for now: Holding for more comments. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I just discovered the infobox only accepts one site because it's for an "issuing authority". This edit can't be done. JohnNBurke (talk) 13:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Fresh section for Ponzi discussion

I'm starting a new section so that editors just arriving at the talk page don't have to scroll through 100kb of text just to find the newer discussions (although they're still found above for anyone who has that kind of time). I feel like we're too busy talking about removing/keeping the discussion, and it is taking focus away from trying to improve the section. So how about this: we just focus on trying to improve the section, and if we cannot do that, then we can go back to talking about why it should/shouldn't be removed (the only thing I can ask is that we use the sources to guide what the content says, instead of trying to make the sources support something the sources really aren't saying).

I think the ECB report is a good starting point for expanding the section, because it not only goes into more detail about why people have these concerns, it doesn't make any assessment of whether Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme or not, and also documents reasons for and against the validity of the Ponzi claim. The report says that "Users go into the system by buying Bitcoins against real currencies, but can only leave and retrieve their funds if other users want to buy their Bitcoins, i.e. if new participants want to join the system. For many people, this is characteristic of a Ponzi scheme." It also qives the Gavin Anderson quote that says that "Bitcoin supporters claim that it is an open-source system whose code is available to any interested party." I feel like that would be a good balanced starting point (although the report also says more than can of course be used to expand the section). It's really late here, so if nobody does it before tomorrow I'll be glad to try to write a skeleton expansion of the section and hopefully we can discuss and improve the wording and once all the kinks are worked out, move it into the article itself. - SudoGhost 08:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

But SudoGhost, one of our criticisms is that you're trying to make the sources support something they really aren't saying! You deny this; we assert it. Hence an impasse.
I don't think the ECB report is a good starting point for precisely the reasons you lay out. We don't need to know "why" people have these concerns because it's not our place on Wikipedia to judge them. Such an approach smells of the synthesis and original research that you (rightly) accused others of.
I don't want either side to go down that road. It's tricky, unnecessary, and heck, going down that road might be why the articles you source sorta get things so wrong in the first place (I'm judging here in the talk, not looking to judge in the article).
The balance is pretty simple IMO: it's fine to point out that some people think Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme so long as the (above sourced) body-slam of a counter argument is also included: it cannot be a Ponzi scheme because it's not a scheme at all. We can then leave it at that. We don't need to muck about with the psychological states of the conspiracy theorists who think otherwise. Crcarlin (talk) 09:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
...readers don't need to know why people have these concerns? You've completely lost me here; that is neither WP:OR or WP:SYN. The ECB report source is detailing the reasons, not me, so it isn't WP:OR. I'm also certainly not combining sources to try to say something entirely different; this comes from one source, word-for-word, so it also isn't WP:SYN. When you say "it cannot be a Ponzi scheme because it's not a scheme at all" that seems to be the crux of it; you're looking for that viewpoint to be included in the article, but reliable sources don't make that same conclusion. If you're looking for the article to say in essence that "People have accused Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme, but they're wrong", you're looking for something that Wikipedia policy does not allow. No source presented so far says anything close to that, and since reliable sources aren't saying that the Wikipedia article cannot say that either. Since reliable sources do not draw a conclusion I'd rather inform the reader of facts, not dictate to them what conclusion they should draw. If reliable sources expand on the why and also present information showing reasons why people thing it is a Ponzi scheme, and why people think it isn't a Ponzi scheme, that's what the article needs to do.
This whole disagreeing for the sake of disagreement isn't doing you any good; you're not going to somehow force a consensus through "well I'm saying the same thing you are and therefore we disagree so you're equally wrong". Claiming that something taken word-for-word from a single source is somehow WP:OR and WP:SYN just because I used those same reasonings isn't doing you any credit, and the more you do that the more obvious it is becoming. You're also shooting yourself in the foot here; the more you try to stall, the longer the article sits at where it is now. I want to improve the article, using reliable sources. If you'd like to help with that, great! If you're looking to have the article state that "it cannot be a Ponzi scheme" you're wasting your time, because that isn't what the sources say. - SudoGhost 09:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I would ask that people contribute proposals and/or proposal-centric comments in the relevant section, and not elsewhere. Comments that are not proposal-centric will be viciously edited and/or moved out of that section. In this way, we can focus on the content. prat (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I have added an NPOV dispute notice to the section while discussions continue. prat (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

The only problem with that is that nobody's demonstrated that it isn't in line with WP:NPOV. Bitcoin enthusiasts not liking what reliable sources have published does not equate to a non-neutral wording. That the section needs to be expanded does not mean it's non-neutral, and nobody has presented a single reliable source that would suggest that what's currently written in the ariticle is somehow non-neutral. - SudoGhost 21:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Disagree on all counts for reasons previously stated. Crcarlin (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
There is a difference between saying it's not neutral, and actually showing with reliable source that it's not neutral. Show me a reliable source that can back up your "disagreement". - SudoGhost 21:49, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
"…nobody has presented a single reliable source that would suggest that what's currently written in the ariticle is somehow non-neutral." What about my presenting the Grinberg source? --Smickles86 (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
That was someone's college paper that served to verify that Bitcoin could arguably be considered "not a security"; it did not verify that the SEC's definition of a Ponzi scheme wouldn't apply even if it were "not a security", or even that Bitcoin wasn't a security, only that "it could be argued". There's a difference between the section needing to be expanded and elaborated, and the section being non-neutral. - SudoGhost 22:20, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but it actually served to verify that Bitcoin could arguable be considered "not a security" and "not an investment" to be put along side the fact that Ponzi schemes, by definition, concern securities and investment fraud. --Smickles86 (talk) 22:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Which is something that might be relevant to the section, but it doesn't mean that what's currently in the article isn't neutral, per Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy. - SudoGhost 22:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I must strongly disagree with you here. The fact that this section is called As an investment and there is a sourced argument that Bitcoin might not even be considered an investment which is not in the article sounds like reason enough to me that what's currently in the article isn't neutral and we have a source suggesting it. --Smickles86 (talk) 00:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, taking the section's header into account, I'd have to agree with you completely. I honestly wasn't looking at the header, so I was confused as to what you were trying to get at here. Considering what the section is called, however, I agree with what you just said. - SudoGhost 00:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

What does the section need to cover?

The section does indeed need to cover more than just the Pozni thing, so I wanted to see if we could lay out what would be covered under the section and/or if the section should be renamed to something different. I think laying that out will help with writing up proposals for how the section should be worded. It seems like the section should detail the investment aspect, the Ponzi concerns, the "high risk" aspect (including the Anderson quote), and the "no central authority" aspect. Is there anything else that would be covered in this section? - SudoGhost 00:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

If it is to stay a section on the topic of investment, I believe it should first point out that the project is not intended as an investment. The first line in the description on Bitcoin.org puts it as an experimental way to instantly send payments. After this, should come some independently sourced (such as the Grinberg text) statement on how it isn't an investment. Then perhaps a statement on how people who do view it as an investment either see it as a potential hedge against inflation due to its possible deflationary aspects, a highly risky speculative investment due to the volatility and low "market cap" (I'll have to search for the sources which I recall reading these at), or accuse it of being a ponzi (obviously, the Reuters or Register sources) and temper it with a statement of how the ECB took a look at Bitcoin and didn't conclude either way on the matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smickles86 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Alright, so maybe we could preface the section by saying something like Bitcoin describes itself as "an experimental new digital currency that enables instant payments to anyone, anywhere in the world." (unless Bitcoin.org isn't the official website for Bitcoin, that's just my assumption. If it isn't representitive of Bitcoin and cannot speak for Bitcoin, we can amend that to "Bitcoin.org describes Bitcoin as..." or something similar). Here's a very rough draft, just to try to get the strcuture of the section going (although the content obviously needs to be changed and clarified where appropriate, the ... is just where blanks will need to be filled in, and the quotes should be reworded into prose wherever possible to look less like a WP:QUOTEFARM):
Bitcoin describes itself as "an experimental new digital currency that enables instant payments to anyone, anywhere in the world."[ref] Despite being a virtual currency, Bitcoin has been described as an investment by ... and ... because of .... Reuben Grinberg has noted that Bitcoin's supporters have argued that Bitcoin is neither a security or an investment "because there is no money-making enterprise that is attempting to raise money, and that bitcoins are instead like commodities or currencies, which are generally not regulated under the federal securities laws."[ref pg. 195]
Bitcoin has been accused of being a Ponzi scheme ... a report by the European Central Bank notes that "Users go into the system by buying Bitcoins against real currencies, but can only leave and retrieve their funds if other users want to buy their Bitcoins, i.e. if new participants want to join the system. For many people, this is characteristic of a Ponzi scheme."[ref] The report also notes that "the Bitcoin scheme is a decentralised system where – at least in theory – there is no central organiser that can undermine the system and disappear with its funds. Bitcoin users buy and sell the currency among themselves without any kind of intermediation and therefore, it seems that nobody benefits from the system, apart from those who benefit from the exchange rate evolution (just as in any other currency trade) or those who are hard-working “miners” and are therefore rewarded for their contribution to the security and confidence in the system as a whole. Moreover, the scheme does not promise high returns to anybody. Although some Bitcoin users may try to profit from exchange rate fluctuations, Bitcoins are not intended to be an investment vehicle, just a medium of exchange." and also notes that Gavin Andresen, Lead Developer of the Bitcoin virtual currency project, has said that “Bitcoin is an experiment. Treat it like you would treat a promising internet start-up company: maybe it will change the world, but realise that investing your money or time in new ideas is always risky.”[ref]
That's my proposal for at least a rough draft of how the information is presented, although the wording will of course need to be put in prose. On a side note, the Grinberg source does say on page 178 that "Unlike the U.S. Dollar, Bitcoin has no central bank that can pull the levers of monetary policy. While the Fed will indefinitely increase the supply of the U.S. Dollar to target a low, stable inflation rate, the supply of Bitcoins is fixed: There will never be more than 21 million bitcoins in existence. Thus, as the supply of other currencies increases faster than the supply of bitcoins increases, bitcoins are likely to continually appreciate in value over time. This is not to say that bitcoins are a good investment: Bitcoin’s appreciation may be much lower than investment returns than even the most riskless investments—treasury bills. Furthermore, although the supply of bitcoins will never increase beyond 21 million, demand could always fall over time. Thus, the price of goods in bitcoins will decrease over time, indicating that Bitcoin is a deflationary currency—and may be susceptible to a deflationary spiral." So while Grinberg says that "At least one commentator has concluded that digital currencies are unlikely to be regulated as securities." and that Bitcoin supporters have argued that it is neither a security or an investment, he does say that it is an investment in some sense, so perhaps the article should reflect this as well, since it would be citing him on the investment aspect. - SudoGhost 03:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I used your draft as a base and came up with this concise proposal:
Bitcoin describes itself as an experimental digital currency. Reuben Grinberg has noted that Bitcoin's supporters have argued that Bitcoin is neither a security or an investment because it fails to meet the criteria for either category.[ref] Although it is a virtual currency, some people see it as an investment[7] or accuse it of being a form of investment fraud known as a Ponzi scheme[ref]. A report by the European Central Bank, using the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's definition of a Ponzi scheme, found that the use of bitcoins shares some characteristics with Ponzi schemes, but also has characteristics of its own which contradict several common aspects of Ponzi schemes.[ref]--Smickles86 (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't notice this here until just now. If we changed "Despite being a virtual currency" to "Although it is a virtual currency", I'd have no major issues with it. I think that would be a good change to the article, certainly better than what's in the article now. - SudoGhost 06:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I have no objection to using "Although it is a virtual currency" in place of "Despite being a virtual currency". How do we move forward with the goal of replacing what is in the article with this proposal? (/me is a n00b) --Smickles86 (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
I'll put in an edit request below. - SudoGhost 18:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
As a bitcoin enthusiast and follower of this discussion, I like your recent changes SudoGhost. I think the realization that NPOV was being violated by only talking about the accusation of a ponzi in the section on 'As an investment' was a crucial turning point, but I disagree with other bitcoiners who think that the accusations have no place in the section. As long as the principal points which have bearing on deciding whether or not its a Ponzi or something similar are quoted
  • have to trade into and out of local currencies to realize a gain in a local currency
  • no central authority
  • no guaranteed returns
  • potential for return based on ultimately fixed supply
  • not a traditional security
I think the section will be good. 68.98.141.61 (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)BoardGameCoin from the bitcointalk forums

Edit request

Per the above discussion, please replace "Bitcoin has been accused of being a Ponzi scheme for rewarding early adopters through early Bitcoin mining and increasing exchange rates." in the Bitcoin#As an investment section with the following:

Bitcoin describes itself as an experimental digital currency. Reuben Grinberg has noted that Bitcoin's supporters have argued that Bitcoin is neither a security or an investment because it fails to meet the criteria for either category.[8] Although it is a virtual currency, some people see it as an investment[9] or accuse it of being a form of investment fraud known as a Ponzi scheme.[10][11] A report by the European Central Bank, using the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's definition of a Ponzi scheme, found that the use of bitcoins shares some characteristics with Ponzi schemes, but also has characteristics of its own which contradict several common aspects of Ponzi schemes.[12]

The only thing I've changed is that I added in the references; no content was changed from the above discussion.- SudoGhost 18:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Done — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
I believe this edit was far too arbitrary, without consensus, and especially removing POV and closing the DRN. I have therefore opened a case at Administrators' noticeboard: Incidents. prat (talk) 10:13, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
It was responded to six days after the proposal was initially made; you're about nine days late to even acknowledging Smickles86's proposed draft. You're welcome to help propose refinements to the content in the article, but talk pages discussions do not wait for you to acknowledge them before moving forward. In fact I even notified you of the discussion, and you acknowledged it, so it's not like you didn't know this was here. - SudoGhost 10:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
So, I'm here from the DRN discussion and I agree with the proposed (now live) changes. Pratyeka, I really don't believe you should be criticizing this for the reasons already put down by SudoGhost. Either way, how does the draft not solve the issues that created this discussion in the first place? --Nathan2055talk - contribs 21:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Sure, it's an improvement. But it's not really informative. Anyway, I am out of energy. I can't believe how ridiculously difficult it is to contribute improvements to locked pages. I am completely disillusioned. prat (talk) 22:54, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, now that the dispute is settled, why not downgrade the protection? Pending changes might be good here. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 22:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
This dispute wasn't why the page was protected, it's because of the dozen confirmed named sockpuppets of HowardStrong and countless IP sockpuppets, who continues to attempt to use sockpuppets to edit Bitcoin-related articles (in an unrelated issue to this). - SudoGhost 23:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

DR/N closure

The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Olive Branch
Hello, I am User:Amadscientist, a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I have closed the Bitcoin DR/N filing as stale and because the filing contained only two participants listed for the dispute which this talkpage indicates has a larger group of involved editors. Please consider starting an RFC or refiling at the DR board with a larger pool of involved participants for a fuller disussion. Thank you and happy editing. Amadscientist (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Ready for unprotection?

I'm the fellow who protected this page in response to a request at WP:RFPP back in October, but a couple of people notified me that things might have since calmed down. I haven't been active in the discussion here so I'm afraid I am out of touch, just wanted to see if the general consensus is that I should unprotect (or reduce to semi-protection) the page, or if it should be left protected pending further dispute resolution. If anyone could chime in, would appreciate it. · Andonic contact 13:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Why not lift the protection (i.e. reduce to semi) to see what happens. It may be educational even if the unprotection only lasts a few days. Bitcoin has in the past been a target of editing campaigns coming from outside Wikipedia. If that resumes, the protection can be restored. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable, let's give it a shot. · Andonic contact 22:55, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Anyone thought of pending changes? It might be a good fit here. --Nathan2055talk - contribs 02:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
It probably won't beacause the non-(auto)confirmed edits before protection would have have been able to be rejected. Lets leave it as semi and see if we get any edit requests. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:50, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request - Reward is now 25 BTC

Please update 1) sentence in Initial distribution section to "The network as of 2012 required over one million times more work for confirming a block and receiving an award (25 BTC starting from 28 November 2012[13]) than when the first blocks were confirmed" (i.e. change text in brackets only); 2) sentence in Mining rewards section to "The network never creates more than a 50 BTC reward per block and this amount will decrease over time towards zero (halves each 210000 blocks, which happens approximatelly every 4 years), such that no more than 21 million BTC will ever exist" (i.e. add text in brackets). My original request is below, no discussion happens. OverQuantum (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

210000th block have generated http://blockexplorer.com/b/210000, reward dropped to 25 BTC. Please update Initial distribution section OverQuantum (talk) 16:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Not done: Sorry, but I don't think blockexplorer.com qualifies as "reliable" under Wikipedia's guidelines on identifying reliable sources. If you can find a source that qualifies under the guidelines and that backs up your claim, feel free to reactivate the edit request template. Best — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 10:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Are you saying you need to wait for a news article to use blockexplorer.com as a source, and then use the news article as a source? Why can we not use the primary source? This isn't fiction, this is factual information - the reward is now 25 BTC. Mrcatzilla (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
I can confirm that the infomation above is correct Ho Tuan Kiet (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
It's not an issue of editors verifying it, that's WP:OR; it needs to be verified by reliable sources. - SudoGhost 12:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
Ah, this is the biggest problem since I have written for Wikipedia. Maybe these source will help you?

Ho Tuan Kiet (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

1. blockexplorer.com is already a information source in the article - about Genesis block (in infobox and ref 18) and about total number of bitcoins in existence (ref 34). 2. Dropping reward was anticipated in the border of 2012 and 2013 - see the picture "Total bitcoins over time" in the article, it just happens earlier due to fast generation in 2010. 3. Here are found sources which confirms new reward value: BBC http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-20510447 "The protocol that defines this block-to-coin ratio reduces the reward given for finding each block every time 210,000 blocks have been found. According to statistics gathered about the bitcoin network, the 210,000 figure looks set to be passed on 28 November.", http://www.technologyreview.com/news/508061/custom-chips-could-be-the-shovels-in-a-bitcoin-gold-rush/ "The reward is now 25 bitcoins", http://www.pcper.com/news/General-Tech/Bitcoin-Block-Reward-Halved-25BTC, http://progressbar.sk/en/calendar/bitcoin-reward-drop-celebration OverQuantum (talk) 10:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/11/mf_bitcoin/ Ho Tuan Kiet (talk) 06:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Not done: This page is no longer protected. Subject to consensus, you should be able to edit it yourself.. Protection has been reduced from full protection to semi-protection. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 03:52, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Two edits made, one for each section. If there is no further discussion, this Edit Request could be archived OverQuantum (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Please add a correction to the Ponzi Scheme accusation

What does "is gauged" mean? That is passive voice, which can be weasel-speak. What is the subject of the active statement? Who is the gauger? (EnochBethany (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC))

Please remove the entire "As an investment" section under "Concerns" because it is not cited by a reliable secondary source. The discussion of this edit is as follows.

Please cite the statement under "As an investment" under "Concerns" with these sources:

  • The Register: "Bitcoin has also been criticized as having the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme. New users acquire the currency by running the software on their computers, and occasionally “striking it lucky” when they discover the number of the next Bitcoin to be issued. Over time, the Bitcoin algorithm is designed to slow down the rate at which new Bitcoins are issued – which means early adopters were able to amass more coins more quickly than today’s user; and, if the network continues to grow, today’s user will amass more of the currency than someone who joins the network two years from now. This gives all current users a vested interest in promoting the system to the next round of participants. The architecture therefore encourages boosterism...[1]
  • Reuters: Financial traders have a new toy: Bitcoin, a digital currency variously dismissed as a Ponzi scheme or lauded as the greatest invention since the Internet.[2]

--Doyouevenlift84 (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

that says something to the effect of ". This criticism is baseless since Bitcoin does not exhibit any substantial attributes of Ponzi schemes". Unlike Ponzi schemes, buying Bitcoin provides no returns other than price fluctuations. Unlike Ponzi schemes, the people who invented Bitcoin and bought Bitcoin first cannot "run with the investors' money". Unlike Ponzi schemes, Bitcoin does not require a continual stream of investments to maintain its market price or its value. It is important that we do not allow lies to remain unchallenged. --Rudd-O (talk) 06:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says it's baseless? - SudoGhost 14:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I do: http://codinginmysleep.com/ponzi-schemes-in-plain-english/ Rudd-O (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
You should look at the source for the statement. It's dead. It probably wasn't even reliable.--Doyouevenlift84 (talk) 15:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Dead links are still reliable sources, I'm looking at it right now. Nor is it the only ponzi scheme allegation related to Bitcoin (although these make use of Bitcoins, the ponzi scheme isn't inherit in the currency).[3][4] - SudoGhost 15:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, those sources are an entirely different criticism. If the "ponzi claim" is significant, sure, it can be included. If not: WP:UNDUE. It's still retarded though. It's like saying Apple stock is a ponzi scheme because people buy it in hopes its price increases which is standard investment behavior. --Doyouevenlift84 (talk) 15:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Again, if you have reliable sources to refute it, awesome. - SudoGhost 15:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
You're incorrect. The burden of proof is on whoever included or wants to preserve the statement. We have one small site making this claim. I think we need more. --Doyouevenlift84 (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
"If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;" -Jimbo Wales, WP:UNDUE --Doyouevenlift84 (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The statement is sourced. If you want it removed, you'll need to do better than "I don't like it." - SudoGhost 16:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, if you want to keep the statement, you're going to have to prove it's significant and not WP:FRINGE. In fact, it's not sourced at all. While I think Bitcoin is a farce as much as the next guy, we're building an encyclopedia here.--Doyouevenlift84 (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Given the multiple sources that have been presented in this discussion, claiming that it's WP:FRINGE is easily refuted. - SudoGhost 03:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
This statement (that some have criticized Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme) should simply be removed. The dead-link source in this case is not reliable, as it provides no evidence or argument to support its title. 72.188.13.165 (talk) 16:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't think you've read the source, see the discussion above, a link is provided. - SudoGhost 16:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
"We can effectively think of “Satoshi Nakamoto” as being on top of a Ponzi scheme. But unlike physical world Ponzi schemes where the creators almost always end up in jail, the creator of bitcoins is anonymous and went out of his way to use anonymous email accounts through TOR networks to anonymously publish a whitepaper on bitcoins. The next wave of speculators who bought early into the bitcoin scheme and/or tried to generate their own bitcoins at a much slower pace (but still much higher than today) were the next tier in the scheme and they can probably walk away with some nice earnings if they pull out before the bubble bursts. At this late stage when the mainstream news is reporting on bitcoins, we have speculators trying to buy in at extremely high valuations hoping to sell to the 'greater fool'." - Conveniently Anonymous, Bitcoins, a Crypto-Geek Ponzi Scheme
That's all that is mentioned: An op-ed editorial and characterization of Bitcoin with no other references. There is not even proof Satoshi Nakamoto cashed in his earnings or has earned anything, period. This is not an encyclopedic reference.--Doyouevenlift84 (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
2 things: 1 - he did not keep a bunch of bitcoins for himself. He released the code and whoever mined them (post genesis block) acquired them. A ponzi implies that the starters have a vested interest in seeing it rise above those that followed. There is no proof (nor any indication) that he is sitting on a bunch of coins. 2 - As mentioned previously, the reason for this label seems to be because its speculatory in nature, not a ponzi. If everything that is speculatory (and rewards early adopters over late adopters) a ponzi? Is the real estate market a ponzi? How about wheat futures? Stocks? The analogy is ridiculous. It's just a form of speculation that the author couldn't understand and therefore seemed to label it a ponzi.Bingersb (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

This article can be usefull to understood why Bitcoin can't be a ponzi scheme: http://www.runtogold.com/2012/11/why-bitcoin-is-tangible-digging-into-the-guts-of-bitcoin/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hostfat (talk • contribs) 17:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The fact that some people have accused Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme is certainly notably incorrect. Even though I don't agree with that conclusion, it is a common perception and deserves to be addressed in the article. I think we should expand the section with the reasoning behind the labeling, and, once the consensus viewpoint has shifted, then so note. Lauciusa (talk) 17:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

What fact? Where? There are no other sources that this is a major claim besides a single editorial with no referenced reasoning. Again, if it is a common perception, cite it with a reliable secondary reference.--Doyouevenlift84 (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm as big a Bitcoin fan as anyone, but let's not pretend here. There's a reason why this is a FAQ on the Bitcoin wiki itself : https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Is_Bitcoin_a_Ponzi_scheme.3F. I can dig up a dozen blogs that blithely dismiss Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme. It does not benefit the community to pretend that nobody thinks this; instead the idea should be addressed directly. Lauciusa (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
That's not a reliable source. Blogs are not a reliable source. I am not a Bitcoin fan -- I sort of think it is funny money. I am just trying to make sure the article follows encyclopedic guidelines. This claim can be included if it has significant secondary coverage. What you're proposing is including original material in an encyclopedia that works off objective, secondary references. This may be a real viewpoint. That's great but we can't include it without proper citation. --Doyouevenlift84 (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Reliable Sources:
  • The Register: "Bitcoin has also been criticized as having the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme. New users acquire the currency by running the software on their computers, and occasionally “striking it lucky” when they discover the number of the next Bitcoin to be issued. Over time, the Bitcoin algorithm is designed to slow down the rate at which new Bitcoins are issued – which means early adopters were able to amass more coins more quickly than today’s user; and, if the network continues to grow, today’s user will amass more of the currency than someone who joins the network two years from now. This gives all current users a vested interest in promoting the system to the next round of participants. The architecture therefore encourages boosterism...[5]
  • Reuters: Financial traders have a new toy: Bitcoin, a digital currency variously dismissed as a Ponzi scheme or lauded as the greatest invention since the Internet.[6]
The Register article is particularly useful because it explains why Bitcoin has the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme. John Nagle (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
The register article gets the definition of ponzi wrong. The first (and probably most important) characteristic of a ponzi scheme (according to Wikipedia) is "Typically extraordinary returns are promised on the investment". Nobody is in a position with Bitcoin to make such promises and I'd like to see a citation where someone credible has done so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.156.72.172 (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
"Typically" is the important word there, it doesn't mean "A Ponzi scheme always does this, and anything that doesn't isn't a Ponzi scheme". Even if that were the case, however, the source isn't saying "Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme", it's saying "Bitcoin has been criticized as having the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme". It's not a requirement that it have all the characteristics in order to make that statement true. - SudoGhost 20:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Leaving it as such horribly misleads the reader who thinks they are reading information from an encyclopedia rather then uninformed heresay about what a ponzi scheme might or might not be. The quote should not be stricken, but should instead be amended with correct infromation on what a ponzi scheme is and how bitcoin is not a ponzi scheme. To hide this fact is to purposely mislead the reader. Stevenwagner (talk) 22:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
There's no way the article is misleading, it says "Some criticize Bitcoin for being a Ponzi scheme", and that's exactly what reliable sources reflect. It's not going to be amended with "what a ponzi scheme is and how bitcoin is not a ponzi scheme", because reliable sources don't suggest either way, and the article does not either. - SudoGhost 22:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Right. For an example of a Ponzi scheme promising good, but not extraordinary, returns, see Bernard Madoff. That's part of why Madoff was able to keep it going for so long. John Nagle (talk) 23:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm also sorry that some find me a "dick", but the statement has plenty of sources that can verify what the article is saying. I appreciate that some people don't want that information in the article, but articles have the good and the bad, we don't remove content just because we feel the bad isn't valid when reliable sources feel otherwise. - SudoGhost 23:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Not only is the "source" (lol) article misinformed as per http://codinginmysleep.com/ponzi-schemes-in-plain-english/ but at the same time the wikipedia page presents the accusation without any basis and it's certainly not neutral point of view either, because the true statement that Bitcoin is not a Ponzi scheme (to wit: it's not fraudulent, and it's not an investment except in the vaguest and most watered-down, intentionally obtuse of senses, so it couldn't possibly be "a fraudulent investment operation" to begin with) gets absolutely no face time there. Remind me again: Why do we tolerate slanderous lies on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudd-O (talk • contribs) 01:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The blog you're citing is not a reliable source, and has no bearing on how Wikipedia articles are written. If you're still asserting the statement in the article is without basis, I would ask that you please re-read this discussion, because you've missed the multiple reliable sources that say otherwise, and when the only thing you can provide to the contrary is some blog entry that somebody just wrote, it doesn't make for a convincing argument. Your argument that it "couldn't be a ponzi scheme because it doesn't fit your definition of what a ponzi scheme is" would be original research. Find a reliable source that makes the same conclusion, but even then it wouldn't warrant removing the content. The article does not say "Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme", it says "Some criticize Bitcoin for being a Ponzi scheme", and there are plenty of sources that back that statement up, so not agreeing with the assessment isn't sufficient to warrant the removal of sourced content from a Wikipedia article. - SudoGhost 04:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The basis for this lie about Bitcoin comes down to this (culled from the "source" LOL): "We can effectively think of “Satoshi Nakamoto” as being on top of a Ponzi scheme.". That's it. That's not an argument (not even an invalid argument)... According to this retarded "reasoning", I could also say: "we can think of Jesus as a white person" and link it to the wikipedia article of Jesus Christ in the Controversy section under a Race Issues header. My point is that this statement in the "source" doesn't mean anything, and it's preposterous that this "source" is being used to provide false support to a lie.

What I want to know is: what are we waiting for to delete or neutralize (with the truth) this slanderous lie about Bitcoin? Simple bureaucracy of providing a source refuting a lie? Just delete the lie! Whether Bitcoin is or isn't a Ponzi scheme isn't an opinion or a matter of popular consensus, but a truth-bearing statement that can be evaluated rationally, and has been evaluated rationally already. As per http://codinginmysleep.com/ponzi-schemes-in-plain-english/ , Bitcoin clearly shares none of the characteristics that are unique to and essential about Ponzi schemes, so the statement is a lie (whether naive or perfidious), and the criticism ought to be either deleted or amended. Why do we allow silly process and bickering to hold back telling the truth? --Rudd-O (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The "logic" of the Ponzi scheme lie is easily refuted. The lie says "Some criticize Bitcoin for being a Ponzi scheme in that it rewards early adopters through early Bitcoin mining and increasing exchange rates." Everything after "in that it" is purported to be the reason to call Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme. So, is it cool for me to go to the Apple page and vandalize it by adding "Some criticize Apple stock for being a Ponzi scheme in that it rewarded early shareholders through early stock granting and increasing stock prices" and a link to articles supporting these facts? Rudd-O (talk) 02:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately your argument is contradicted by multiple reliable sources. What's written in the article is that "Some criticize Bitcoin for being a Ponzi scheme", and that's reflected by what reliable sources say, and the source in the article isn't the only source that says this. There is nothing inaccurate in what is written in the article, that some have criticized Bitcoin in this manner is reliably sourced, so it isn't a lie. What a blog says about Ponzi schemes is well and fine, but doesn't affect how articles are written in any way. Blogs are not reliable sources and do not affect an article's content, especially when reliable sources refute the claims in the blog. - SudoGhost 03:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The statement "There is nothing inaccurate in what is written in the article" is incorrect and this has been proven to you using numerous sources, including one from the European Central Bank. The statement "that some have criticized Bitcoin in this manner is reliably sourced" is on its face technically correct (the source does indeed contain that lie), however that is not the point of contention here, the point of contention is that the content of the source is a lie, thus the way that the source is cited misrepresents intersubjectively verifiable material facts and misleads the reader into fearing Bitcoin, and that this lie has been refuted by a source much more reliable than a Register hit piece, namely the European Central Bank report on virtual currencies. I'm honestly pointing this obvious truth which somehow seems to blitz past your head (probably because you don't want to understand) purely out of formality. Your recalcitrantly incompetent behavior here has rightfully angered many people and, personally, it has convinced me that you are an incompetent control freak, thoroughly unsuited to be the editor of this page, who plays the bureaucrat game by choosing to keep a slanderous lie in a Wikipedia article rather than actually help the article convey the truth to Wikipedia users. Rudd-O (talk) 07:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
To finalize, I will now exploit your own excuses to ridicule your incompetent behavior. For example, I'll say in this talk page that some have criticized SudoGhost for being an incompetent control freak who by happenstance wrongfully obtained editorial control of Wikipedia, and he misuses this privilege to make Wikipedia a more content-free and less rumor-free encyclopedia; also some have said that his mother is less clean than the legendary prostitute of Babylon[14]. I will now proceed to source this obviously technically correct citation from my blog, which has been used as a reliable source in numerous articles across Wikipedia himself. Presto! Now you can't delete this because you would be contradicting your own shitty rationalization for keeping a lie on the Bitcoin article. Interesting, isn't it? Now, anyone who reads this might be led to believe these false rumors about SudoGhost. Perhaps that is the case, but the rumor stays here because, according to the venal and idiotic criterion of SudoGhost himself, the statement is obviously reliably sourced. Feel free to clean up on the formatting, son of a b*tch (I recall hearing that on Wikipedia), thanks. Rudd-O (talk) 07:38, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Look, you're asking to remove reliably sourced content without any explanation as to why it should be removed other than "I don't think it's correct", when reliable sources already show otherwise. You're insisting that a statement that can be verified as true is false, and that's why the change you're looking for is not being implemented. What you're asking violates several of Wikipedia's policies (WP:NPOV, WP:V), and how you're asking it is violating others (WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL). Wikipedia does not remove well sourced content from an article just because there are individuals that do not like what it says, especially when these individuals can provide no reason to remove it other than "It's a lie", something that was proven inaccurate, not by editors, but by reliable sources. I'm sorry you feel that attacking someone's mother is how you achieve things but I can assure you that doesn't cast me in the negative light you think it does, but rather reflects on you and the substance of your position. I know you were trying to make a point with your "reference", but as has been pointed out, blogs and personal websites are not reliable sources. There is a difference between a medium with editorial oversight such as The Register saying something, and some individual with his own website saying something. - SudoGhost 15:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
SudoGhost, the rationale for removing the sentence is not "Rudd-O in his personal subjective opinion believes it is incorrect", the rationale is that it *is* incorrect, factually and indisputably so based on the very definition of a Ponzi scheme. The link he's providing you with is not a source, it's a factual argument that explains why the statement is incorrect. You should judge that argument based on its merits, not where it comes from. Reuters and especially the Register publish things which are not factually correct all the time: it's the job of encyclopedia writers to try and separate the right from wrong when it comes to matters of fact. Here's an analogy. Many American Congress-men believe the earth is 6000 years old, despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary. Would you be happy with the Wikipedia entry on the Earth saying "Some sources say that the Earth is 6000 years old" and leave it at that? No, of course not. The fact that some people with a position of respected authority say something doesn't make it true. Mike Hearn (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
It looks like what you're seeing and what the article says are two different things, that's the only way I can figure you truly believe that what the article is saying is incorrect. The article does not say Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme. So any argument that it isn't a ponzi scheme is missing that very key point. What the article says is that Bitcoin has been criticized for being a ponzi scheme, and that is accurate, and there's nothing you can say that would show otherwise, because reliable sources reflect what the article says. Bitcoin has been criticized for this, you cannot say that this is incorrect, because it has been proved otherwise. It has been criticized enough that the Bitcoin wiki itself makes a point to clarify why it isn't, which wouldn't be necessary if, as you say, what's written in this article is incorrect. It is not the job of editors to separate "right from wrong" when it means ignoring what reliable sources have published. Also, your analogy isn't a good one, because you're comparing scientific dating with religious dating, and Wikipedia reflects both of those positions as appropriate; we don't remove content just because we disagree with it. - SudoGhost 17:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
This is also something the individuals over at /r/Bitcoin seem to be confused on as well. The article does not say Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme. That it has been criticized for such can be attributed to many reliable sources, and we have a core content policy on Wikipedia that says that if something has been mentioned that much by reliable sources, it generally warrants a mention in an article. If you're going to ask that sourced content be removed from a Wikipedia article, you're going to need a better reason than "sudoghost is a dick" and retorts about my mother. You believe that Bitcoin isn't a ponzi scheme, and that's fine, you can provide all the personal reasoning in the world why it isn't, but the article does not say that it is a ponzi scheme.- SudoGhost 18:05, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
If the article was not protected, I would happily go ahead and add referenced statements from reliable sources refuting the allegation. However, I can't. Also, the reason people are upset is that the article is ambiguously worded, it says "Some criticize Bitcoin for being a ponzi scheme". Is English your native language? The most natural way to parse this sentence is as "Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme and some criticize it for that" which is not true - a better phrasing would be "Some allege that Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme". Mike Hearn (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
It does not matter that it has been refuted, the article does not present it as a fact but reflects that sources have criticized this, it doesn't matter if overenthusiastic individuals think that the criticism isn't valid, it's still criticism and still belongs on the article. Until you stop arguing against things that aren't even in the article you're not going to get anywhere with this, and if the best you can do is insult other editors then you have shown your arguments for what they are. Throwing around insults instead of reason may be fine for /r/Bitcoin, but on Wikipedia not only with that get you blocked from editing, but only serves to discredit you and makes your argument look very weak. Stop arguing that Bitcoin isn't a ponzi scheme, the article does not say that it is, repeating that same argument is pointless. - SudoGhost 20:54, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: I have disabled the original editprotected request because I can't see a consensus here. Please continue the discussion as necessary and reactivate if appropriate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I read through this whole debate and one point that no one seems to really understand how the block reward works, which I think is the fundamental confusion over the whole "Is Bitcoin a Ponzi Scheme" thing... Bitcoin was designed from the start to taper off the block reward to effectively zero. If that were all it did, then the Ponzi accusation would hold some credence. However, the entire intent of tapering off the block reward was with the understanding that transaction fees would eventually equal out and eventually surpass the value of the block reward. As such, Bitcoin does not fall into the Ponzi category, as it is self sustaining and those mining later are eligible to receive the same amount (if not more) for mining than early adopters. In the future, it's entirely possible (I won't comment on the likelyhood) that a block reward with transaction fees would be worth more than 50 BTC or even 100 BTC... making those individuals that are mining in 10 years able to earn more per block than those mining in the early days.

This being the case, Bitcoin can not be classified as a Ponzi, since late adopters have just as much possibility of making money as the early adopters when averaged out of over time. This is directly contradictory to the entire Ponzi methodology.

Nitrowolf (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, Bitcoin is not classified as "a Ponzi", and even if the article did classify it as such, your personal analysis does not trump multiple reliable sources. What the article does say is that it has been criticized for being a ponzi scheme, and there are multiple reliable sources that back up this statement; that you don't think it's a ponzi scheme doesn't mean that we remove well sourced criticism notes that others have drawn a different opinion. Nobody likes it when something they are enthusiastic about gets criticized, but we don't remove criticism from articles just because we don't like it when they are criticized, that would run contrary to Wikipedia policy. - SudoGhost 20:46, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Does it matter that neither citation actually mentions anyone who has accused Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme? Both links say that Bitcoin "has been criticized as a Ponzi scheme" and that it has been "dismissed as a Ponzi scheme" but never mentions who the person is that makes these accusations. Without attributing this to anyone, both these sound like they are using weasel words. Harksaw (talk) 18:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
The block reward scheme, whether by coins or transaction fees, has very little to do with the characterisation of bitcoin as a ponzi scheme. The characterisation is due to its similarities to an economic bubble; like the famous Tulip mania, the value of bitcoin increases due to demand, which in turn leads to more demand as investors "buy in" hoping to make a profit. Such bubbles can not be sustained forever and inevitably collapse; from Ponzi scheme:

The question of whether bitcoin is a bubble or ponzi scheme might revolve around who exactly mined the majority of the bitcoins in the early times, if it was (as seems likely) "Satoshi Nakamoto" and friends, then it certainly *resembles* a Ponzi scheme.

Anyway, that is my hypothesis, and SudoGhost is entirely correct above in stating that Wikipedia is about reliable sources and not personal conjecture. With that in mind, the articles at The Register etc. are all citable, and the forums etc. are not.
"This being the case, Bitcoin can not be classified as a Ponzi" - it does not matter what you or I think. What matters is what reliable, reputable sources have said about this issue. The ECB article quoted does not say that bitcoin is or isn't a Ponzi scheme, but it does say:
That is a very reliable source stating that, for many people, bitcoin has the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme. Although they do not outright state that it is a Ponzi scheme, they do state that it is high-risk and vulnerable to collapse if confidence in the system falls:
Barry McGuiness (talk) 00:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
It might be worth quoting the other concerns in the ECB report in the "Concerns" section of the article:
Barry McGuiness (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Can we all at least agree that if this section is here to stay, that the sources cited for the claim should be changed to the Reuters and The Register articles cited by Doyouevenlift84 way back in the beginning of this edit request? I fail to see how just that simple change could be controversial. --Maged123 (talk) 01:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
So if we are looking for a credible source which argues Bitcoin is not a Ponzi scheme, then why has no one mentioned what the ECB say on page 27 of their report titled "Virtual Currency Schemes"? I don't mind that comment being there, as long as it is refuted with facts. A lot of people do in fact believe Bitcoin is a Ponzi Scheme, it's a very common misconception, so it's not totally nonsensical to include that in the article. However, if we are going to include that in the article, then the article also needs to clearly refute that misconception with the facts of the matter. As it stands now, it's basically saying Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, and that's what people have an issue with. It's not fair or balanced in any way. ECB comments follow.

-llCHAOSll- (talk) 02:45, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion that section should be changed to say something like the following:
Some have accused Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme in that it rewards early adopters through early Bitcoin mining and increasing exchange rates.[46] However, under the definition of a Ponzi scheme, Bitcoin is lacking many of the most important characteristics of a Ponzi scheme and cannot truly be classified as a Ponzi scheme.
The European Central Bank released a report in October of 2012 titled "Virtual Currency Schemes". On page 27 of this report they put forward several reasons why Bitcoin is not a Ponzi scheme and does not fulfil the definition of a Ponzi scheme. [ECB-SOURCE]
They point out that Bitcoin is decentralized and as such "there is no central organiser that can undermine the system and disappear with its funds". They also note that "the scheme does not promise high returns to anybody", a key characteristic of a Ponzi scheme.

-llCHAOSll- (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Can we just include this chunk of text here?--
"In a whitepaper published by the European Central Bank, the central bank asserted that Bitcoin does not fit the definition of a Ponzi scheme."
And here's your footnote:
"European Central Bank. Virtual Currency Schemes. European Central Bank, 2012, p. 27. http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemes201210en.pdf"
Zeno Izen (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't see that conclusion in that document; it doesn't appear to make any assessment one way or the other, but rather summarizes the opinions given by others. The only thing it seems to conclude is that "although the current knowledge base does not make it easy to assess whether or not the Bitcoin system actually works like a pyramid or Ponzi scheme, it can justifiably be stated that Bitcoin is a high-risk system for its users from a financial perspective, and that it could collapse if people try to get out of the system and are not able to do so because of its illiquidity." - SudoGhost 03:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok fine, they don't reach a solid conclusion, but they clearly show that Bitcoin does not meet the definition of a Ponzi scheme, and if we are going to be perfectly technical here, then Bitcoin is not a Ponzi scheme, it's as simple as that. So to label it a Ponzi scheme, when the definition of a Ponzi scheme CLEARLY doesn't fit Bitcoin, is misleading. The text I suggested does not say they reached that conclusion, it merely says they argued Bitcoin does not fit the definition of a Ponzi scheme. -llCHAOSll- (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
The document doesn't say anything about not meeting the definition either. - SudoGhost 03:41, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
It doesn't explicitly state it, but it can easily be inferred from what they say. They begin by explaining the definition of a Ponzi scheme, and then they go on to point out several important ways in which Bitcoin does not match that definition. Really it seems to me like you're just grasping for straws because you don't want to admit it should be changed. Anyone with an ounce of common sense can see it's wrong as it is. Do what you wish, my argument has been made and I don't feel like continuing on with this futile exercise. -llCHAOSll- (talk) 03:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
If you have to infer it, then it doesn't "clearly" say it. Inferring a conclusion not given by the document is synthesis, and that's not sufficient. Especially if you're trying to say that the document says this, when it does not. - SudoGhost 03:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say that they clearly say it, I said they clearly show it. People have accused it of being one, but have they proved it with logic? We can prove it's not a Ponzi scheme by presenting simple fact. So what do we have here? We have wild accusations versus a sound logical deduction made by a reputable organisation. At the very least that section needs something about how Bitcoin cannot be defined as a Ponzi scheme. -llCHAOSll- (talk) 04:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Let me get this straight...this document says nothing like what you're suggesting, and yet I'm supposed to believe that it somehow also "clearly shows it"? I'm sorry but no. - SudoGhost 04:06, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok fine then we'll just wait for some reputable organisation to explicitly state "Bitcoin is not a Ponzi scheme" before we decide to use our brains and present the facts as they are, meanwhile leaving equally unproven and absurd statements unrefuted and on public display. Sounds like a rational process to me. -llCHAOSll- (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Since you're repeating something already explained to others, I'll ask that you please read this discussion, your arguments have already been addressed, repeating them does no good. - SudoGhost 04:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)


The ECB whitepaper gives a definition of a Ponzi scheme and shows at least two points at which Bitcoin fails to meet the definition. I think the general tone of the whitepaper is clear here; they're saying "not quite."
That may be synthesis to you, but I don't think you can specifically refute the truth of the edit I've proposed. The whitepaper does in fact assert that Bitcoin does not meet the definition off a Ponzi scheme. It's as simple as that, and I think the edit should be included.
Furthermore, the original edit under question "Some people etc. etc." starts of with distinctly unencyclopedic weasel words and finishes with a broken citation. That needs to be fixed. I don't understand why this is controversial. Fix it or delete it.
Really, stuff like this weakens Wikipedia.

Zeno Izen (talk) 04:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

If you're going to say that something is "clear", it'd be a good idea to make sure that's the case. It's not synthesis to me, it's synthesis period. If you're going to make a claim that "the central bank asserted that Bitcoin does not fit the definition of a Ponzi scheme", it'd help if the document actually said this. Nowhere does it say anything like that. That you drew a conclusion from it doesn't hold any weight. - SudoGhost 04:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
I already quoted the ECB paper earlier:
What they are saying is that many people consider the way it is operating to be characteristic of a Ponzi scheme, but it is not easy to assess whether or not it actually is. To therefore claim that "The whitepaper does in fact assert that Bitcoin does not meet the definition off a Ponzi scheme." is completely misleading and inaccurate. It makes no such assertion. Barry McGuiness (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break with suggestion

I've been reading this discussion, and it should come as no surprise that when you attack and insult others like that they aren't exactly eager to help. Calling me "SudoDouche" and creating subpages on your websites attacking me doesn't do you any good; it works towards damaging the credibility you would have otherwise had and you're shooting yourself in the foot with that behavior. I say this in part because readers do occasionally visit the talk pages and will see these discussions and may impact how they view Bitcoin; when you resort to petty name-calling when you don't immediately get your way, you don't exactly make Bitcoin look like something used by a mature crowd that should be embraced and taken seriously.

As for the article and this talk page being locked, that has nothing to do with this discussion; you can thank HowardStrong for that one, he decided that he should vandalize the page (and that's pretty much one of the only diffs you can see, the rest inserted pornographic images and vulgarity on the page to the point that the diffs had to be revdel'd).

With that said, I can see where "Some criticize Bitcoin for being a Ponzi scheme" can be assumed to have an issue. On the one hand, it is a factual sentence; there are sources that criticize it for this reason, that does not imply that it is a Ponzi scheme, that would be jumping to a conclusion not given by the text. It has been criticized for this, and that's something that is sourced, you can't "un-source" that; no matter what sources you present, it's going to somehow un-criticize Bitcoin, the criticisms are still there, it doesn't matter if you can "prove" with your personal logic and with sources that don't actually support your argument that it isn't one; you're disproving something not relevant. On the other hand, that multiple Bitcoin enthusiasts have misread this sentence thereby repeating the same flawed arguments over and over does indicate that a clarification would help. Perhaps the statement can be clarified to read "Some criticize Bitcoin, accusing it of being a Ponzi scheme." or something similar. - SudoGhost 04:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, SudoGhost, that writing the phrase in question this way is diplomatic and neutral. It informs the reader that there exist those who question the legitimacy of Bitcoin through criticism, while directing them to seek the appropriate sources for further information (like the oft-mentioned ECB document, popular press, and so on). I propose that the entire line simply be as you suggest above: "Some criticize Bitcoin, accusing it of being a Ponzi scheme.", followed by citations. No more, no less. This leads the reader to decide if they wish to investigate further, without bias. For those who wish to fight the criticism, I believe the entire article as a whole stands as proof against Bitcoin being a ponzi scheme, which should be sufficient to put this to rest.Jtibble (talk) 07:07, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Writing the statement that way would be an improvement over what is there today, yes. I'm sorry if I offended you with my comment about English. That wasn't my intent. Stating that "Some criticize Bitcoin, accusing it" or more simply "Some accuse Bitcoin" is a lot clearer than the current phrasing. Re: the larger debate, I think most of us would be even happier if the alternative point of view was also there. At this point there are multiple sources which have examined the debate and arrived at different conclusions, it would make sense to have them be cited as well. Given that the current statement is sourced from news stories that also just say "Some criticize ...", actual analysis from the ECB seems encylopedic enough to be included as well. Mike Hearn (talk) 10:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The ECB report clearly does not see it as a Ponzi, since it does not promise any returns and even major project developers call it "an experiment" and "not an investment". At the very least, to comply with NPOV, the accusation of ponzi should be balanced by a mention of contrary arguments.
  • See: http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/other/virtualcurrencyschemes201210en.pdf --╪ (talk) 09:49, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
I already quoted the ECB paper earlier:
What they are saying is that many people consider the way it is operating to be characteristic of a Ponzi scheme, but it is not easy to assess whether or not it actually is. To therefore claim that "The ECB report clearly does not see it as a Ponzi" is completely misleading and inaccurate. Barry McGuiness (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
  • The ECB report makes no judgment one way or the other, it merely makes a summary assessment of what other people have concluded. It makes no conclusion itself, and certainly not the conclusion you're alleging. The best it says it "it's complicated", so I don't know how you drew "clearly does not see it as a Ponzi" from that. - SudoGhost 17:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised this discussion is still ongoing, as the matter seemed so stark that it should arrive at consensus quickly. I didn't think I needed to offer a perspective, but it looks like I do. Bitcoin is not a Ponzi scheme any more than any other currency; it cannot be a Ponzi scheme as it's not a scheme at all!

So some people say it's a Ponzi scheme. Well, some people say Obama was born in Africa, but I don't see mention of birthers on his Wikipedia page. The claim that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme even more outlandish and just as inappropriate to include in the page despite the fact that it's a claim that has been made.

If the claim that it's a Ponzi scheme is included, it must be followed by language casting explicit doubt on the claim.

I'll add another element to the mix: The SEC's definition of a Ponzi scheme. [15] Even ignoring that Bitcoin is not a scheme and so cannot be a Ponzi scheme, the requirements of the SEC are entirely unmet. Crcarlin (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Show me a reliable source that says Bitcoin does not meet these SEC "requirements", otherwise that's your personal analysis. As for the Obama comment, that has its own Wikipedia page. - SudoGhost 20:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
Shall I show you a page that says a table lamp is not a Ponzi scheme? That a leaf is not a Ponzi scheme? That pi is not a Ponzi scheme? Surely there's a point where a claim is so not simply questionable but actually clearly flawed that it doesn't bear consideration. This is one of those cases.
It'd be one thing if we were talking about whether some strategy is a Ponzi scheme, but we're not. We're talking about whether something that's not a scheme is a Ponzi scheme. The logical contradiction is so clear that the accusation doesn't bear consideration. Crcarlin (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
The difference is that reliable sources don't make the claim that a table is a ponzi scheme, so that's nowhere near the same thing. You claim that "the accusation doesn't bear consideration" yet reliable sources have a different opinion. Your conclusion does not nullify reliable sources, no matter how "true" you think your conclusion is. The article makes no claim that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, only that it has been accused of being one. Are you trying to suggest that it hasn't been accused of this? Otherwise, that has nothing to do with what's in the article; the article does not suggest what you are trying to refute. - SudoGhost 20:24, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm suggesting two things. Firstly, that it's a poor technique to rely on this "people say people say" chain. Secondly, that the accusation is blatantly false, which makes the weak claim even weaker. This is no way to contribute to a high quality article.
A different way of putting it is this: the sources you cite fail to meet the high burden of proof needed to propose the claim that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme. It's an outlandish claim to make, so it would take some pretty forceful sources to establish it. These are not they. Crcarlin (talk) 06:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
The article says "Bitcoin has been accused of being a Ponzi scheme", there are sources that show that Bitcoin has been accused of being a Ponzi scheme. Period. Is it "an outlandish claim" that Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme? Maybe, but that's irrelevant, since this article is not making that claim, but reflecting what reliable sources have said. You can stop arguing that "it isn't true", because the article isn't asserting that it is. If this article were saying "Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme" what you've said would make sense, but that's not the case. I don't doubt that you believe that "the accusation is blatantly false", but we go by what we can verify, not what Bitcoin enthusiasts think is "true". What we can verify is that Bitcoin has been accused of being a Ponzi scheme, so that's what belongs in the article. The burden is proof is met, and the article does not make judgment one way or the other. - SudoGhost 20:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Except that the statement isn't portraying the issue in a neutral way. It doesn't present any of the other side of the issue, so it ends up over-promoting a fringe belief, and based on questionable sourcing at that. If the article presents the accusation at all, it needs to also present the ease with which the accusation is debunked or else it's not an evenhanded approach. Crcarlin (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
It's not over-promoting a fringe belief]], and the sourcing is far from questionable. It certainly isn't portraying the issue in a non-neutral way. The article is reflecting what reliable sources have said on the subject; neutrality does not mean equal, it means equal as reliable sources have described it. Does it need to be expanded? Absolutely. But it's hard to move forward and expand it when you're still arguing to have it removed in the first place. - SudoGhost 16:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
It's over-promoting a fringe belief. The sourcing is questionable. It's portraying the issue in a non-neutral way. There's no evidence the article is reflecting what reliable sources have said on the subject. See how much we disagree? This is the impasse! Your restating the same over and over doesn't break the logjam; it only makes it hard to move forward when you insist on being the only one in the room that's correct! Crcarlin (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
It is not "over-promoting a fringe belief", it's a single sentence, so that's kind of an odd thing to assert, please read WP:DUE. The sourcing is also not questionable, you questioning it does not mean it is a questionable source; please read WP:IRS. Asserting that "there is no evidence" is equally meritless, because it is said word-for-word in the article, please read WP:V. "See how much we disagree" isn't going to somehow get the content removed from the article. Arguing for the sake of creating a disagreement isn't going to work, and that's really the only thing I can figure you're trying to do here. When sources clearly and unambiguously verify that "Bitcoin has been accused of being a Ponzi scheme", I really cannot figure out how you truly are trying to assert that this isn't accurate, and reading over what you've written it just seems like you're just trying to make every different kind of argument you can hoping something sticks, but I promise you that's not going to affect a single thing on this article. That Bitcoin has been accused of being a Ponzi scheme is well-sourced, and is not going to be removed from the article. You can help expand that and find reliable sources that explain why Bitcoin is not a Ponzi scheme, or you can keep trying to argue that Bitcoin somehow hasn't been accused of anything, and that all the reliable sources are just lying, but that's completely up to you. - SudoGhost 20:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Sure a single sentence can overpromote a fringe belief, particularly as the sentence doesn't provide the other side of the discussion and is thus non-neutral. Plenty of us in the tech world consider The Register to be extremely unreliable. Anyway, I can go on and on, but the upshot is this: you and I disagree in unresolvable ways. When that happens Wikipedia looks to processes such as consensus to settle disputes, but your tactic is to simply stomp your feet and insist that you're right and everyone else is wrong. Crcarlin (talk) 07:27, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

These ad hominem assertions do not reflect upon myself, but rather upon the substance of your comment. It doesn't matter if "plenty of us in the tech world consider The Register to be extremely unreliable", that is far from the only reliable source verifying what's in the article. - SudoGhost 07:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change "Some criticize Bitcoin for being a Ponzi scheme in that it rewards early adopters through early Bitcoin mining and increasing exchange rates.[16]" to "Bitcoin has been accused of being a Ponzi scheme for rewarding early adopters through early Bitcoin mining and increasing exchange rates.[17][18]" There seems to be a general agreement that how it is currently worded gives the impression that Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme, as opposed to being accused of being one. Hopefully we can reach a consensus for how to expand upon that and editors can find reliable sources that refute these claims, but right now the above needs to be changed because it seems to be stating the Ponzi scheme claim as a fact in Wikipedia's own voice, when it needs to be clearer that it is an opinion held by some. - SudoGhost 20:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Where is the proper place to continue discussion? Here or in the above section?
I would suggest the further refinement, "The Bitcoin verification process has been accused..." or "Bitcoin mining has been accused..." since that's what the above articles are really claiming. Some random guy just holding a Bitcoin won't be involved in mining, so the articles aren't talking about Bitcoin in general.Crcarlin (talk) 20:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
That's not what the above articles are "really" claiming, the articles are talking about Bitcoin in general. The articles say "Bitcoin, a digital currency variously dismissed as a Ponzi scheme..."[7] and "Bitcoin has also been criticized as having the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme"[8] Bitcoin itself is the subject, not merely aspects of it. - SudoGhost 20:27, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Well no. The Reuters article, I'd argue, doesn't claim that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme and only hints that others dismiss it as one. It mentions that others dismiss it in the article's lede and doesn't revisit the issue anywhere in the article. I wouldn't even count it as a claim, but rather an offhand rhetorical remark.
The Register article clarifies that it's referring to the process of mining. The paragraph wherein The Register (which, BTW, I'd consider hardly reputable, but nevermind that) discusses the Ponzi scheme accusation is quite specific. "New users acquire the currency by running the software on their computers" is a description specifically of mining, not of Bitcoin as a whole.
So there you go. An impossible claim supposedly supported by one rhetorical mention and one that clarifies its terms to not apply to Bitcoin as a whole. The claim shouldn't be in the entry unless accompanied by a high level of skepticism. Crcarlin (talk) 06:17, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Your analysis is not reflected by the source itself; they do not claim that only specific aspects are covered under the Ponzi accusation, nor is that even so much as suggested by the sources. Unless the source itself states that only specific parts of Bitcoin are likened to a Ponzi scheme, you cannot assert that the sources are making such a statement. - SudoGhost 06:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Ah, but SudoGhost, they don't claim that there ARE other aspects covered under the Ponzi accusation. I'd say unless the source itself indicates that there are other aspects, we're not free to assume there are.
At the same time, the article goes through lengths to lay out a specific justification for the Ponzi claim. The clear interpretation of this is that this is the heart of their claim; and their claim as laid out applies only to mining and not to Bitcoin in general.
Therefore, it's a reach to assume the article is talking about anything other than mining. Crcarlin (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, as I glance in the above discussion, it looks like there is pretty good consensus that the line needs to either go or be cast in a far more dubious light. I'd suggest taking it out entirely until a better line can be proposed.

At this point it seems to be SudoGhost alone staking out a tenuous position, using questionable interpretations of weak sources to maintain a line that other editors overwhelmingly reject. I don't know what good it is to continue to discuss this with SudoGhost, as his perspective seems unlikely to be swayed toward the rest of us.

And let's keep in mind what this is all about. We're talking about a line so weak that it has to be prefixed with "has been accused." Surely the negative implications of this line outweigh the weak information it conveys! Crcarlin (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

You're still making a claim not presented by the sources themselves, you cannot draw a conclusion from the source that the source does not itself make clear, and it seems you're confusing them giving an example with them giving that as the sole reasoning. The sources say very clearly that Bitcoin itself is what it being accused, not "just aspects". This is not something you can argue; if the source does not say it, you cannot claim that the source is saying it. You also have a misunderstanding of what consensus is, considering that you've presented no evidence for your reasoning other than your own personal analysis, and what you're saying is refuted by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There is no basis upon which you may request that sourced content be removed merely because you do not like that Bitcoin has been criticized. It has been accused of being a Ponzi scheme; this is reflected in the article and by numerous reliable sources. When the Bitcoin wiki itself feels it needs to defend itself against claims of being a Ponzi scheme, that makes your protestations of the accusations being documented in this article rather dubious. - SudoGhost 07:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
SudoGhost, thing is, you're doing what you accuse me of here. You're proposing your own interpretation of these articles while accusing me of the same. You propose that the article is providing just an example when the article says nothing of the sort. Instead, the article clearly refers to a meaning of "Bitcoin" that only refers to part of the system, mining. But you propose this unstated and unlikely interpretation wherein "Bitcoin" refers to the whole topic in general.
So here you stand, proposing a view of the sources that the rest of us have found weak and unlikely, and certainly not up to the standard of showing how a flawed claim is worth including without significant criticism.
You've nothing but weak legs to stand on, insisting on including claim of a conspiracy theory without capturing that the theory is just that.
Others above see this. We don't believe you're fighting a winning fight. Crcarlin (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
First of all Wikipedia is not a battleground, so there is no "fight", and I am neither "winning" nor "losing"; this is a discussion. You're also welcome to believe what you want, but when reliable sources support what's in the article, you'll be hard pressed to find a reason to remove it. When a source says, in no uncertain terms, that "Bitcoin has also been criticized as having the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme" or describing it as "Bitcoin, a digital currency variously dismissed as a Ponzi scheme...", you cannot claim that it's only talking about "part of Bitcoin", because that's not what the sources say, not by stretch of the imagination and no matter how "clear" you want it to be.
You're correct that a few Bitcoin enthusiasts were brought here from Bitcointalk and /r/Bitcoin and have commented that they do not think something negative about Bitcoin should be in the article, but that is both unsurprising and does not effect how the article is presented, since consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy, not by the number of people "voting" on something. According to the recent discussion on Bitcointalk, the issue was primarily with the previous wording, not necessarily what was said. Are you suggesting that Bitcoin has not been accused of being a Ponzi scheme? Because that's what the article says, and that's what reliable sources verify. Does it need to be expanded? Absolutely, with reliable sources. Is the sourced content going to be removed just because you don't want it in the article? No. - SudoGhost 08:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
But SudoGhost, you're still missing the point: reliable sources DON'T support the claim being made. You're misinterpreting the sources presented and discovering a slanted claim of a conspiracy theory.
The article says that Bitcoin has been accused of being a Ponzi scheme in the context of mining. You've dropped the context of the statement to find your own meaning in the phrase, thus making a claim unsupported by the source.
Should the content be removed simply because I don't want it there? No. Never said anything like that. I said I'd like it removed because it presents a conspiracy theory without giving context to indicate the other side of things. If we had a line that captured the issue in a more neutral way then great, but in the mean time this is a slanted statement unsupported by the sources presented.
So that's the things, SudoGhost. You're a single guy facing down a consensus of people who come to the opposite conclusion. Consensus is based on quality of arguments right... and your arguments are weak! I don't mean that meanly, but it is what it is.
A skewed line proposing a conspiracy theory sourced from rhetorical statements and reading assertions that aren't in the source isn't sound argument. The consensus here seems to be that you're offtrack. Crcarlin (talk) 20:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Unless you're going to stop claiming these odd ideas that are not reflected by reliable sources and move on to something else, there's nothing more to say here. Your claims of "in the context of mining" are not said in the references in any capacity, so that's a moot point that you've worn out some time ago. You're not arguing against me, you're arguing against the reliable sources, so there's nothing more to say if you're just going to repeat the same flawed arguments over and over. The sources do not say what you're claiming, and it's absurd to claim that they aren't supporting what's in the article when I've quoted the articles word-for-word supporting the information. Claims of "conspiracy theories" and odd "source XYZ is actually saying something other than what it's saying, and it certainly isn't saying what it's saying" claims aren't getting you anywhere, and that's not going to have the information removed from the article. Here is the long and short of it: you want "Bitcoin has been accused of being a Ponzi scheme" removed from the article, despite the fact that this is well sourced, and even Bitcoin's websites have sections dedicated to refuting these claims. That's not going to happen. Are you seriously suggesting that "Bitcoin has been accused of being a Ponzi scheme" is inaccurate? - SudoGhost 20:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
SudoGhost, you're not appreciating what's going on here, not seeing others' perspectives. This disagreement is a two way street.
One impasse is over an issue where we each disagree with the others' interpretation of what's written. I appreciate that you think you have The Correct interpretation, but you don't seem to appreciate that I feel the same way. I appreciate that you think I'm reading into the article what's not there, but you don't seem to appreciate that I feel that's the thing you're guilty of.
You take your monopoly on correct interpretation for granted. I'm willing to accept that we each have different interpretations and move forward from there; I'd ask that you do the same. Crcarlin (talk) 13:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
This is not a two way street. You're asking that "Bitcoin has been accused of being a Ponzi scheme" be removed from the article, when that statement is completely true, despite how you try to interpret the sources. If the sources have to be "interpreted" to make it say what you want, you're doing something wrong. - SudoGhost 16:13, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Again the two way street that you're not seeing: from our perspective you're interpreting the sources to make them say what you want, and thus, from your standard, doing something wrong.
This is why discussing with you is so unproductive: you're not willing to actually engage and understand the argument of the other side. Instead you arrogantly and closedmindedly pursue your own viewpoint, hammering away even when consensus is against you. Crcarlin (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
There is no "our" perspective. I'm not seeing anyone else arguing that Bitcoin hasn't been accused of being a Ponzi scheme, what other people were concerned about was how it was worded, and that has been corrected, so now it's just you. You're also misunderstanding what "consensus" is. You do not have a consensus to remove sourced content, the consensus is that the material belongs in the article, but needs to be expanded. When a source says something in very clear English, there is no need to "interpret" it. Therefore claims that I'm "interpreting" the sources are a very poor attempt to justify your own interpretation. This is not "my interpretation against yours", but rather the fact that you are trying to spin a source to say something it's not saying, to try to get sourced content removed from the article. What I'm saying is in the source is in the source, word-for-word. What you're saying is in the source is not even close to being said anywhere in the source, you're drawing a conclusion and asserting that this is what the source "really" says. My "viewpoint" is that reliable sources have documented that Bitcoin has been accused of being a Ponzi scheme. From what I'm seeing, you're the only one that is trying to argue that sources aren't actually saying this, because while others would argue that Bitcoin is not a ponzi scheme (and I understand that reasoning), nobody else is arguing that Bitcoin hasn't been accused of such, because there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. So no, I'm "not willing to actually engage and understand" when you try to argue that something verified by reliable sources isn't actually the case, because you're grasping at straws here. Bitcoin has been accused of being a ponzi scheme. Many people disagree with these accusations, and that's a valid point that the article needs to expand upon with reliable sources, but I'm not going to take you seriously when you try to argue that Bitcoin hasn't been accused of being a ponzi scheme. - SudoGhost 20:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Fundamentals

I came here because as an administrator I made an edit to the current text "Bitcoin has been accused of being a Ponzi scheme for rewarding early adopters through early Bitcoin mining and increasing exchange rates.", noting that the only citation was a dead link and I had (despite reading significantly in the area of Bitcoin) never heard the latter accusation, which is both logically flawed (ie. 'Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme because it is rising in value') and not backed up by sources. I had not seen this discussion at this time. SudoGhost requested that I revert the edit (which as far as I can tell, never showed up in the article proper, anyway) and come to discuss it here. Well, I am amazed at the volume of argument here, which has brought out some great sources. Moving toward a resolution I think we should get back to fundamentals.

  • It is valid to say that "Some published media has accused...", even if the media is slanderous, illogical, biased. Therefore we should keep this bit!
    • SudoGhost has been very steadfast at refuting some more general edit requests to remove this, and I think that would have been a mistake. So thanks for doing a good job there SudGhost. However, the present text is really one-sided and in my professional opinion (I read up on this area for my day job) certainly the latter half re: exchange rates is obtuse at best and should only be retained if there really are non-deadlink references and it can be mentioned in a structure as suggested above with contrasting views to follow. Which brings me to my main suggestion...
  • Perhaps readers are best served with a general statement followed by an explanation of the multiplicity of perspectives on an issue. For example, "While some published media has accused ... formal bodies such as [entity-x] and [entity-u] have disagreed with these perspectives."

Such an approach should provide a more honest breadth of perspective. The current text is bad in that it is both single point of view, poorly cited, and uninformative. I therefore invite participants to write their fair proposals for replacement text in the next section, such that a replacement may be selected. prat (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

  • Note - I have manually invited each of the previous participants to contribute suggestions via their talk pages. prat (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    • Just to clarify, I have not suggested that the "Bitcoin has been accused of being a ponzi scheme" sentence is the only thing that the article should state on this matter, only that the sentence should not be removed, although it certainly needs to be expanded upon by reliable sources that discuss the matter. I don't necessarily think the sentence by itself is one-sided since it doesn't make any claims that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, nor does it refute those claims, but neither do I think the sentence makes for a complete section. I do think the section needs some third-party sources that expand upon the statement, either supporting or refuting the accusation, but blogs and open wikis are the only thing I've been able to find that defend against the Ponzi scheme claim. - SudoGhost 23:31, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
      • That's fine. I agree the section needs to be expanded. Also I think the statement by Gavin Andressen regarding Bitcoin as an investment belongs in this section. The proposals below should provide a good opportunity to review the much needed community input to this section that has been quashed by the currently protected page status. prat (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
        • One issue is that the word Bitcoin has different meanings in different contexts. To an end user of the currency, Bitcoin is analogous to dollar. In the context of mining and developing, Bitcoin is a software program. In the context of society, Bitcoin is a movement of some sort. When someone talks about it being an investment, it needs to be clarified what meaning of the word they're using. The above quote from Andresen, for example, seemed to be focusing on this last meaning. I don't know that any Ponzi scheme can have benefit to society as its payout. Crcarlin (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Proposed resolutions

Dear discussion participants, please write proposed text here, including citations, so that they may be discussed and a preferred replacement selected. Remember, it is important to represent all views and the goal is to be both informative and fair. prat (talk) 23:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe the following is both fair and more informative a section than the one sentence. Whoeever wants to can insert a citation for the Ponzi scheme claim...
Bitcoin is a currency uncontrolled by any central authority.[19] As with any other currency or scarce commodity it is possible to make speculatory investments against the asset. While Bitcoin is sometimes accused of being a Ponzi scheme, its lack of a central organizer and promises of future return make the accusations dubious.[20] Crcarlin (talk) 12:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
An open wiki is not a reliable source, so this cannot be used to verify content, since anyone can write whatever they want there. Unless third-party reliable sources can be found that refute the accusations, prefacing the sentence with "while" is inappropriate, since it is an attempt to "play down" such accusations. - SudoGhost 21:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Just to clarify, saying that the accusations are dubious is giving an opinion in the article. The point of a Wikipedia article is not to draw a conclusion that the sources themselves do not express, but to state the facts. If sources W, X, and Y say "Bitcoin has been accused of being a ponzi" and source Z says "It's not a ponzi and here's why", the article would read "Bitcoin has been accused of being a ponzi. Others such as Z refute/dismiss/are dubious of these accusations, because of this, that, and whatever else." That way the article presents facts, it doesn't draw its own conclusions. If it is dubious, let the readers come to that conclusion, do not make it for them. - SudoGhost 21:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your proposal Crcarlin. While personally I prefer it to what is there now, I do think Sudo's comments are reasonable in that it is a bit of an opinion. Rather than 'make...dubious' it's probably better to refute with some ECB quotes or whatnot, which are published and thus more objective. Would you be willing to rework it with some of the text mentioned to dispute the Ponzi accusation elsewhere in the talk page discussions? prat (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm just not that interested in taking it upon myself to hammer out final language here. I'd prefer to offer my view for consensusbuildling and let others do the editing. The existing phrasing is so bad (biased, misinterpretive, etc) that my first suggested revision is to drop it entirely until/unless new content is offered by someone else.
Sadly the wiki is something of an official mouthpiece, such is the decentralized nature of the beast (which contributes to its inability to be a Ponzi scheme, BTW). But we can link elsewhere to satisfy Wikipedia policy. Such as here[21] where a publication says the same thing.
I considered my language to be a compromise. I believe it gives too much to SudoGhost's interpretations of his sources but in exchange properly cast the perspective as soundly debunked conspiracy theory.
In the end, honestly, I'm not too interested in playing the Wikipedia editing games. I went around that block too many times in the past and have no hope in it now. I welcome someone else to expand on my proposal, but really I plan to just chip in approval or disapproval. Crcarlin (talk) 06:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, I feel your pain. Given that nobody else has contributed, even after discussions here and messaging all involved parties, and that there has been no dispute of the description of the existing text as bad, I am going ahead and removing the section entirely. New text can be proposed in a separate edit proposal. prat (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
The text was proposed in an edit proposal, and approved by an uninvolved administrator. The article's creator coming along and undoing that edit isn't appropriate. Just because nobody wants to find a reliable source that refutes the statement doesn't mean you can remove the reliably sourced statement altogether. "It's bad" isn't a reason to remove the content, and it's inaccurate to say that nobody disputed the wording "as bad". Only including "good things" about an article's subject and removing anything just because its negative is extremely inappropriate. Please restore the content and get a consensus before removing the content, which was inserted into the article in the first place as the result of a consensus and added by an uninvolved administrator. - User:SudoGhost (Away) 21:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Note to other participants that I reverted this edit and opened a dispute resolution request at WP:DRN. Please continue to make and discuss proposals here and try to work toward a solution. prat (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Except that's not what happened, SudoGhost. He removed a line that was not neutral, only mentioning "bad things" about the specific topic without refutation from the other perspective. Including this un-neutral content was a negative; removing the biased content to await a neutral version was a positive step. Crcarlin (talk) 07:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The only problem with that line of logic is that it isn't in line with Wikipedia policy. Lack of neutrality is not an excuse to delete content: "It is a frequent misunderstanding of the NPOV policy, often expressed by newbies, visitors, and outside critics, that articles must not contain any form of bias, hence their efforts to remove statements they perceive as biased. The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias." This is especially true when reliable sources haven't exactly been refuting the accusations. - SudoGhost 07:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Sorry for being slow to respond to prat. I suggest the following replacement text: "Whilst Bitcoin has been accused of being a ponzi scheme[22] due to the limited initial inflation, an analysis by the ECB states that the scheme does not promise high returns to anybody[23] which is one of the requirements for a scheme to be classified as a ponzi scheme[24]. Gavin Andresen, maintainer of the Bitcoin software and Bitcoin Foundation board member has said, "Bitcoin is an experiment. Treat it like you would treat a promising internet start-up company: maybe it will change the world, but realise that investing your money or time in new ideas is always risky"[25]. Mike Hearn (talk) 13:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
That's still worded in a way that tries to both state and dismiss in the same sentence, as before. The ECB report says quite a few things, and I don't think selectively quoting it is the best way to do that. We could just as easily use that source to say "Bitcoin has been accused of being a Ponzi scheme, and an analysis by the ECB states that while Bitcoin does not promise high returns (an aspect often associated with a Ponzi scheme), it is a high-risk system, and that it could collapse if people try to get out of the system and will not be able to do so because of its illiquidity. The report goes on to conclude that "the fact that the founder of Bitcoin uses a pseudonym – Satoshi Nakamoto – and is surrounded by mystery does nothing to help promote transparency and credibility in the scheme."
The ECB report quotes the SEC's definition of a Ponzi scheme. In that definition, "Ponzi scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk" (emphasis added). It does not say that high returns is a defining aspect of a Ponzi scheme, but that it is often associated with it. It does not suggest that something not promising high returns means it does not fit the definition of a Ponzi scheme, so it's synthesis to use the ECB's report, but instead of using the definition that the ECB defined, using this website's definition to conclude something that the report isn't saying. - User:SudoGhost (Away) 21:59, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for taking the time to write this proposal. I support this proposal as fair and even-handed compared to the current text, though do not oppose waiting some time for continued discussion with a view towards modifying this proposal to incorporate additional improvements, if any can be identified. prat (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Hrrm, looking again, I have one change proposal - replace ECB with the full text 'European Central Bank' as the acronym is perhaps not too widely known. prat (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
SudoGhost, to me it appears that the example you counter-propose is very POV in that it selectively quotes weak conjecture in a verbose fashion rather than citing considered conclusions. As such it is demonstrably worse than the more even-handed proposal under consideration. prat (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Actually, what I wrote is more in line with that the ECB report is saying. The suggested edit is WP:SYN, combining multiple sources to say something that neither one is saying. You don't take a middle passage out of context (not a conclusion), ignore the actual conclusion the report gave, use a different source's definition in combination with the ECB's conclusion drawn from the definition they are using, and suggest that it is an "even-handed proposal". - User:SudoGhost (Away) 22:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
SudoGhost, is there a way to appeal this case to somebody new instead of people just going back and forth with you, because we will never arrive at any conclusion like this. I'm pretty sure absolutely no proposal will satisfy you, so it's time to bring in a third party (maybe like prat). The source I quoted to define a Ponzi scheme is the one cited on Wikipedias very own page on Ponzi schemes. If you have an issue with that source, you should go and edit the Ponzi scheme. There has to be some definition used! If you agree that nobody who has any serious influence with the project is encouraging people to invest by implying or suggesting there will be high returns, I think you agree that a reasonable person would say, Bitcoin does not meet the definition of a ponzi scheme. Mike Hearn (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
A dispute resolution request at WP:DRN has been opened. Please continue to make and discuss proposals here and try to work toward a solution. prat (talk) 21:55, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Yes, there has to be some definition used. If you're going to cite the ECB out-of-context, at least try to use the same definition they're using. I'd rather trust ECB, which in turn used the SEC's definition, than some random website's vague definition that doesn't appear to be shared by other sources (but yet itself mentions the SEC). When you selectively quote sources to support only what you're wanting it to say and combining it with other sources to say something the report isn't saying, then yes, no such proposal will satisfy me. The ECB report gives reasons why it would be considered a Ponzi scheme, and gives reasons why others disagree. It does not conclude that it is not a Ponzi scheme, and it does not suggest "that the scheme does not promise high returns to anybody" means it is not a Ponzi scheme, because the ECB clearly defines what they are basing their Ponzi scheme consideration on, and "that the scheme does not promise high returns to anybody" is something "commonly" associated with Ponzi schemes, it is not a defining trait of a Ponzi scheme, so the fact that Bitcoin does not share this trait does not mean that the ECB concludes that it is not a Ponzi scheme. The ECB report says in essence that "Ponzi schemes sometimes does X. While Bitcoin doesn't do X, it does do Y and Z." It's not appropriate to take the "Bitcoin doesn't do X" out of context and only use that. When the ECB report clearly spells out the definition they are going by, the SEC's definition (probably the most knowledgeable source on the matter of Ponzi schemes, since they are the ones that typically handle those that are involved with Ponzi schemes), it is also inappropriate to take a random website's definition instead of the SEC's definition, just because the SEC's definition doesn't allow you to draw the conclusion you're looking for. The ECB used the SEC definition, if you're going to cite the ECB, explain what they actually said, not out of context, and use the definition they spelled out. - User:SudoGhost (Away) 22:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Using the SEC's definition of a ponzi[26]: "A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors." The rest of the paragraph describing what a ponzi scheme is only lists attributes they might include. Later, the page lists red flags:
  • "High investment returns with little or no risk." I really doubt that you can find a source saying that there is little to no risk in buying bitcoins.
  • "Overly consistent returns." Looking at the chart[27], the returns have been anything but consistent.
  • "Unregistered investments." True, Bitcoin isn't registered, however, it's not the sort of thing that the SEC requires to register, either in the consideration that it is math, or if you consider it to be a raw commodity, or if you consider it to be a currency.
  • "Unlicensed sellers." True here, but Bitcoin isn't a security, or a regulated commodity, and all reputable exchanges have registered with FINCen and comply with AML regulations.
  • "Secretive and/or complex strategies." There really isn't a strategy, but maybe you could extend this to the protocol which is freely available information, and the non-technical workings of it are fairly basic and even described here on wikipedia.
  • "Issues with paperwork." Every Bitcoin transaction in history is well documented. And, as it is not a business, there are no financial reports to falsify.
  • "Difficulty receiving payments." It's easy to generate a receiving address, and it's easy to receive payments at that address. Maybe this could be construed to be about exchangeing BTC for fiat currencies, in which case, it's likely there are a number of online exchanges at you disposal, local exchanges, or individuals making themselves publicly known to buy or sell bitcoins.
I'll repeat the definition here for clairity, "A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors." Bitcoin does not pay returns. I have found no source indicating that the software is designed to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smickles86 (talk • contribs) 01:43, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The ECB report itself goes into this assessment, and does not reach the same conclusion you have. The report's conclusion is that, although it does not have some aspects that Ponzi schemes usually share, it does have others. The SEC page you linked does not suggest that not sharing one or more of these traits means that the item in question is not a Ponzi scheme. Reliable sources including the ECB have detailed some concerns about the Ponzi scheme accusations, and have mentioned that others have these concerns. If there are third-party reliable sources that make these same points you have, that would help. I'm not opposed to using the ECB report in the article, but I don't think it's appropriate to only use the parts of the ECB report that help refute the Ponzi scheme accusations out of context. - User:SudoGhost (Away) 05:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
While it has been said that the ECB report doesn't deny or disprove that Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, it doesn't accuse it of being a Ponzi either. The Reuters source is just a headline (as far as it saying anyone even mentions Ponzi and Bitcoin in the same sentence). Headlines are often written by people other than the article's author for the purpose of attracting eyeballs, not communicating relevant information. The other citation (currently used, not in this rewording), the Register one, says that some accuse Bitcoin of being a Ponzi and link to a (from what I can tell) blog which actually only accuses Bitcoin of having one characteristic of a pyramid scheme, not a Ponzi. I just don't see how any of this leads to a Wikipedia worthy mention of people accusing Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme. But since it does, considering the quality and substance of the sources which say that people have accused Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme, why does the refutation even need a source or its own sentence? --Smickles86 (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Because that ties into Wikipedia's requirement of verifiability: "Content is determined by previously published information rather than by the personal beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." If reliable sources have not refuted the accusation, it's not the Bitcoin article's place to do so either. The ECB report does not give judgement one way or the other regarding the Ponzi scheme accusations, but gives facts as compiled by the ECB, this is in effect what Wikipedia should do, through reliable sources. The ECB report also serves to reinforce the verification that Bitcoin has been accused of being a Ponzi scheme; the very first thing page 27 of the report says is that "Another recurrent issue is whether Bitcoin works like a Ponzi scheme or not." - User:SudoGhost (Away) 01:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Is it really reasonable to expect a reliable source to attempt to prove a negative assertion? Also, there is a similar section in Gold market and sources like The Gold Market is a Ponzi Scheme, but the text of Gold market does not actually mention that the gold market has been accused of being a ponzi shceme --Smickles86 (talk) 02:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Your link The Gold Market is a Ponzi Scheme's publication date was 1 April. The source also appears to be a website full of fringe viewpoints; you're welcome to bring up that source at WP:RSN, but it certainly isn't comparable to Reuters or the European Central Bank in terms of reliability or how much that source is cited in turn by other reliable sources. As for the question, "is it really reasonable to expect a reliable source to attempt to prove a negative assertion?" According to Wikipedia policy, yes. That doesn't mean that if Bitcoin was accused of being a Ponzi scheme, you'd have to disprove that, anything written in an article has the same requirement of verifiability. Since reliable sources can prove that Bitcoin has been accused of this, this meets that requirement. It isn't a matter of "Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, prove it isn't" but rather "Reliable sources have demonstrated that Bitcoin has been accused of being a Ponzi scheme. Anything added to the article to either expand upon this, either to enforce or dispute any claim, must be supported by reliable sources." On Wikipedia, if something is likely to be challenged, it needs to be supported by a reliable source. That way, it isn't an article full of random people's opinions, but of those that have been published by reliable sources. Reliable sources, including Reuters and the ECB, have noted that one aspect of Bitcoin's public perception is the fact that many have accused Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme, or have concerns about it being a Ponzi scheme. - User:SudoGhost (Away) 04:03, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Whoops, i should have used this link earlier: It's admitted to the CFTC: London gold market is a Ponzi scheme which is the one actually used in Gold market. I think I just copy/pasted the wrong link and title.
I'm actually a little aghast that institution like Reuters and The Register seem to have said Bitcoin was accused of being a Ponzi based on a blog writer saying that he feels like it's a Ponzi and then points out that the early adopters benefit more than the latecomers as this statement is true of any appreciating asset. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smickles86 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Ah, that makes it much clearer (that April 1 publication date was just odd timing, I think). In that source, it is not claiming that Gold or the gold market is a Ponzi scheme, but that "the London Bullion Market Association (LBMA) over-the-counter gold market is nothing but a massive "paper gold" Ponzi scheme." A third-party source would be better (since the report was made by the individual that made the accusation), but that would in fact warrant at least a mention in the appropriate article. That article is not Gold market however, but London bullion market (which redirects from London Bullion Market Association, which is the organization discussed). - User:SudoGhost (Away) 04:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
Using Mike Hearn's suggestion as a base, how about something like, "Bitcoin has been accused of being a Ponzi scheme[28]. The SEC defines a Ponzi scheme as "…an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. Ponzi scheme organizers often solicit new investors by promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to generate high returns with little or no risk.…" However, the project makes no mention of returns[29], its current lead maintainer and Bitcoin Foundation board member has said, "Bitcoin is an experiment. Treat it like you would treat a promising internet start-up company: maybe it will change the world, but realise that investing your money or time in new ideas is always risky"[30] and Ruben Grinberg has proposed that it can be argued that Bitcoin is not a security or an investment [31] by building on an argument posed by Kerry Lynn Macintosh about digital currencies with an Austrian economic school influence.[32] --Smickles86 (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
This is also an excellent suggestion, and has my vote. prat (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Why is it that the ECB was used as a reference, until it was pointed out that it's not as supportive of the "Bitcoin is not a ponzi scheme" argument as it was thought to be, now it's being avoided? I looked through the Grinberg reference, and I'm not seeing where he argues that Bitcoin is not a security. The closest thing he said is that "At least one commentator has concluded that digital currencies are unlikely to be regulated as securities" and that "Bitcoin supporters may similarly argue, as elaborated below, that bitcoins do not look like securities or investments..." The closest thing he seems to suggest is that "...although bitcoins may resemble “investment contracts,” they ultimately do not fall within that definition..." The Grinberg source also does not suggest that the SEC red flags are inapplicable, nor does the SEC source say that these "red flags" only relate to securities. - SudoGhost 23:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Why is the ECB report not referenced? Because I thought you were saying that it used the SEC's definition of a ponzi, so I went to that instead. Beware of reading a little too far into things.
Since Grinberg doesn't make the argument directly, perhaps we should referrence the 'commentator' Kerry Lynn Macintosh in the Itarvard Journal o f Law & Technology Volume l l , Number 3 titled "Howto Encourage Global Electronic Commerce: The Case for Private Currencies On the Internet" where it is stated "However, an argument can be made that the hayek should not be considered a "security" within the meaning of the Securities Acts. … The hayek, however, would be a currency, and not an investment. The Security:Exchange Act of 1934 expressly excludes currency from the definition of "security."" And if you continue to read the paragraphs, it add several arguments against this 'hayek' to the conclusion that "Analys, of these four factors strongly suggests that a court should not consider the hayek to be a "security." and "The hayek would be marketed as an electronic medium of exchange with a stable value, that could be used to purchase goods and services over the Internet. Thus, the public would have no reason to mistake the hayek for an investment which has been recognized as the fundamental essence of a "security." One might substitute Bitcoin for hayek in that sentence and think it was said in 2008, not ten years earlier. Later, it even goes so far as arguing that it might not be subject to banking regulation.
Most of the SEC "red flags" discuss topics which clearly only involve securities investments. --Smickles86 (talk) 01:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Macintosh was discussing Friedrich Hayek's model, not Bitcoins, and is a 14 year old document, discussing something 10 years before Bitcoin was introduced. I'm not following the correlation between Hayek's model possibly not being considered a security and Bitcoin, a different concept entirely. - SudoGhost 01:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
You don't see the connection between a Libertarian who advocated free experiment in methods of transmitting value and Bitcoin?
Did I miss something, I thought the relevant footnote was about an digital currency and Ginburg brought it up as reference for digital currencies being unlikely to be regulated as securities in a discussion about Bitcoin being a security or not which directly impacts whether or not Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme. --Smickles86 (talk) 02:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, if you still see it hard to see, why don't we use the very next two sentences in the Grinberg text: "Bitcoin supporters may similarly argue, as elaborated below, that bitcoins do not look like securities or investments, especially because there is no money- making enterprise that is attempting to raise money, and that bitcoins are instead like commodities or currencies, which are generally not regulated under the federal securities laws. Furthermore, although bitcoins may resemble “investment contracts,” they ultimately do not 165 fall within that definition as described in more detail below." "similarly" here, referring to the arguments for Austrian-school-hailing-Hayek digital currency mentioned in the other text not being a security or investment. According to even such a loose definition as the SEC has, Bitcoin cannot be a Ponzi if it's neither a security, or an investment. So that should work handily as a counterbalance to the note that some accuse Bitcoin as being a Ponzi. --Smickles86 (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with using those two sentences, but I do have a problem with an WP:OR conclusion that "Bitcoin cannot be a Ponzi if it's neither a security, or an investment." I think if that were the case, someone would have made that conclusion, such as the ECB report. - SudoGhost 03:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
Alright then we have an agreement? I mean, of course we should set aside my personal conclusion statement and just present the information from the reliable sources. Are you saying that you preferred to have the Macintosh and the Grinberg text referenced in the statement? Would you care to venture a 'rewording' in this vein? --Smickles86 (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
New to this discussion, but I wanted to point out that "Ponzi scheme as an investment fraud" is missing a crucial aspect. Namely that "fraud" requires intent. If you examine the fraud page from wikipedia you get "In criminal law, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual." Therefore the accusation that Bitcoin is a fraud implies the creators and early investors have the intention of deceiving others for personal gain. It may be helpful to point this out along with Gavin's statement that bitcoin is an experimental currency. This would help point out that it is not a Ponzi without biasedly saying "It's not a Ponzi"

RandomUser77 (talk) 12:41, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I honestly think we're a little in the weeds when we get on to talking about the ECB report and definitely getting out there when we start talking about Hayek. I'd agree with SudoGhost that this begins to involve the disallowed original research and synthesis, not to mention that it just seems to become unnecessarily complicated. We can't be trying to make the case for Hayekian economic theory in this article :)
Thing is, the statement we're opposed to is extremely weak; we don't need to seek such big guns against it. We don't need to build a giant theory as to why the claim of it being a Ponzi scheme is offbase; we don't need to prove the negative; we can simply present the other side in equally hand-waving language.
I'd prefer to focus on the fundamental. Something like (and I'm just illustrating here, not proposing) "Some people think Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, an unsustainable investment plan. However (on the other hand?), without a managing entity Bitcoin can't be considered a planned enterprise, and developers working on the project reject that it's a good investment." Citations for this are already included above.
SudoGhost objects to my preferred language because it's dismissive. I'm ok with this, since the claim is so blatantly wrong that the facts can't help but dismiss it! But fine, we can put the claim and a response in different sentences if that makes things better. Crcarlin (talk) 08:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I propose changing the current content to add the statement by Gavin Andresen first, and dissolve in to noting various perspectives on the (really dubious) Ponzi scheme accusation later, as follows.
Gavin Andresen, maintainer of the Bitcoin software and Bitcoin Foundation board member has said, "Bitcoin is an experiment. Treat it like you would treat a promising internet start-up company: maybe it will change the world, but realise that investing your money or time in new ideas is always risky"[REF]. While some have accused Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme[33][34] rewarding early adopters through early Bitcoin mining and increasing exchange rates, the Bitcoin community refutes these accusation as dubious[35] citing Bitcoin's lack of either a central party[bitcoin.org reference][ECB reference] or promises of future return[ECB reference]. The European Central Bank report on Virtual Currencies (October 2012) - referring to the first and third of the three main functions of money, ie. a medium of exchange; a unit of account; a store of value - states that "Although some Bitcoin users may try to profit from exchange rate fluctuations, Bitcoins are not intended to be an investment vehicle, just a medium of exchange."[ECB ref].
The idea with this proposal is to provide the more meaningful statement from the authoritive party discouraging investment in Bitcoin prior to including any mention of the logically questionable accusations. In this way, the focus remains on the statement from the authoritive party, and the accusations are going to be interpreted more fairly by the reader - a break from the current text, which basically asserts that Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme, and offers no alternative perspectives. prat (talk) 21:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand how placing a quote first without context helps the article. Appending while to the "some have accused Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme" sentence isn't the best way to reflect what sources have said. I also don't agree with only using parts of the ECB reference out of context while ignoring any of the parts that explain why it might be a Ponzi scheme. The article needs to stay WP:IMPARTIAL, the report and other sources do not make the same conclusion you're suggesting the article should make. - SudoGhost
I had a similar thought, putting the more general case first. Let's keep in mind that this isn't only about Ponzi or not, but about the general concern over Bitcoin as an investment. Since this SHOULDN'T be laser-focused on the Ponzi accusation, it makes sense to provide the general context first. After all, the section is called something like "Concerns: investment" not "Concerns: Ponzi scheme".
I'll probably propose something building on this later this evening, but I think this is on a track I prefer. Let's talk about Bitcoin not being positioned as an investment in the first place as everything from Andreson through ECB through the "not a security" sources indicate. After that, sure, mention that some people call it a Ponzi scheme... it will put their claim in proper context. Crcarlin (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Along the lines of prat's arrangement, I'd propose the following:

Fundamentally, Bitcoin is "both a payment platform and unit of account."[36] It is not an investment contract[37], and in fact it can't even propose a return on investment since it lacks a central authority which might make such an offer.[9]
Some have accused Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme [citations], but without control by a central authority or money-making enterprise this perception is a myth [9] [Grinberg].

I don't think we need to go any more complicated than that. I think it's balanced: it flat out says Bitcoin is not a solid investment, which captures a negative. [9] refers directly to the perception as a myth, and both 9 and Grinberg point out that there is no central authority or money making enterprise. Therefore, I believe it's verifiable to be so stark in calling it a myth. Feel free to suggest ways to soften it if you disagree. Crcarlin (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The Grinberg source, ignoring the fact that it's a college student's paper, does not come close to saying that Bitcoin is not a Pozni scheme, much less that it being a Ponzi scheme is a "myth". The lextechnologiae reference is a wordpress blog, not a reliable source. None of the reliable sources provided suggest that lack of control by a central authority precludes Bitcoin from being a Ponzi scheme. - SudoGhost 05:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
[9] explicitly calls it a myth ("This is one reason for a popular myth viewing Bitcoin as a pyramid game, a Ponzi scheme"). Grinberg was published in a journal (HS&T Law Journal). lextechnologiae was an identifiable poster--a subject matter expert--whose post has been cited in a couple of 3rd party sources, including Grinberg. These are all reliable sources, certainly more reliable than the questionable interpretation of the register.com source you tend to lean on, SudoGhost. But then, that's back to our impasse. Crcarlin (talk) 09:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Considering I haven't so much as mentioned The Register in quite some time, that's a horribly transparent red herring. I also wasn't the one that brought up that source, John Nagle was, so there goes your "just me" theory, and as it also is far from the only source, you've worn that fallacy quite some time ago. The "[9]" you're referring to is some random person's post-graduate school paper, not exactly something that gives enough weight to call something a "myth". Your proposed edit does not reflect what reliable sources say on the matter. A school paper and a wordpress blog do not carry more weight than the sources previously discussed, and the Grinberg source does not support what you're citing it for. - SudoGhost 09:14, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly, we disagree again. You're so eager to dismiss things as "just some random person's post-graduate school paper" and "a wordpress blog" when the authors are subject matter experts publishing well-referenced papers cited by third parties.
So, SudoGhost's offbase here. What comments do other people have? Prat?Crcarlin (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you. Interpretations of reliability are just that - interpretations. The source code is truth. Opinions of various bodies can and should be noted. However, SudoGhost is sort of right that they shouldn't necessarily be compiled in to some argument they aren't. This view is tempered, however, by the fact that nobody of any stature (ECB, etc.) is going to take such (apparently politically linked, look at the sources) accusations seriously enough to write a measured response. What we need to do in informing the reader is some way to tie the various statements together in to a coherent whole that allows the reader themselves to dismiss the statements logically, simply presenting facts, and without crossing a line in to POV. I see the functions of money thing, as in my previous suggestion, as the best framework we have to do that thus far. prat (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
You're going to have to show that they are "subject matter experts" and that these papers have been cited by third party reliable sources before statements like that have any weight. Reliable sources do not make the same conclusion you're requesting the article to make. As long as that's the case then I am afraid we will indeed "disagree". - SudoGhost 20:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
For any other editors who happen to get to this point, note that the impasse with SudoGhost means that it's pointless to discuss this further with him. It's not that he's right, but that any attempt to dialog just leads in circles of factual disagreement.
I'm happy to discuss further with anyone else, though. Crcarlin (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
If you're not going to show that these papers have been cited by third-party reliable sources, despite claiming than they have, then yes, this is an impasse, and it is pointless to discuss this further. - SudoGhost 10:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
I don't know, SudoGhost. I sort of feel like requiring the great burden of a point-by-point case is not reasonable given the fundamentally illogical nature of the accusations. It's notable that they happened, it's reasonable to request citations in an argument against, but it's perhaps less reasonable to nitpick (incessantly) over any alternative wording that attempts to put the claims in to perspective for a general reader, given the complexities involved in doing so. I feel at this stage it would be more constructive to suggest concrete improvements rather than to simply belittle others' attempts. prat (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to write and defend this. Firstly, sorry I have been (and continue to be) very busy and haven't been back in awhile. Overall I think that, while it is good to attempt to simplify, there's some danger of slipping in to independent reasoning, which - gasp, horror - in a formal sense, anyway, should theoretically be avoided where possible. The issue here is that, given that someone has made this really highly complex claim that is difficult to dismiss, it's not really possible to build up a complete case on a point by point basis that remains both concise and reasonable and dismisses the claims promptly. So we're going to need to strike a balance. In my suggestion above I tried to incorporate unchallenged basic economic tenets, ie. the functions of money, in a bid to clarify the system for lay people in a non-controversial way. I can see that you've taken a slightly different approach. Things I don't like: (1) Use of the term 'investment contract' (I feel this sounds authoritative but actually is unclear in its intent and perhaps complicates matters) .. I believe simply 'investment' or (better) 'store of value' (ie. to take the 'functions of money' tack) is simpler. (2) The extra reasoning step with "since" in the final part. Instead, maybe say something more like "no central authority exists to make promises regarding bitcoin's overall financial properties." However, that should be cited. And once we get in to this point, I think I still maybe prefer something closer to my suggestion, bringing in the functions of money as a sort of base-level point of reference for the authoritive sources (all of which seem to, perhaps unsurprisingly, tie in very well there). Would you be interested to take a crack at rewording my proposal in a bid to simplify? I am stuck in an airport trying to get to a Wikipedia event in Indonesia at the moment, and probably busy for the next few days... prat (talk) 12:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Summary of my own view of the discussion status (by request)

I was contacted by EdJohnston (fair declaration: apparently the admin who protected the Bitcoin article in the past) on my talk page and at the dispute resolution request and asked to clarify the status of the discussions at present. My view is that the section desperately needs rewriting, that many people have contributed statements and proposals to this effect, and that something needs to be done to the article as soon as possible. The text should include both perspectives, and be properly cited. I believe the suggestion proposed by Mike Hearn at 13:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC) is a significant improvement and suggest this is used as a basis for moving forward. I would suggest that, if no concrete improvements can be proposed within the next 48 hours, we simply replace the section with this text, so that the public page becomes more accurate. I also strongly believe that the protected status of the article should be reviewed immediately, since I believe that it is making improvements to the article disproportionately difficult. prat (talk) 12:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Smickles86's new suggestion is also an excellent improvement. I am similarly happy to use that text. prat (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
The problem with both of those versions is that they aren't supported by the reliable sources they are citing. Both versions are essentially trying to say "While Bitcoin has been accused of being a Ponzi scheme, that's not true", and the reliable sources being used, such as the ECB report, aren't making that same conclusion. The sources aren't saying it is a Ponzi scheme, but those sources also aren't refuting the claim either, and the suggested versions are wording it in a way to make it seem as if that's what the sources are saying. - SudoGhost 23:48, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps they are not perfect, but they are an improvement by any measure. Rather than blocking every proposal, why don't you suggest an alternative? I believe in the interests of improving the current (consensus = bad) text, we need to just bite the bullet and accept one of the two tabled proposals, or limit discussions to suggesting concrete improvements to those proposals, rather than rejecting them outright which is not constructive. prat (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I did propose an alternative, above, right below the first proposed version. What's currently in the article is incomplete, yes. However, filling in that hole with inaccurate material full of WP:V and WP:SYN issues isn't an improvement. We have sources already presented in the proposals above, there's nothing wrong with using them to form the basis of how the section is written instead of writing a proposal and then finding sources to support what you're looking for. The only issue is that if we use the sources to write the section, it will not be as dismissive of the Ponzi scheme accusations, and that seems to be what you're looking for here; if you're looking for the section to conclude that Bitcoin isn't really a Ponzi scheme, the sources being presented don't say that. - SudoGhost 00:24, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
No, SudoGhost, that's not what we (or at least I) want. We don't want it to conclude that Bitcoin isn't a Ponzi scheme; we simply don't want to it suggest inappropriately that it IS one. The "some people think Bitcoin is a Ponzi Scheme" statement promotes a biased perspective without an answer from the other side, and we have a problem with that! Crcarlin (talk) 07:40, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
WP:NPOV/FAQ#Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete: "The NPOV policy does forbid the inclusion of editorial bias, but does not forbid properly sourced bias." Since the fact that people have accused Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme is supported by reliable source, it is not inappropriate for the article to state this. I have no problem with "an answer from the other side", but it needs to be supported by reliable sources that reflect what the content the sources are supporting. There are already plenty of sources that can expand the section, but the wording needs to reflect what the sources say, instead of trying to craft "an answer from the other side" from sources that don't support that content. If there are indeed sources that support what's been proposed, please look for them (I've tried, and couldn't find any), and list them here so that we can achieve the kind of balance you're looking for, but neutrality is determined by reliable sources and what sources have been discussed aren't refuting the accusations the way the proposed wording is suggesting. - SudoGhost 08:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
This goes back into the factual disagreements that cause the impasse with you, so I'll refrain from repeating why we think you're factually wrong. The point is, you're trying to say we have this improper motivation that we simply don't have. Perhaps you'd be less combative if you recognized and respected that we're after a good article too. Crcarlin (talk) 08:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I've started a new section below at Talk:Bitcoin#Fresh section for Ponzi discussion. - SudoGhost 08:42, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Please focus on the content and contribute to the proposals section above. prat (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
The content has been focused on, so your insinuation to the contrary is unwarranted; by making a pointless comment doing nothing more than asking someone to focus on the content, you're avoid that very thing you're asking of others. These previous proposals have been discussed by myself and others, so I'm not sure why you're saying that either. This section is getting very long, as the comments at DRN have pointed out, so a new discussion was started below to try to solve that. - SudoGhost 22:19, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

  • Hey Sudoghost. Leaving character aspersions aside (come on, it's not illegal to be playful!) I have responded above in a new section with the rest of the discussions over here. prat (talk) 23:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
    • The old request isn't relevant now, but the references still need to be updated if possible, since it was accidently left out of the old edit request. Please add these references[38][39] to the end of the "Bitcoin has been accused of being a Ponzi scheme for rewarding early adopters through early Bitcoin mining and increasing exchange rates" sentence found at Bitcoin#As an investment, and remove the dead link currently found there. - SudoGhost 23:35, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

 References updated. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:52, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Notes

References

  1. ^ "Mt. Gox Tickers Using BTC".
  2. ^ "Mt. Gox Tickers Using BTC".
  3. ^ "Mt. Gox Tickers Using BTC".
  4. ^ Cite error: The named reference whitepaper was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ Ron Dorit. "Quantitative Analysis of the Full Bitcoin Transaction Graph" (PDF). Cryptology ePrint Archive. p. 17. Retrieved 18 October 2012. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ Announcement of Hashcash, from hashcash.org
  7. ^ http://www.cnbc.com/id/45030812/The_Pros_And_Cons_Of_Biting_on_Bitcoins
  8. ^ Grinberg, Reuben (9 December 2011). "Bitcoin: An Innovative Alternative Digital Currency". SSRN. Retrieved 4 December 2012.
  9. ^ Gustke, Constance (23 November 2011). "The Pros And Cons Of Biting on Bitcoins". CNBC. Retrieved 4 December 2012.
  10. ^ Chirgwin, Richard (8 June 2011). "US senators draw a bead on Bitcoin". The Register. Retrieved 14 November 2012.
  11. ^ O'Leary, Naomi (2 April 2012). "Bitcoin, the City traders' anarchic new toy". Reuters. Retrieved 14 November 2012.
  12. ^ "Virtual Currency Schemes" (PDF). European Central Bank. October 2012. Retrieved 4 December 2012.
  13. ^ Block 210000, 2012-11-28 15:24:38, Bitcoin Block Explorer
  14. ^ SudoGhost and his mother, Rudd-O.com, http://rudd-o.com/sonofabitch
  15. ^ http://www.sec.gov/spotlight/enf-actions-ponzi.shtml
  16. ^ "Bitcoins, a Crypto-Geek Ponzi Scheme". Retrieved 15 June 2011.
  17. ^ Chirgwin, Richard (8 June 2011). "US senators draw a bead on Bitcoin". The Register. Retrieved 14 November 2012.
  18. ^ O'Leary, Naomi (2 April 2012). "Bitcoin, the City traders' anarchic new toy". Reuters. Retrieved 14 November 2012.
  19. ^ http://bitcoin.org/
  20. ^ https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Is_Bitcoin_a_Ponzi_scheme.3F
  21. ^ http://pzwart3.wdka.hro.nl/mediawiki/images/6/64/Barok.bitcoin.pdf
  22. ^ O'Leary, Naomi (2 April 2012). "Bitcoin, the City traders' anarchic new toy". Reuters. Retrieved 14 November 2012.
  23. ^ "Virtual currency schemes" (PDF). European Central Bank. Retrieved 23 November 2012.
  24. ^ "What is a Ponzi scheme?". Mijiki. Mijiki.com. Retrieved 23 June 2012.
  25. ^ Andresen, Gavin. "That which does not kill us makes us stronger". Retrieved 23 November 2012.
  26. ^ http://www.sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm#PonziWhatIs
  27. ^ http://bitcoincharts.com
  28. ^ O'Leary, Naomi (2 April 2012). "Bitcoin, the City traders' anarchic new toy". Reuters. Retrieved 14 November 2012.
  29. ^ http://bitcoin.org/
  30. ^ Andresen, Gavin. "That which does not kill us makes us stronger". Retrieved 23 November 2012.
  31. ^ http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1817857
  32. ^ jolt.law.harvard.edu/articles/pdf/v11/11HarvJLTech733.pdf
  33. ^ Chirgwin, Richard (8 June 2011). "US senators draw a bead on Bitcoin". The Register. Retrieved 14 November 2012.
  34. ^ O'Leary, Naomi (2 April 2012). "Bitcoin, the City traders' anarchic new toy". Reuters. Retrieved 14 November 2012.
  35. ^ https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Is_Bitcoin_a_Ponzi_scheme.3F
  36. ^ https://bitcoinfoundation.org/blog/?p=41
  37. ^ http://www.lextechnologiae.com/2011/06/26/why-bitcoin-isnt-a-security-under-federal-securities-law/
  38. ^ Chirgwin, Richard (8 June 2011). "US senators draw a bead on Bitcoin". The Register. Retrieved 14 November 2012.
  39. ^ O'Leary, Naomi (2 April 2012). "Bitcoin, the City traders' anarchic new toy". Reuters. Retrieved 14 November 2012.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bitcoin/Archive_7&oldid=1142754281"