Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 → Archive 15

Bitcoin Not Considered Currency

Hello Paulsnx2. You have undone my reversion of "currency" in the lede to conform to valid sourced content questioning the "currency" claim in the article. The term "commodity" is more general than "currency," and "currency" is a subset of "commodity" within the meanings of this context. The label "commodity" reflects the well-sourced views stated in the article text and provides a more neutral representation of current WP:RS views of bitcoin. Remember WP should not give undue weight to the views or language promulgated by the promoters of bitcoin who have a commercial interest in it.

The concern about the use of the more general term "commodity" in the lede has not attracted support on the talk page, let alone consensus, from other users. Please reinstate my recent reversion of "currency" and substitution of "commodity" per WP:BRD and seek consensus for your views on talk. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 13:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

There is no clear consensus for calling it a "commodity." --KyleLandas (talk) 00:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Per WP:BRD there does not need to be a consensus for the B or the R step. I did the R -- reversion of "currency." The next step is not to reinsert, but rather D, to discuss. Please note my point above. If it is a currency, it is also a commodity, which is a superset of currencies. However if it not a currency, it remains a commodity. Therefore in the absence of consensus "currency" the more general term, is preferable. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 01:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Commodity seems ok to me. It's a neutral and accurate term. Whether bitcoins are "currency" is disputed enough that it shouldn't go into the article lede as if it were an uncontested fact. The issue should be addressed further down in the article, by summarizing and citing different published viewpoints. I had thought that one of the essential characteristics of bitcoins (whether good or bad) is that fractional-reserve banking of them is impossible. That makes them quite a bit different from the traditional concept of currency: they are more like bullion coins. Whether the term "currency" should still apply depends on who you listen to, thus the need for citations. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I have no idea how your text got lost. Maybe we were editing simultaneously. Thanks for fixing. SPECIFICO talk 02:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Bitcoin is regarded as a digital currency (except by those who have a POV stake against that) and used as a digital currency (a simple objective fact) should not be buried in the article. It belongs in the opening paragraph of the lede, because that's what all of the mainstream third-party objective sources refer to it as. The purpose of Wikipedia is to explain things to people who aren't already familiar with the subject; burying the basic facts about something because there are fringe pedants who dispute it, is counterproductive. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, Jason. Wall Street Journal, New York Times, The Economist... the list goes on of the reliable sources that have referred to Bitcoin as a currency. While "Commodity" may be factually accurate, the fact of the matter is that to the layman, it is more confusing. If we were to refer to Federal Reserve notes as "commodities", the average person would be very confused. --C S (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
That is because Federal Reserve Notes are currency, as defined by law and confirmed by their usage. The more specific term currency correctly describes Federal Reserve Notes. You are ignoring previous discussion here. Please review the history of the article and associated talk threads. SPECIFICO talk 13:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it's me that needs to review previous discussion. Believe it or not, sometimes people disagree with what you say, and it's not because they're not fully informed. In this case, the entire previous discussion seems be about you arguing with everyone else. If you don't like me commenting on your behavior, please stop with the attitude of "inform yourself before disagreeing with me" which is quite tiresome.
The situation is simple. Provide the reliable sourcing to back up your claims. If you can't, please desist so we can focus our energies on the myriad issues plaguing this article. --C S (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed confusing lead

It's confusing not to say it was promoted and designed as a digital currency right off. In fact, it's blatantly biased. So I fixed it. All information is included and displayed fairly.--KyleLandas (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Your point was accepted and I included the initial mission, that its stated purpose was a payments scheme. However we still, after much discussion, need a noun to replace "currency" in that first sentence. SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
We still, after much discussion, are waiting for you to show that the point of view that Bitcoin is not currency is held by more than one person. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Quasi-currency, perhaps? It is neither fish nor fowl. kencf0618 (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
  • "Bitcoin (BTC) is a scheme which was first described in a 2008 paper by pseudonymous developer Satoshi Nakamoto, who called it an anonymous, peer-to-peer, electronic payments system." -- neutral. SPECIFICO talk 23:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
If the bulk of reliable sources describe Bitcoin as a currency, then that is the neutral way to word the lede. I am still waiting to see sources that demonstrate otherwise. As far as I can tell, you have presented one. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Based on some source examination, I'm ok with "Bitcoin is a digital currency" with the phrase "digital currency" hyperlinked. I think that is good enough to distinguish it from the more questionable claim "Bitcoin is a currency" without the qualification "digital". The fine points of the issue can be discussed in the main text. Overall the lede still has a lot of problems, as does the rest of the article. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 06:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Environmental impact

Could the above please be mentioned in the article, including the power consumption figures. By my calculation using those figures ($147K a day in electricity), as 25 coins are produced every 10 minutes, that means that the cost in electricity of producing a coin averages out to $24.50, which is interesting. I don't know where they got that $147K figure and I suspect it's too low. VLSI mining suddenly looks very lucrative though. It wouldn't surprise me if there are completely skunkworks chips out there mining right now. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 17:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

This ties in nicely with Paul Krugman's reference to Adam Smith's similar criticism of the gold standard in the "Reception" section of the article. Perhaps that would be a good place to incorporate this new analysis. SPECIFICO talk 17:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
Added a new subsection to the Implications section. snacks [talk] 17:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Could the $0.15/kwh figure from the link please be mentioned in the subsection? That is needed to get the actual energy consumption. Some mention of the environmental impact would also be apropos, since that's the main subject of the linked article Thanks. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

The current paragraph about energy use ignores the interconnection between bitcoin value and energy consumption. Please check my thread where I estimate that bitcoin mining would raise worldwide electricity consumption by 7% if its market cap would equal the USD "M2 money supply". Of course, that scenario is extreme. But it is important to point out that higher value of bitcoins leads to higher energy consumption. --brenzi (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you state what reliably sourced content you are proposing to add to the article with respect to the foregoing? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
i can try with a draft:
Energy consumption for mining has a high correlation with bitcoin exchange rate to fiat currency. Because variable costs of mining are dominated by electricity price, the Economic_equilibrium for the mining rate is reached when global electricity costs for mining approximate the value of mining reward plus transaction fees. brenzi (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that calculation can be used directly in the article, but it's a good contribution to the talk page since it supplies a useful angle for researching and evaluating other published info. I'd take some issue with the calculation itself too, but either way, the approach is interesting. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Sure, do not quote my numbers. They are just a thought experiment to explain the mechanics (but please let me know if you find mistakes). Important are the following facts (that might not yet be widely understood by now):
  • energy use has a strong correlation with bitcoin value
  • more efficient mining gear does not reduce energy use. It will only raise the network difficulty
  • cheaper energy linearly increases mining energy use.
  • the same conclusions apply to all proof-of-work based currencies (i.e. Litecoin).
brenzi (talk) 18:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Patent

The article says bitcoins are similar to a patent. How similar? Is this a submarine patent? The article mentions the patent covers bitcoins but not the consequence. The article should state that bitcoins are subject to a submarine patent which will amount to a tax on all bitcoin transactions. QuentinUK (talk) 19:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Where does it say that? TippyGoomba (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
"The patent application (#20100042841) contained networking and encryption technologies similar to bitcoin's."

So making application just before publication to invalidate claims of prior art, enabling it to be a submarine patent QuentinUK (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

The similarity between that patent and bitcoins has been observed, but I haven't heard anything about the patent holders asserting infringement. I wouldn't put anything into the article about it unless there's significant concern raised in published sources. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Just want to note that a tax on all bitcoin transactions can't (pratically) be enforced.

Bitcoin-24

Apparently bitcoin-24's assets have been frozen by law enforcement.[1] I don't know anything more about it. I think incidents like this should be mentioned in the article once WP:RS appear for them. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 23:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Halved Every Four Years

Does this assume that computers remain at today's speeds or does it take into account speeding up doubling every couple of years?QuentinUK (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the speed of computers. You'll have to check bitcoin.org for a reliable description, but as I understand it, the speed of bitcoin creation is adjusted dynamically every 10 minutes, based on how much hashing was done in the previous 10 minutes. This speed changes not only with the speed of computers, but with the number of people who are mining at any given moment. Basically if 0.03% more hashes are computed in the current 10 minutes than in the previous 10 minutes, then the difficulty of mining is increased to be 0.03% harder for the next 10 minutes, and so on, so the total expected number of coins produced per hour (collectively by all the miners) stays the same over a 4-year interval. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
I think I made a mistake in the above. Further reading indicates that the rate is adjusted not after every block, but rather after every 2160 blocks (= 21600 minutes or 15 days). That would seem to say anyone who was mining on any scale last week probably made a fortune. Wow. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Actually, every 2016 blocks: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Difficulty 67.84.18.190 (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Whoops, yeah, I transposed digits. 2016 blocks = 14 days = 2 weeks, makes sense. Thanks. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
There are some limits on how fast the difficulty can change, so dramatic (and I mean really dramatic) changes in the network hashing rate could violate these assumptions, but practically speaking, the inflation rate is predictable. Shadowjams (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

What the hell is a bitcoin?

Folks, get somebody to explain what a bitcoin is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.33.129.54 (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It would help if you phrased your question more narrowly. A bitcoin is (according to its fans) a unit of currency like a dollar or a Euro. Is that what you wanted to know? Did you want a more technical description of how it works? Maybe the article isn't clear enough about that. You might look at the FAQ at www.bitcoin.it. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 08:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's an explanation attempt. It's not usable in the article as-is because of possible errors and sourcing issues, but maybe it can be worked up into something:

A bitcoin (BTC) is an ownership share of the economic value associated with a data record called a block, which is in turn part of a large, publicly broadcast database called the block chain. The block chain is itself published by peer-to-peer internet transmission, and is authenticated by linked timestamping starting from a seed value (the genesis block) built into Bitcoin software. Blocks themselves are created by a computationally expensive process called mining, analogously with gold mining. A block consists of a proof of work which is a solution to a cryptographic codebreaking problem of carefully calibrated difficulty, plus a transaction log that subdivides the block's value into potentially billions of pieces, and associates each piece with an owner. Since owners are identified only by ECDSA public cryptographic keys and since any owner can control unlimited numbers of keys, bitcoin ownership is relatively anonymous and bitcoin flow between owners is difficult to trace. However, cryptographers Green et al.[link above] have identified methods to correlate data in the block chain with individual participants in the Bitcoin network. They have proposed Zerocoin (based on zero-knowledge proofs) as a method to increase Bitcoin's privacy and anonymity.
Mining involves computerized searches for numbers whose SHA256 hashes have special properties, and therefore successful mining involves computing the SHA256 function at very high speed. At present (April 2013), mining is done (in increasing order of efficiency) using personal computers equipped with graphics accelerators, with programmable parallel hardware called FPGA's, or most recently with application-specific integrated circuits (ASIC's) made specifically for mining.[2] According to Bloomberg News (April 13, 2013),[3] miners spend about US$147,000 per day on electric power. Since the rate of block production is dynamically adjusted (by changing the difficulty of the codebreaking problems) to create an average of 1 block every 10 minutes across the entire network, and since blocks currently are divided into 25 BTC, Bloomberg's data indicates that producing a single bitcoin consumes on average US$ 24.50 worth of electricity. Bloomberg calls the mining process a "real-world environmental disaster".
(Go on from here about wallets, transaction, etc).

Let me know if that helps or sounds promising. I don't use Bitcoin myself and the above is what I've figured out from reading various articles and some stuff from the bitcoin.org website, so it may have bad errors. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 06:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if the person was looking for a plain English explanation of what Bitcoin is. I believe the key to this is starting with electronic wallets and transactions and everyday uses, then explaining the underlining technology rather than the other way round. There is some discussion about this in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bitcoin#Article_Cleanup section too. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I left that person a note inviting them to look back here. I looked at the section you linked and see that many of the questions were about where bitcoins actually originate, so some explanation of mining probably helps with that. I don't think the problems are insurmountable. I may make another try later based on the questions in that section. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The following is also unsuitable as-is (due to unverifiability and format), but I'd like to know whether it addresses the unclarity that people complained about. Any parts found to be helpful can then be developed further.

  • Bitcoin is like the accounting system of a giant Swiss bank with anonymous, numbered bank accounts. Anyone can create unlimited numbers of accounts with no fees and no identification.
  • Account balances are denominated in Bitcoins (BTC). Bitcoins (or fractions of them) can be transferred from one account to another by a process similar to writing checks. The smallest possible transfer is one satoshi (named after Bitcoin inventor Satoshi Nakamoto), which is 10-8 BTC or about 1/10000th of a US cent at April 2013 exchange rates.
  • New bitcoins enter the system through a process called mining (analogous to gold mining), a proof of work scheme where coin creation involves substantial expenditures for computer resources and energy. The rate of mining is limited by the Bitcoin system to (as of 2013) 3600 coins per day across the whole network, so miners engage in a technological "arms race", with the highest income going to those who can mine the fastest. Bloomberg Financial published figures indicating that as of April 2013, producing a bitcoin by mining consumes an average of US$40 worth of electricity calculated at $0.15 per kwh. Bloomberg calls bitcoin mining a "real-world environmental disaster".[4]
  • As of April 2013, there are approximately 11 million bitcoins in circulation. This number will grow at a gradually decreasing rate until the year 2040 when it will stop altogether, putting a final cap of 21 million coins as the total number that will ever be created. At current exchange rates this puts the combined value of all existing bitcoins at about US$ 1 billion. The finite supply of coins means that the currency is inherently deflationary.
  • Unlike with traditional systems, Bitcoin payments don't have to be cleared by a central authority. Bitcoin's main technical innovation is in the development of cryptographic protocols to prevent payment forgery while preserving Bitcoin's anonymous, decentralized nature.
  • Also unlike traditional banks, the Bitcoin system's accounting data (all the account balances and payment histories) are completely public.[5] The anonymity results from the absence of information in the system about who owns which accounts. The security rests on the mathematical strength of the cryptographic primitives used in the Bitcoin protocols, rather on than the physical strength of traditional bank vaults. Because the account balances are public, someone receiving a payment can quickly tell whether the originating account had sufficient funds to make the payment. Quickly repeated payments (double spending) can be detected after a short delay, as updates to the public database arrive.
  • Accounts are created and managed using software called a "bitcoin wallet". An account has a private component (an ECDSA digital signing key that the owner must keep secure like a computer password), and a public component (the verification key corresponding to the private component) which is used as the "account number" or bitcoin address. Once you have made an account, another person can transfer BTC to it from one of their accounts. You now have a nonzero balance, from which you can make transfers using your private signing key. You can choose to subdivide your balance into as many separate accounts as you wish, with the wallet software keeping track of them for you.
  • Because nobody knows which accounts are yours, observers cannot easily tell whether payments you make are going to your own other accounts, or to the accounts of other people. Because of this, it is difficult for observers such as tax authorities to trace the flow of BTC between owners. The frequent association of bitcoins with underground or illicit transactions comes from this characteristic.
  • It is believed to be practically impossible to transfer funds out of an account without possession of the signing key, due to the cryptographic protocols. That makes bitcoin payments similar to cash payments in that they are irreversible without the cooperation of the recipient. Disclosure of a signing key also makes the account contents vulnerable to unrecoverable theft. While the underlying cryptographic protocols have so far resisted all known attacks, there have been numerous incidents of security failures of wallet software resulting in bitcoin thefts.
  • Bitcoin balances can be exchanged for traditional currency on a person-to-person basis, or at online brokerages called exchanges, most notably the Mt.Gox exchange in Japan. Bitcoin exchanges publish a fluctuating exchange rate similar to other currency exchanges. The Mt.Gox bitcoin exchange rate is tracked by the CNBC financial ticker.[6] In March 2013, the US Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued guidelines requiring Bitcoin exchanges and miners to register as financial service businesses (FSB)'s.[7] A Forbes Magazine report described this as a positive sign for Bitcoin's legitimacy.[8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.136.106 (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
I think your descriptions are good as they describe how the lay person would use Bitcoin with resulting to technical jargon. Jonpatterns (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I tweaked a couple of things but I'm sure the description has errors or misuse of terminology. I'm still trying to piece the info together myself. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 April 2013

Bitcoins ARE fiat currency. They are not a "type", they are NOT backed by a commodity like gold or silver. US Dollars are fiat currency the moment FDR took the US Dollar off of the gold standard. This line, "As such, bitcoins have been compared to a type of fiat currency that is not issued by a central government." is not clear. Bitcoins are worth whatever they are being traded for, their value is set by the number of bitcoins present. US Dollars fluctuate on how every many dollars the Federal Reserve prints and keeps in circulation. 108.209.220.224 (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The sources in the sentence you reference did not support the sentence, so I removed it. If you have any other sources I can look at, please give them. Please read WP:OR, what you've written here will not suffice.
Paul Krugman, "... bitcoins are in a sense the ultimate fiat currency, with a value conjured out of thin air."[9] 50.0.136.106 (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

3000 more like 35000

It says the machines are up to $3000 but the new ones trade on ebay for $35000 for a Avalon ASIC. [1] QuentinUK (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I changed that claim of 3000 to 2499 to match the businessinsider source. Wikipedia cannot (should not) use ebay auctions as a reliable source, unless reliable third party sources discuss them, in my opinion. For one, it is easy to construct fake or speculative auctions for almost anything for any starting price, and also easy to arrange a false completed win. I will look for more mainstream media sources on prices, because while I do see that cited supplier is advertising ASIC rigs from 274 up to 2499, I am reluctant to cite them directly. -84user (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
A few Google News searches for strings "ASIC mining prices" and "ASIC mining bitcoin prices" found, in addition to the businessinsider source, this agizmodo page about Avalon ASICs priced at $6,800, and this Daily Mail article that referred to the gizmodo price claim. They appear reliable enough to use in the article. -84user (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
A quick Google News search for "ebay Avalon ASIC" yields: [10] and [11]. I leave it up to other editors whether and how to add these to the article. --84user (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.ebay.com/itm/Batch-2-Avalon-ASIC-Pre-Order-Bitcoin-Mining-Rig-BUY-IT-NOW-/121102014420?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1c323e17d4
collapse per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPO

Lol, that is funny. Do you know the speed of that thing? It doesn't surprise me that all the "production runs" seem to have dried up. I wonder how much completely undisclosed ASIC mining has been going on for the past year or two. I've seen figures like 60GH/s for ASIC rigs and the current mining rate is 77TH/s producing 3600 BTC/day, so the 60GH chip will get about 2.8 BTC/day or around $400/day which is almost all profit. So the machine will pay itself off in 3 months--if it doesn't get swamped by more ASIC miners. It looks like the rate doubled in the past month or so, heh heh.[12] I wonder how much of that is new ASIC's and how much is people trying to cash in on GPU's due to the BTC price runup. I also wonder how much completely dark ASIC mining has been happening for the past year or so. Conceivably an awful lot. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 06:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I restored this comment because I think ASIC mining technology is something that the article should touch on, and the info above is relevant to potential research for expanding the article. I suppose I could have written it in a less chatty way, but either way, removing it was not nice per WP:TPO, so please don't revert it again. Also I had reset the archive interval to 30 days (what the archive banner had said before) since at 15 days threads were disappearing too fast, but that got caught up in the revert too. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 07:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

archive frequency

I'd like to request resetting the archive bot frequency back to 30 days, or better yet, turning off auto-archiving altogether and manually archiving stuff not needing further attention. The talkpage had previously said the bot was archiving after 30 days, when it was actually running at 15 days. I reset it to 30 days as "advertised", but User:TippyGoomba reverted back to 15, so I'm bringing it here for discussion.

I think the fast archiving is actually disruptive to development of the article. As someone trying to actually respond to content requests (TippyGoomba has not contributed or suggested any content for the article as far as I can tell), I'd prefer to have more of the outstanding issues visible on the page so they can get attention as needed and as people's time is available. This isn't a noticeboard, it's a workspace for development of the article, and it's quite normal for issues in this setting to stay open for long periods. Instead, they get whisked away and nothing happens with them (example: the Zerocoin item from a couple weeks ago). The talkpage traffic isn't so high that we need such fast archiving. So IMHO the bot should be slowed down or shut off. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 07:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Certainly don't shut it off; manual archiving invites all sorts of problems. I'm not sure I've ever seen a discussion about archive time on a specific page... and I've been setting up auto archive on pages for a long time (not this one though). This is such a non-issue... but the talk page volume is high enough that neither's unreasonable. I'd be tempted to up it to 30 just to side with caution, but this isn't worth the discussion. Shadowjams (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 April 2013

The third paragraph of the article should be changed as it is deliberately misleading. It states that "a large share" of Bitcoin's commercial use is for "illicit drug and gambling transactions." This statement is completely vacuous for two reasons;

1) The term "large share" is a subjective quantity and provides no real information to the reader, it is merely rhetoric.

2) A "large share" of any currency is spent on illicit drugs and gambling transactions anyway. The statement unfairly insinuates that Bitcoin has stronger links to illegal activity than other currencies do.

Also, very importantly, the reference article for the citation number [10], has nothing to do with illicit drugs or gambling transactions. The citation is in the wrong place as it is in fact in reference to the previous sentence - "Bitcoin is accepted in trade by various merchants and individuals in many parts of the world". As such, the citation number should appear directly after that previous sentence, not a sentence later.

The misplaced citation number is dangerously misleading. For the casual reader who would not check the references, it would appear that bitcoin's 'strong' links to "illicit drugs and gambling" are verifiable fact, when actually it is cleverly miscited rhetoric.

89.124.44.33 (talk) 10:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Difficult. It's not sourced yet, but it's obviously true that a larger proportion of bitcoins than government currency are used for illicit transactions. If not, the drug dealers need to join the 21st century. I don't see a specific request, here, so I'm not sure what should be done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Three additional in-line citations were removed recently without explanation. I have restored them. There is additional text in the article, with additional citations, to support the lede sentence. SPECIFICO talk 13:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
I took a quick glance at those restored citations and while they may be relevant to the article as a whole, they didn't support the claim being made. So I think they should be removed again, perhaps moving them here to the talk page so they can be re-used elsewhere in the article. I'd move the claim itself out of the lede since it doesn't seem that well supported.

Separately, Arthur Rubin's statement "a larger proportion of bitcoins than government currency are used for illicit transactions" sounds plausible, but I wouldn't go as far as to say it's "obviously true" (there are a few numbers mentioned in the links and I may examine them when I get some time). So I wouldn't base a content decision off of such a theory. Bitcoin also just doesn't sound that attractive for drug deals, since those deals necessarily involve transferring physical merchandise, where a cash handover can also happen. (Yes there appear to be a few dealers/users crazy enough to transact through the internet and the mail, but that sounds exceptional). Gambling is a different matter (it can be done completely online) and Bitcoin may work better for that. (Edited). 50.0.136.106 (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to buy contraband with bitcoin if it doesn't meet your standard, but the folks at Silk Road seem to have a loyal clientele. Hence the law enforcement response. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Whatever the language fiddling with "proportion", that part does seem unnecessarily biased (and apparently not well supported). I'd imagine wording it as "proportionally most illicit transactions involve government currency" would be frowned upon for the same reason. People seem to forget that cash is anonymous and doesn't have a convenient cryptographically verified widely distributed transaction history. Shadowjams (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
I mentioned this further down as well - if you go buy the number of businesses that accept Bitcoin on https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Trade vs. the number of illicit sites on the Hidden Wiki, I think it's fair to say that a proportionally massive number of legitimate enterprises accept Bitcoin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.236.58.105 (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Note: It appears that the original edit request has been responded to in the normal course of the page being edited over the last two weeks - the lead paragraph has been reworded, and at least some of the references have been changed (citation #10 very much does reference that sentence at this point) so I see nothing directly actionable from the edit request, and I'm closing it. By all means continue the talk page discussion, and feel free to reopen the edit request if necessary. Thanks, --ElHef (Meep?) 03:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Removing incorrect conclusion from citation

I made an edit which was reverted, but I believe the reversion was in error. This is the edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitcoin&oldid=553564504&diff=prev

The removed text was "Some claimed the crash was due to a lower cost in producing bitcoins through cheaper computing power." The article contradicts itself on this point: (quotes from http://archive.is/hBfhT)

A. "[bitcoin] drops from $33 high in August to below $2 as cost of 'mining' coins falls below real-world exchange rate" B. "The value of Bitcoins, the "cryptocurrency" that some had thought would take over from more traditional currencies, has plummeted across exchanges – to a level where it costs more to "mine" them than they are worth." C. "The problem with the Bitcoins' value falling below the cost of "mining" – actually the computer time that has to be devoted to them – arises because as each "coin" (or computer hash) is generated, the peer-to-peer network used by computers that accept and generate them makes it harder to generate the next." D. "With the value of Bitcoins dropping so low, and the computing power required to produce them growing steadily, it is becoming uneconomic to generate more except through the use of hacked computers in "botnets"

A gets it wrong, saying that the cost of mining fell below the exchange rate. B and C get it right, saying that the exchange rate fell below the cost of mining.

I'm going to redo the edit. The article is confused on this subject.

Rodarmor (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

If you look, you'll see that I reverted my reversion of your edit. I saw the mistake I made. -KyleLandas (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


Edit request 2013-05-07 - Addition to section 3.1.2 Derivatives

RE: Addition to section 3.1.2 Derivatives:

As of April 2013 - CFDs for Bitcoin with 4:1 leverage are available from plus500.com [1]

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 May 2013

Would like to make a small change on the Bitcoin page. Pricklymustard (talk) 15:19, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

As the template says: This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". TippyGoomba (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Not done: per TippyGoomba. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 May 2013

Please change "In late-2011, the Bitcoin exchange rate crashed from over $30 in June to below $2 is October" to "In late-2011, the Bitcoin exchange rate crashed from over $30 in June to below $2 in October"

Done, thanks. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 04:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Article Cleanup

This article is in really bad shape. Why? Because it always has been. The edit wars in the earlier pages really didn't help but the article started as a very technical diatribe which never set a path for a good user-friendly wikipedia article. It would be best if somebody just went through it all and rewrote it but I did my best to make it sensible for now through resectioning. --Neoconfederate (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Neo. I see that you've added a section which presents primary documentation from bitcoin. To someone reading about bitcoin for the first time, it may seem long, technical, and difficult to follow. As an alternative, do you know of any second-party summary which could be used as a source for this article? In particular I think most readers will fell that the functionality and operation of bitcoin is more significant than the technical approach to implementation. For WP purposes, that would be much preferred. I realize such a reference may be hard to find. I've added "primary sources" to the tag at the top of the article page. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Heh, I didn't catch this before. This will be a continual work in progress. Bitcoin is indeed hard to explain and all I have for now is the whitepaper. Keep in mind the technical approach is indeed how the system operates. Again, I will keep looking around. --Neoconfederate (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I get that this is a work in progress. I certainly don't really understand it. For example, the article says "there is no centralised issuing authority" but doesn't say who the issuing authority is other than vague talk about "the network". There must be an issuing authority since we know how many bitcoins are to be issued. I can't help but get the feeling that Bitcoin must be some kind of computer programme. 149.241.91.244 (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
"I can't help but get the feeling that Bitcoin must be some kind of computer programme." That's the feeling or information the article should invoke. I will actually incorporate those exact words. --☥NEO (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
It's hard to use those exact words but I incorporated "Instead, bitcoin relies solely on its software and the peer-to-peer network it builds." To understand how the limits function without a central authority, click the peer-to-peer link. Thanks for your feedback. --☥NEO (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You guys, this article is about as clear as mud. I came here to find out what it is, but still have no idea after reading what is there. There needs to be at least a "plain english" explanation, that gives the complete concept, there is no explanation, economically or conceptually, that gives people some feel for what this is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.186 (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The first, I think, of the thousands of Wikipedia articles that I've read from beginning to end that I've learned next to nothing from. Holy crap, somebody who understands needs to rewrite encyclopedically. I think 3 undergraduate degrees may help understanding this article - I'm not so sure, though - in computer science, cryptography, and monetary economics.
154.20.65.60 (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Could you give an example as to what you don't understand? That would help me improve this article a lot. --☥NEO (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Main problem with this article is that it is a 80-90% copy&paste from Satoshi Nakamoto's original paper, Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Is this kind of massive copy&paste from one source consider OK by "Wikipedia quality rules"? If I want to read Bitcoin White paper I will do it; I do not need Wikipedia to hold 100 copy&pasted quotes from it! --Calimero (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Another user who came to this article to find out what bitcoins really are. I am pretty technical capable and well versed in computer techniques. I have seen various explanations of bitcoin in the technical press in recent months, none of them really explained it properly. Sadly this article is in the same camp, technical jumbo mumbo leaving me even more confused. Seeing as the financial media is now picking it up there really does need to be a concise explanation of it for the man in the street instead of things understood just by the bitcoin clique. THEN add the details for those who can understand them. Dsergeant (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
When does the article begin to leave you confused? What part is hard to understand? I am not offended nor do I doubt you because this is a consistent issue that I intend to resolve in any way I can. We all know it's a digital currency that is based on a peer-to-peer network. What do you not get? --☥NEO (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Last night I re-read Steve Gibson's episode on Bit Coin (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-287.pdf) which did at least explain things fairly clearly. It has still left me confused as it seems pretty hard to buy bitcoins unless you have the processing power to generate them yourself or you get folks to 'donate' them to you. Presumably it also relies totally on the bitcoin network, if that goes down for whatever reason, gets seriously hacked, or the software gets virus attacked, you are kaput. I still can't get round the fact that in reality this is just computer nerds playing games with their machines and bitcoins are totally fictitious. You may be so involved with it yourself that you are overlooking the questions of the wider world that is left totally perplexed. This article delves far too quickly into deep technical discussion before the casual reader has got a grasp of what it is all about. Dsergeant (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I would like to give you a hint why this article is bad. I believe that an average reader is totally not interested in how transactions are carried out in this currency. I might even say that it is somewhat irrelevant. What an average person is interested in are two things: (1) How can she get 1 bitcoin initially and (2) What gives its value. What the article says is just that bitcoins are continuously put into the system, but it is not clear to me (not even sure if it is written at all) who actually gets them, and what determines how much they get. I looked and it seems to me that there are websites that give you bitcoins in exchange for something for them. If that is so, it is clear how the user gets the money: she works for it. Now how do these sites get the money? And how much do they get? How do they decide how much is the job that the user does worth for them? Plus, an economically trained (and interested) reader asks the question: where is the real value behind all these. Based on what do people value it in terms of US dollars?
Once these things are clear, the reader can leave the article with the feeling that she understood what this currency is about, knowing that the rest of the article is about the details of how clever CS people figured out a way to do transactions safely with this currency. Instead, as of now, the first section is titled "Transactions".
Hope, this helps. Neruo (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


Agree with Neruo, where and how to use the Bitcoin to obtain a pizza or a T-shirt? Lynxx2 (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)lynxx2

To answer the questions - where does bitcoin get its value and 'bitcoins are totally fictitious'. First you have to consider what is money. No currency is 'real' rather it is a concept. It value comes from scarcity, utility, and trust. It used to be based on the trust that you could exchange a piece of paper for a certain amount of gold. Gold's value comes from its scarcity and it is hard to counterfeit. Now we place our trust in the central banks to honor a debt based system. The convenience comes from the fact we can use money in exchange for goods and as a store of value. Most currencies are virtual with less than 10% existing as notes and coins. I propose inserting the following into the intro (italics = current intro):
Bitcoin (BTC) is an online commodity that is based on an open-source, peer-to-peer encryption protocol first described in 2009 by a pseudonymous developer (or developers) Satoshi Nakamoto. ...
Before someone can obtain Bitcoin that person must set up a Bitcoin wallet. It is a piece of software that transacts with the Bitcoin network. Once this is done then Bitcoin can be purchased at an exchange, or paid directly from another person's or company's wallet. [1] Bitcoins can be exchanged for a growing number of goods and services. [2] An additional way to gain Bitcoin is to 'mine' them. This involves providing computing power that is required by the network to process transactions. Miners are rewarded with newly 'minted' Bitcoins. [3] The value of Bitcoin comes from its scarcity, trust in the software and utility. Its scarcity comes from the way the protocol will only allow for 21 million BTC. Trust in the software comes from the encrypted transfer system - this ensures only one instance of a Bitcoin exists. Its utility comes from the ability for transferring money without the need of a third party (bank or Government) globally. [4]
[1] http://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet
[2] http://bitcoinmagazine.com/where-to-spend-your-bitcoins/
[3] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining
[4] https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/FAQ#Where_does_the_value_of_Bitcoin_stem_from.3F_What_backs_up_Bitcoin.3F
...Bitcoin creation and transfer is accomplished on an Internet-based network and is not managed by...
Jonpatterns (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
I know what money in general is, or what it is not. The addition of your proposed paragraph would certainly help. This tells me that: (1) I set up a wallet; (2) to obtain my first bitcoin('s worth of something else) I, in principle, use someone else's bitcoin (because I pay directly from her wallet). Is that right? My question is, who got the very first bitcoin and in exchange of what? (So there is basically a sequence of wallets from which I ultimately get my first bitcoin, there must be a root.) Computer capacity? But why is computer capacity needed for transactions if there is none in time 0? How did this system reach the critical mass to operate it? And questions like that.Neruo (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Just because the timeline section is very sketchy, perhaps a detailed exposition would answer these questions... But still, I think the first section should not be how transactions are carried out technically.Neruo (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
(because I pay directly from her wallet). Is that right? That is correct.
My question is, who got the very first bitcoin and in exchange of what? This I tried to answer with 'An additional way to gain Bitcoin is to 'mine' them.' That is people who lend computing power to the Bitcoin network are rewarded with NEW Bitcoins and transaction fees. [1] The First Bitcoin transaction, was from Satoshi to Hal Finney [2].
But why is computer capacity needed for transactions if there is none in time 0? Transactions are verified in a way that deliberately takes computing. All the good nodes verify transaction to stop malicious verification (it would need more computing power than the entire 'good' network), see hashcash [3]
[1]https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining#Difficulty
[2]https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/History
[3]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashcash

Jonpatterns (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=13406.0

I think a short introductory summary separate from the more detailed passages would be helpful. I'll cook something up later. --C S (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

What are the various rational for many of the internal links? The Ripple Network is not decentralized, not open-sourced, isn't a protocol as far as I can tell, and is a for profit company which has already extracted a huge portion of wealth from the total share. Besides a few pieces articles asserting complementarity to bitcoin without any justification, there is no association or similarity besides both being a virtual currency. Ven is similar. Such links belong on a virtual currency page. Bitcoin doesn't seem to match the definitions of private or complementary currency. Bitcoins aren't issued by a private organization. As a process, every block-chain is a function of a mining-client distributed across a computing network. People vote on which block chain is legit via client choice. Since the clients are open-sourced, anyone can make a fork. I'd assert that this puts the block-chain more in the domain of public since there are no barriers to adding to the block-chain (thus potentially gaining coins) or making your own. TCP/IP maybe private but is using the protocol to navigate the net private property? Is using an open-source protocol to participate in recording transactions private property? (I say no!) Complementary currency seems like weak terminology due to fall out of favor as making too many assumptions/biased POV (why aren't national currencies complementary to each other? Can a fiat currency be complementary to Bitcoin?). </rant> Anyway I may make an account to deal with this, but I rather hope this plants seeds of dialog (in spite of my candor) or action to remove superfluous links. 128.196.199.25 (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Businesses that use Bitcoins list.

I've seen many, many websites as well as the bitcoin.it wiki that have listings of businesses that use Bitcoins. However I'm still wondering why there isn't one on wikipedia? Are we not allowed to post such a list, or has nobody bothered starting one yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexvasile (talk • contribs) 09:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks like such a list was deleted on grounds of it breaking policy and being spammy. --KyleLandas (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
The article should note the number or type of businesses and any other such information, but should not cite or list any but the most notable, because that will invite others to use WP as a directory or link to their businesses. SPECIFICO talk 22:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with User:SPECIFICO. Also, this would require secondary sources, which we strongly prefer to citing a bunch of websites directly. If anyone comes across a list from a reputable secondary source, please let us know. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Right here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Trade - that is the definitive, up-to-date list. I think given that the list is several thousand deep, and none of the cited articles (10, 11, 12 and 13) mention that the "majority" of Bitcoin trade use is illegal, that sentence needs to be HEAVILY rephrased. Cash can be used to buy drugs and gamble (undoubtedly in ratios that Bitcoin will eventually reflect), but that is not mentioned on every article on a particular currency. There is no backing for that comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.236.58.105 (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS to see what kinds of sources may be relied on for the content of a WP article. SPECIFICO talk 17:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I was totally surprised to see that the Humble Bundle now allows payment via Bitcoin! Humble Bundle isn't listed on the Trade page that IP editor 105.236.58.105 mentioned, but you can see for yourself and there are several news sources (including this 9 May 2013 article at VentureBeat, this (French), this (Dutch) at De Telegraaf, and this). --82.170.113.123 (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 May 2013 - Adding this image to the article

I added this image to the article a while back as an illustration of actual use of Bitcoins by a merchant (a cafe in Delft) but it was reverted by another user. There is no other image of a place accepting Bitcoin on Commons as of this date.

Is this image acceptable? I was accused of spamming on my talk page yet I have never visited this cafe and know no-one affiliated with it, but I noticed this sign when I ate at the pizza restaurant next door (after having read about it in the Dutch media). Targaryenspeak or forever remain silent 15:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

You were not accused of spamming on your talk page. You were asked to follow WP:BRD. Your credibility is not enhanced by so clear a misstatement of fact. Please see the thread above which relates to the use of content such as your photo: [13] SPECIFICO talk 15:55, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
WP:BRD is not a policy, nor a guideline, it is an essay. Targaryenspeak or forever remain silent 16:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
I did not characterize it. I did, however, characterize your misrepresentation of my talk page message to you. Over and out. SPECIFICO talk 16:50, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
You said my "re-insertion of the graphic violates WP:BRD". That misrepresents WP:BRD. An essay is nothing more than the "advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors". "Violate" implies that it is more than that. Targaryenspeak or forever remain silent 17:18, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, to get back on topic, why can't we have the image? TippyGoomba (talk) 18:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

As a side note, apparently Dutch Wikipedia has a short article about the café here. Including the image in the article seems like a good idea, as an example of its real-world applications. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 13:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
The Dutch WP page is a stub about the building in which the cafe may or may not be located. It's not about the cafe or bitcoin. Not that Dutch WP stub pages are any guide as to what belongs in this article. There are hundreds of businesses that accept bitcoin. Acceptance is a topic for the article. Individual business mentions, where there is no special significance, is against WP policy and invites use of WP for promotion. SPECIFICO talk 14:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to use the existence of a Dutch Wikipedia article about the café as an argument for including the image in the Bitcoin article. I was just mentioning "as a side note" that there is an article about the café. It's about the building, but since the building has been in use as a café since 1999, the article is (automatically/also) about the café. As it says in the Dutch article, the café is commonly referred to as stadscafé De Waag. As for including the image into the article, its significance would be that of an example of Bitcoin real-world applications. It's a high quality CC BY-SA 3.0 image of a place accepting Bitcoin. We could put a black or white bar over the "De Waag" text if necessary. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
So your objection to including this picture is that there are too many pictures to choose from? Or that we want an image that doesn't mention any particular business? Or that this is not the sort of image we want on the page? TippyGoomba (talk) 15:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Door #3, thanks. Unless perhaps it is particularly notable, such as a government agency sign saying "bitcoin accepted here" in which case the acceptance would also be notable enough to discuss as a significant instance in the text. SPECIFICO talk 15:33, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that makes sense. I agree. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Homeland Security cuts off Dwolla bitcoin transfers

http://mashable.com/2013/05/14/dwolla-homeland-security/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57584511-38/homeland-security-cuts-off-dwolla-bitcoin-transfers/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.101.22.161 (talk) 18:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Protocol of Bitcoin

This article seems like it should be merged into the main article. The issue is Bitcoin has a tag for being to detailed and adding content would make it very confusing. Any ideas? FalkirksTalk 05:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Please see WP:TOOLONG. It is normal for articles to be divided into sub-articles, else we have articles that can't be easily read. --KyleLandas (talk) 05:08, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Also the content is perfectly good, cited and useful. It's not fluff or excess detail. It shoudn't be deleted. --KyleLandas (talk) 05:10, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, this article is still over 80KB in size. Sub-articles are recommended after 60KB. The article is still too long and should be branched further if possible. --KyleLandas (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin in other media

The Good Wife S03E13 centers around bitcoins.84.152.3.15 (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Covered. See Bitcoin#Timeline. --KyleLandas (talk) 12:50, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

XBT - Newly proposed ISO Standard Currency Code for Bitcoin

Hi Guys, Some of you might be aware of the newly proposed ISO Standard currency code 'XBT' for bitcoin. I have updated this detail to the Bitcoin page, and provided a change.org petition as reference link. Please update this reference if you find other more appropriate references.

This will be used in wallets, currency exchanges and other official documents, in near future. Not, this currency unit is too fine to be used in day to day usage (1000 XBT = 13 cents). I can refer to a tweet from Jon Matonis of bitcoinfoundation.org. You can consider this as the most authoritative. --V4vijayakumar (talk) 03:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

These aren't reliable sources. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Neither does Wikipedia judge authority nor validate material based on authority that is close to the subject especially when it's self-published. --KyleLandas (talk) 03:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I would like other contributors look into this 'XBT' matter, and let you guys decide. I am sure 'XBT' is going to be bitcoin ISO currency code. --V4vijayakumar (talk) 04:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Beyond this being an issue of reliable sources, it also goes under WP:CRYSTAL. You are referring to something that hasn't happened yet. --KyleLandas (talk) 04:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
OK, I will wait for ISO approval. --V4vijayakumar (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Buttcoiners are so precious! Seriously, if you drew a Venn diagram of cargo cult members and buttminers, you'd have a single circle. Your Lord and Master (talk) 12:18, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Our counterpart

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1816176/Bitcoin

If anyone needs an example of how this article should read... --KyleLandas (talk) 03:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Not really - we do provide a lot more detail, especially on how BTC has...unfolded, so to speak. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 06:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems like the 'Protocol' section of this article deserves to be a separate Wikipedia page by itself. It has several illustrations and several references. Then the new page would appear in the search box and in the 'See also' links of the main article. --Macseven (talk) 05:30, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

 Done. See Protocol of Bitcoin --KyleLandas (talk) 05:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

"Inflation"

In the infobox it says: "The rate of inflation will be halved every 4 years until there are 21 million BTC." This strikes me as POV, reflecting a fringe-view understanding of inflation which only looks at the size of the money supply. A more mainstream economic analysis would say that if for example the supply of BTC doubled in one year but the amount of economic activity conducted in BTC quadrupled in the same year then there would actually be deflation. And of course other factors like speculation affect BTC's exchange rates and purchasing power. -Helvetica (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Production or issuance might be better. Most people would probably think of inflation as increasing prices and decreasing buying power of a currency. Apparently this is a relatively recent change in popular definition but we *are* writing for today's people. I would only use the other definition with the words "in the money supply" or similar following the word. Statecraft (talk) 23:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Fringe view? This is the very root of the term "inflation" — more currency is pumped into the same market, just like more air being pumped into a balloon, and extra money doesn't cause more wealth and extra air doesn't cause more rubber. Nyttend (talk) 02:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
I think we're actually talking about Monetary inflation here (as opposed to the price of goods relative to bitcoins). Any objection to changing the infobox from saying "Limited release" to something like "Limited release (Monetary inflation)"? I can't find a reference though. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
There is no need to use the word "inflation" in this context. It's only going to further confuse this struggling article. The bitcoin are issued at a declining rate. That has nothing to do with whether they're ever used for anything at all. Adding language like inflation is only going to raise far-reaching associations and false inferences for various readers who may have relatively little understanding of money and price systems. SPECIFICO talk 03:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Good point. The sources cites don't use the word inflation, I noticed. I suggest we remove the word "inflation". Unfortunately, this means removing this information from the "inflation" part of the infobox. Any objections? TippyGoomba (talk) 03:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I removed it. I wouldn't mind something about monetary inflation in the infobox but saying "inflation" is misleading. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The infobox can be changed. Important info has greater relevance than aesthetic wording.KyleLandas (talk) 07:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
It's not an aesthetic issue, it's a factual one. There's a difference between Inflation and Monetary inflation. Sources which discuss inflation would be ideal as well. Currently, there are none in the infobox. What do you mean "the infobox can be changed"? Can we change it to say "monitary inflation" instead of "inflation"? TippyGoomba (talk) 07:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
The factual problem was with the infobox. It has been fixed. --KyleLandas (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Oh, I see now. Unfortunately, now USD has a CPI rate under "inflation" which links to monetary inflation. Ooops. Someone else can figure that mess out, i guess. TippyGoomba (talk) 00:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

The infobox should say "issuance" or "supply" or "release" or some other word that describes the growth of a stock of objects, i.e. bitcoin. It should not say "inflation" and the word inflation should be replaced. My vote would be for "issuance" SPECIFICO talk 17:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done --KyleLandas (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Exchange Rate vs Price

I made some recent edits changing "price" to "exchange rate" which were changed back. I am not entirely sure which is the best term to describe the amount of other currency, goods or services one would trade for bitcoins. Exchange rate is more popular as a search term with "Bitcoin" so I'd imagine people are thinking of Bitcoin as more of a currency than a commodity. We don't talk about the price of a yen or a british pound and I don't think this has to do with their being government-backed. It's more likely about whether the item being "priced" is meant to be consumed or is highly convertible as bitcoins are. Statecraft (talk) 23:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin is in no way "highly convertible", and the fact that all you buttcoiners are obsessed with the US dollar value of your butts should be sign enough to anyone that you're not using it as a currency, but as magic value tokens. Your Lord and Master (talk) 12:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Missleading graph

This graph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BitcoinEuroFebMarch2013.jpg which is included in the article is missleading. For some reason, I can't edit the article to fix it, but hopefully someone else can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.194.8.71 (talk) 14:50, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know why someone threw that one together that way.  Done --KyleLandas (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Reverts

Please use the talk page to obtain consensus for anything that's in dispute. This article was under full protection for almost two months in the fall of 2012. One of the disagreements then was about the correct symbol to use for Bitcoin. Admins will not look favorably on any renewed edit warring. Any participants here should consider this to be the equivalent of a {{uw-3rr}} notice. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

What symbol to use is even disputed in the Cryptocurrency community itself. There's no central authority to recognise any particular symbol, although some say Bitcoin Foundation serves as such an authority anyway. Maybe it's wise to add a comment in the article that there is no consensus on a symbol. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 19:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
If you're talking about me then I'm sorry (I'm not sure if you're talking about my reverts regarding the sign or the warring over the XBT sign), I'll try to avoid to this in future. However, I have only reverted twice over two days (I generally opt to use the talk page if my edits are reverted more than twice, due to the three revert rule), and only as I think that the sign I have added is so clearly the (main) bitcoin sign. The sign is the one used on the bitcoin website, the bitcoin-Qt client, the bitcoin Android client (and other clients such as electrum and multibit), if you search "bitcoin logo" on google images, the makes up the vast majority of results, if you search "bitcoin" on google news, most of the news links that have the bitcoin logo, use this sign, Mt.Gox (biggest bitcoin exchange) uses this logo. It seems obvious that this is the bitcoin sign, even if there are one or two instances of other signs being used (which may be as it's not currently possible to type the bitcoin logo). I think bitcoin can still have a (main) sign, even if there's no central body, simply because it's the one that is used far more than any other. Cliff12345 (talk) 20:59, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
It does not hurt for you to propose the change first on talk and then wait to see if anyone agrees with you. My concern was about you and one other editor who've made some reverts since June 11. It is best if nobody uses the *minor edit* flag for anything so long as there is so much disagreement. EdJohnston (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I was trying to be bold, as I didn't think there would be any dispute over this issue (so I marked it as minor). Now I know this I'll try to discuss any future changes on the talk page. Cliff12345 (talk) 15:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
This is being bold. That's great! This set of actions taken together: [14], [15], [16] is edit warring. Please continue to be bold, but don't edit war. Use the talk page when you get reverted to obtain WP:CONSENSUS :) TippyGoomba (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I see now, fair enough, I'll try to avoid this in future. As an aside, does this mean that in general the three-revert rule is more of an upper limit, and that normally users shouldn't revert the same thing more than once without discussing it on the talk page? Cliff12345 (talk) 11:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
You have it correct. Violating the 3RR might earn someone a week block, if they've been sufficiently warned. Occasionally you'll need to revert a revert due to error/misunderstanding/etc so a having 1RR rule isn't ideal. TippyGoomba (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

XBT currency code increasingly being used

http://www.xe.com/currency/xbt-bitcoin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.65.145 (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Added.  Done --KyleLandas (talk) 22:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Fucking those XE assholes, we already have "BTC", why start to use another one "XBT"? and only used by XE. when there is non conflicting one already, there is no point to coin another one. Jackzhp (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Officially (ISO 4217), currency codes are made up of a country code, or the code of a supranational entity (like EU). The last letter denotes any individual currencies (ZWL, ZWR, ZWN, ZWD, ZWC were all Zimbabwean currencies).
The country code "BT" is already taken by Bhutan. Bitcoin is not an official currency of Bhutan, so ISO 4217 will never accept Bitcoin as BTC. This is why, if people wish to comply with ISO 4217, they use X[..] instead, because X-type codes are reserved for currencies not tied to any particular country or supranational entity. Anyone who doesn't care about ISO 4217 can do what they want, but would sometimes run into conflicting standards over time, as new countries are created, and as countries change currencies.
It's stupid, I agree, but that's the reason. If cryptocurrencies ever become standardized, I think there will be so many of them that ISO will need to create a new standard involving more letters. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
And if bottle caps, pogs and troll dolls ever become hotly-traded commodities, I think there will be so many of them that the US government will need to create a new futures exchange that can handle more wealth than the Federal Reserve! Your Lord and Master (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
OK. thank you for the explanation, really appreciated! I never dig into ISO 4217, but the way you described is also no sense. ISO 4217 should just discard that logic. Instead, take a registeration approach. There is pointless to tie currency code to country code. Jackzhp (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
It makes perfect sense when 99%+ of FX transactions happen in traditional currencies tied to countries...when that changes we can change the ISO.
Also, XBT is in good company with XAU (gold), XAG (silver), XPT (platinum), and XPD (palladium). Equilibrium007 (talk) 08:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 July 2013

In June 2013, to raise awareness for Bitcoin via an entrepreneurial marketing event, Austin and Beccy Craig successfully raised money on KickStarter for a project entitled, "Life On Bitcoin - A Documentary Film. They offered, "For the first 90 days of our marriage, we are vowing to only use bitcoin. Food, fuel, rent… every necessity without using US dollars." Writeexpress (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

 Not done. At the very least, we need some secondary sources, ie media coverage. Even then... TippyGoomba (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Implications: Energy Use and Environmental Impact

What does this section imply other than a lot of computers use a lot of energy? It might be useful to include comparisons for scale, such as Google uses enough energy to power 207,000 homes, or roughly $981,000 per day: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/08/google-energy-use_n_954097.html

And cost to print money for the United States is $2.18M per day: http://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12771.htm

Also, the $147,000 used as reference from an article is out of date - the new value as of 7/2 is $392,119.47 @ 2614 MegaWatt-hours/day, powering 82,740 homes: http://blockchain.info/stats

The energy used to power American homes isn't really an environmental impact but a substitute use of energy.

For environmental impact, one might say something to the effect that the energy use on a continuous basis is 109MW, or roughly 1.98% the energy usage of the Taichung Power Plant in Taiwan, the world's largest coal fired power plants, emitting 1.98% of carbon dioxide emissions is 793,000 tons of carbon dioxide annually, or burning 287,000 tons of coal annually - for comparison, if Google were entirely coal powered, it would emit 1.9 million tons of carbon dioxide annually, and burn 690,000 tons of coal annually @ 262 Mega-Watts continuous power consumption (from 2.3B kilowatt-hours/year from article at top): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taichung_Power_Plant

Would anyone mind either including these comparison items or something similar or else delete this section entirely? It seems like this section has an agenda whether or not the poster intended for that to be the case. If someone were also interested in posting energy use and environmental impact sections in other currency articles that would be great, too - like the chemical, cotton, metal, and paper usage and waste of all modern currencies.

Thanks.

Miners are switching to ASICs, which are many times more energy-efficient. The April's estimate does not reflect the current situation. 93.177.171.98 (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin activities are currently illegal in Thailand

--Love Krittaya (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin and fiat: NPOV issue

The purpose of this comment is not to discuss whether or not Bitcoin is fiat currency. It is to point out that there is a lack of consensus on that question (among Wikipedians, and possibly also among notable experts), and that the article seems to take a position even in the absence of such consensus. This seems to be a WP:NPOV issue. My suggestion is that the article be edited to avoid any appearance of taking a position either way. An alternative solution would be to present the differing views on that question in the article. This issue has been discussed previously in these Talk pages, and I will reference some of those discussions.

Here are the sentences in question:

  • Unlike government-issued fiat currency, Bitcoin has no central issuing authority.
  • Bitcoin has appreciated rapidly in relation to existing fiat currencies....
  • In 2013, Krugman stated that unlike gold or paper fiat currencies, bitcoin derives....

(Note: the cited Krugman article did not use the wording "paper fiat currencies.")

The issue I'm raising is that the above wording seems to imply that Bitcoin is something other than fiat currency (which it may or may not be, depending on your source). To make an analogy, it's like saying, "Libertarian candidate Smith's campaign has received high marks for ethical standards as compared to the major-party PAC-funded campaigns." That sentence could reasonably be construed as implying (without declaring) that Smith is not PAC-funded (while he may or may not be). Neutrality could be achieved by dropping the word "PAC-funded," with no loss of information or meaning.

Therefore, I suggest the following revisions (i.e., to drop the word "fiat"):

  • Unlike government-issued currency, Bitcoin has no central issuing authority.
  • Bitcoin has appreciated rapidly in relation to existing currencies....
  • In 2013, Krugman stated that unlike gold or paper currencies, bitcoin derives....

That seems to resolve the POV issue while not losing any information or meaning.

Again, this is not to answer the question whether Bitcoin is fiat money, but to give evidence of a lack of consensus. The question was discussed previously in these Talk pages (on 9 April 2013 and 29 April 2013, and possibly other times). To summarize, the argument that Bitcoin is not fiat currency is based on definitions of fiat currency as being issued or declared by a government, e.g., several references in the fiat money article, which were cited in the 9 April discussion. However, among those same references is one that arguably supports the opposite conclusion (that Bitcoin is fiat money):

  • [[Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 8|N. Gregory Mankiw (2008-09-29). Principles of Economics. p. 659. ISBN 978-0-324-58997-9. "Fiat money, such as paper dollars, is money without intrinsic value: It would be worthless if it were not used as money."]]

Also supporting the view that Bitcoin is fiat money is a rather explicit statement from Krugman (cited in the 29 April discussion):

What this proves is that we don't have a clear consensus (among Wikipedians nor among recognized experts) whether Bitcoin is fiat money or not.

I would like to invite comments and opinions, not on whether Bitcoin is fiat money, but on any of the following points:

  1. that there is a lack of consensus (even among recognized experts) on whether Bitcoin is fiat money
  2. that the article appears to support a particular POV (that Bitcoin is not fiat money), even if only by implication
  3. that the above two points constitute a WP:NPOV issue
  4. that the suggested edits above (or something else) can resolve this issue
  5. that even if one disagrees with any of the above points, the suggested edits would still cause no loss of information nor any change of essential meaning.

Thanks. -- HLachman (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You (HLachman) make subtle points impressively clear in your explanation. I agree that your proposed edits resolve a possible NPOV issue without loss of meaning. Additionally, my own reasoning is reference based: few of the 3+3+1=7 references that are cited for the three passages you quote, specifically mention fiat currency, so these three mentions of fiat currencies might in most cases be improper as not being clearly supported by the cited references, or at least constitute (~prohibited) original research or (~prohibited) personal interpretation by the Wikipedia author involved. Accordingly I propose the following edits: ● Unlike government-issued fiat currency, Bitcoin has no central issuing authority. ● Bitcoin has appreciated rapidly in relation to existing fiat conventional currencies.... ● In 2013, Krugman stated that unlike currencies backed by gold or state-backed paper fiat currencies, bitcoin derives.... . ●●● Your command of the subtle NPOV issues is solid, and I encourage you to WP:BEBOLD in your edits. RCraig09 (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
 Done. No dissenting opinions have shown up, so, for WP:NPOV reasons, I decided to be bold and make the suggested edits (thanks, RCraig09, for your feedback). Here is the revised text (deleted text in strikeout, new text in bold):
  • Unlike government-issued fiat currency, Bitcoin has no central issuing authority.
(Same as RCraig09's suggestion.) I noticed that the references cited did not make the same distinction of "government-issued," in fact, one reference (The Economist) actually said, "Unlike other virtual monies...." One might also ask whether having regional central banks (like the US Fed does) constitutes a decentralized issuing authority (I don't know if it does). The point is, if we're saying Bitcoin is different from centralized government-issued currencies and also different from centralized non-government-issued currencies, then there is no reason to say "government-issued."
  • Bitcoin has appreciated rapidly in relation to existing fiat other currencies....
Striking the word "fiat" leaves us with the word "existing," but Bitcoin also exists. And it's unclear whether any non-fiat currencies exist. And there's no point in considering non-existing currencies. So I changed it to "other."
  • In 2013, Krugman stated that unlike gold or paper fiat currencies, bitcoin derives....
Changed to be consistent with the cited reference's actual wording.
For the sake of accuracy, I need to point out that my above statement, that there is "lack of consensus" among "recognized experts," may be inaccurate, in that we have the above quote from Krugman, and I don't actually know that any other recognized experts disagree. It appears that Krugman leans toward the Mankiw definition (that having no intrinsic value is more fundamental to the definition of fiat than being government-issued). Now, if other recognized experts come out and claim that Bitcoin is not fiat currency, then perhaps that's worthy of a "Controversial issues" section. -- HLachman (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I think it is pretty clear that Bitcoin is not a fiat currency. Fiat money is defined as money that "derives its value from government regulation or law." Although Bitcoin might have similarities to fiat money(no intrinsic value), it cannot be described as fiat money because it doesn't get it's value from government regulation.John Kaine (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
It's 100% clear that Wikipedians have multiple POV's on this question (as discussed in the Talk pages cited above), and I agree that the various POV's may all have some valid basis. What is your suggested edit? Adding a "Controversial issues" section? If so, may I suggest focusing that section on what reliable sources have to say specifically about Bitcoin (perhaps including the Krugman reference cited above)? I think that would be most consistent with WP:NPOV, WP:V, and especially the "directly related" clause in WP:NOR. If, on the other hand, the issue is, which of the several definitions of "fiat money" are correct (such as the various definitions already given in the Fiat money article, one of which is the Mankiw definition cited above), then that issue may be more appropriate to discuss in the Fiat money article. -- HLachman (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
It seems to be more a matter of definition than of substance, since the broadest, most inclusive definitions of "fiat" do not require a government to be involved. Probably we should not focus on it in the Bitcoin article text unless and until reliable sources substantively disagree about the particular topic, that is, until there is an actual "controversial issue" in reliable references rather than merely among Wikipedia editors' characterizations. It was wise (and perceptive) to remove the three recitations of the word in the previously existing text since each implicit characterization was a POV. — RCraig09 (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again, RCraig09, for your comments. -- HLachman (talk) 03:37, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 August 2013

74.51.53.80 (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

✔ Done 2013-08-17. Inserted into "Thefts and vulnerabilities" section. — RCraig09 (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 01 September 2013

"Bitcoin is accepted in trade by merchants and individuals in many parts of the world. In August 2013 it was acknowledged by Germany as being a legal form of private currency." Bitcoin was not accepted by "Germany." The sentence is misleading and the source doutbfull as it only makes an interpretation of what has been said by BAFIN.

✔ Done in principle 1 Sept 2013. I verified that statements in Daily Dot, RT.com, and Die Welt are consistent; content is not misleading. — RCraig09 (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Have a look:
http://www.businessinsider.com/germany-kinda-recognizes-bitcoin-2013-8
“The German Ministry of Finance does not classify bitcoins as e-money or as a functional currency; they cannot be regarded as a foreign currency. Nevertheless they have to be subsumed under the German term of ‘Rechnungseinheit’ as a financial instrument,” Martin Chaudhuri from the Ministry of Finance told CoinDesk. Rechnungseinheit translates to unit of account in English.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/germany-kinda-recognizes-bitcoin-2013-8#ixzz2deE51llb
Bitcoins have not been recognized neither as currency, nor by "Germany."
One newspaper writes something and 10 more copy the exact same thing. However it doesn't change the fact! Either delete the sentece or clarify by saying "subsumed under the German term of "Rechnungseinheit" but not (foreign) currency.
You can't just write "recognized by Germany." People who read the article will think it's a safe and legal tender which is not true. So it is in one way misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.178.197.62 (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
✔ Done. I agree, since the Business Insider, Marketwatch, and Coindesk references specifically distinguish over what was said earlier by Die Welt. Good research, danke! — RCraig09 (talk) 14:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


Repeated deletion of "Bitcoin Addresses" and "Bitcoin Wallets" sections without explanation

Fleetham: Why is it that you have repeatedly deleted 6K of completely uncontroversial content that introduces bitcoin addresses and wallets to a general audience, merely noting "clarification"?

Can we get a consensus here that describing Bitcoin addresses and wallets with at least a little detail is essential to explaining how Bitcoin works? Recent edits have for example replaced the addresses section beginning "The ability to transact bitcoins without the assistance of a central registry is guaranteed in part by the availability of a virtually unlimited supply of unique addresses which can be generated and disposed of at will. A Bitcoin address has three fundamental properties..." with a dumbed-down"Anyone wishing to use bitcoins is assigned one or more bitcoin addresses"which doesn't explain things at all and worse yet makes it sounds like a central authority "assigns" addresses.

For the time being, I've restored both of these sections ("Bitcoin addresses" and "Bitcoin wallets") to the separate Bitcoin protocol page where they will hopefully be safe from Fleetham's destructive editorializing. My preference however is that these sections (edited down a little if necessary) make it back to the main Bitcoin article, because I don't believe it's possible to have a good understanding of Bitcoin without having a decent understanding of addresses and wallets. Canton (talk) 04:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

@Canton:, I agree these sections should be present here. Let's establish consensus about content here on the Talk page that should be respected by all editors, including Fleetham. --Laser brain (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request of 2013-10-17

Section Reception - Last bullet: Link to Executive Outcomes is stale and needs to be updated. Ektoric (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)j

Observation. It looks like the intended arms dealer is not the subject of a Wikipedia article and the Wikilink should be removed rather than updated. Plus, the content of those two sentences does not even appear to be relevant to the section it's in, "Reception." Much reorganization is needed. — RCraig09 (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Done. The article does exist, but was linked to under an incorrect article title. I've corrected this and, as the company no longer exists, have changed to past tense. Thanks, Ektoric. --Stfg (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 October 2013

In August 2013 Germany's Finance Ministry subsumed Bitcoins under the term

should be

In August 2013, Germany's Finance Ministry subsumed Bitcoins under the term

comma missing after 2013 for proper grammar.

Edit request on 22 October 2013

Pollydee (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Stfg (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Lies in the intro paragraph of the article

I have taken it upon myself to remove a statement in the intro paragraph, which is not just 100% unsourced but also a flat out lie, claiming that Bitcoin would no longer offer any incentive for miners to protect the network after all mineable coins have been found.

Whoever wrote this: this fact about the Bitcoin network is well-known, so you must be a liar or malintentioned FUDster. Rudd-O (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the politeness, Mr. Rudd-O. I actually don't know much about Bitcoin, but it appears simply logical that if the system is incentivized by new coins, there will be no incentive when all minable coins are distributed. And did you just make that up about transaction fees? Fleetham (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
And please don't revert but discuss first. I have no objection to the idea that transaction fees are an alternative to new coins as an incentive to continue operation of Bitcoin's transaction system. However, I get the feeling that you're simply speculating, and it needs to be made clear that this is pure hypothesis if that is indeed the case. Please provide a citation or add a qualifier or something to the prose. I ask you: will transaction fees be a replacement and has this been "part of the plan" from the very beginning? :) Fleetham (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
You should check out common myths before editing this article. Mrcatzilla (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Um, the last sentence of this part is definitely not true: "However, new Bitcoins are created at an ever-decreasing rate, and once this reaches zero, the number of Bitcoins will remain static. At this point a transaction fee will be levied to continue operation of the system". It needs a reword, especially as the citation http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Brito_BitcoinPrimer.pdf does not claim this. I suggest "At this point the sole reward for miners will be the transaction fees." Transaction fees have been collected in the past and being collected now, following a rather complicated decision tree, one can see this in the blockchain yourself (example), or from various sources, such as http://bitcoinfaq.com/ and http://bitcoinfees.com/. Some transactions qualify for free, others attract fees varying from 0.0001 BTC upwards. -84user (talk) 04:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Add: Pages 6, 7 and 13 of the Mercatus reference should be sufficient to source this edit (which would still need copyediting) - both the existence of fees and the gradual transition of incentive from coins plus fees to solely fees (albeit in the distant future). -84user (talk) 04:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, "...the operators of these computers are rewarded with transaction fees and newly minted Bitcoins." is both truthful and sufficient for the lead. Getting into the motivations for mining is a fine topic for a sub-section, but it would have to be a subsection because it has so many angles. Many miners mine *today* at a financial loss for their own reasons. Miners are fanatical and pat themselves on the back for "helping to secure the network". They like the blinking lights and whirring fans. Meanwhile, transaction fees are already a decent motivation and will continue to be ad infinitum. Anyway, any deeper exploration of miner-motivation seems way too fine a detail to get into for the lead paragraph. Canton (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC) 174.6.129.26 (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: this is a common misconception. There is no requirement for a comma there unless the absence of one leads to a garden-path sentence. For example, "In August 2013 men went to market" would be ambiguous (August 2013 or 2013 men?) but here that problem does not exist. It's better style to avoid unnecessary commas. --Stfg (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request(s) on October 22 2013

In the "Implications>>Privacy" section it includes: "Bitcoin transactions are seen as relatively anonymous and are the medium of exchange used in the online black market website Silk Road."

"Are" should be "were," considering the Silk Road has been brought down. This is misleading.


Additionally, in the "Criminal activities" section it claims: "roughly one half of all sales made using Bitcoins are bets placed at a single online gaming website."

"Sales" should be replaced by "transactions" (as the source article never even uses the word "sale" and that word doesn't make sense in the context). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.86.148 (talk) 05:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done I also split the first sentence which appeared ungrammatical to me. That paragraph's style could be further improved. -84user (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 October 2013

Pollydee (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. --Stfg (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Lies in the intro paragraph of the article

I have taken it upon myself to remove a statement in the intro paragraph, which is not just 100% unsourced but also a flat out lie, claiming that Bitcoin would no longer offer any incentive for miners to protect the network after all mineable coins have been found.

Whoever wrote this: this fact about the Bitcoin network is well-known, so you must be a liar or malintentioned FUDster. Rudd-O (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the politeness, Mr. Rudd-O. I actually don't know much about Bitcoin, but it appears simply logical that if the system is incentivized by new coins, there will be no incentive when all minable coins are distributed. And did you just make that up about transaction fees? Fleetham (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
And please don't revert but discuss first. I have no objection to the idea that transaction fees are an alternative to new coins as an incentive to continue operation of Bitcoin's transaction system. However, I get the feeling that you're simply speculating, and it needs to be made clear that this is pure hypothesis if that is indeed the case. Please provide a citation or add a qualifier or something to the prose. I ask you: will transaction fees be a replacement and has this been "part of the plan" from the very beginning? :) Fleetham (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
You should check out common myths before editing this article. Mrcatzilla (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Um, the last sentence of this part is definitely not true: "However, new Bitcoins are created at an ever-decreasing rate, and once this reaches zero, the number of Bitcoins will remain static. At this point a transaction fee will be levied to continue operation of the system". It needs a reword, especially as the citation http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Brito_BitcoinPrimer.pdf does not claim this. I suggest "At this point the sole reward for miners will be the transaction fees." Transaction fees have been collected in the past and being collected now, following a rather complicated decision tree, one can see this in the blockchain yourself (example), or from various sources, such as http://bitcoinfaq.com/ and http://bitcoinfees.com/. Some transactions qualify for free, others attract fees varying from 0.0001 BTC upwards. -84user (talk) 04:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Add: Pages 6, 7 and 13 of the Mercatus reference should be sufficient to source this edit (which would still need copyediting) - both the existence of fees and the gradual transition of incentive from coins plus fees to solely fees (albeit in the distant future). -84user (talk) 04:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, "...the operators of these computers are rewarded with transaction fees and newly minted Bitcoins." is both truthful and sufficient for the lead. Getting into the motivations for mining is a fine topic for a sub-section, but it would have to be a subsection because it has so many angles. Many miners mine *today* at a financial loss for their own reasons. Miners are fanatical and pat themselves on the back for "helping to secure the network". They like the blinking lights and whirring fans. Meanwhile, transaction fees are already a decent motivation and will continue to be ad infinitum. Anyway, any deeper exploration of miner-motivation seems way too fine a detail to get into for the lead paragraph. Canton (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


Edit request on 31 October 2013

Blockchain.info surpasses 500,000 wallets. Source: http://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-winner-10btc-bitcoin-wallet/

Niccary (talk) 15:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 18:32, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

This is a cool feat by Blockchain.info, however this article is about Bitcoin. Blockchain is a private vender and an accomplishment for them may not fit well into the article. I'm against adding this to the article. WhereAmI (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


Edit request on 30 October 2013

In the article on Bitcoin, please change the spelling of "hord" to "hoard". This error occurred at least twice. 222.127.174.188 (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Done: I did a search for "hord" in the article and found nothing, so I presume someone else has already fixed this. Cliff12345 (talk) 01:35, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


Missing word under "Bitcoin wallets" section

There is a missing word under "Bitcoin wallets" (added in bold):

Anyone wishing to use bitcoins is assigned one or more bitcoin addresses, and wallets allow a user to complete transactions between addresses by requesting an update to the blockchain...

Sagargp (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. --    L o g  X   19:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


No one likes Yap

Why is it that whenever I try to include a comparison to the stone money, or rai, of Yap, it gets deleted? As far as I know, the Yap system is the only real-world monetary system that relies on a complete transaction history instead of hard-to-duplicate tokens. Yet this is found to highly deletable by many. I'm considering adding it back to the page, but I'd like to know what I'm doing wrong here. Am I just not wording it in an interesting way? Are some oversensitive to bitcoin belittling and don't want their currency compared to that of a stone-age society? Is it actually not interesting that the same mechanism used by Bitcoin also cropped up thousands of years ago? A little feedback would be appreciated... Fleetham (talk) 15:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't seen the specific contributions that you are citing, but from the way you describe it, "yap" does not seem to be pertinent enough to an article about bitcoin. It may be warranted in the "See Also" section, but anything beyond that is extraneous.WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, I have removed the mention of Yap a couple of times because it doesn't seem particularly relevant, and it doesn't seem to help anyone reading the article actually learn about Bitcoin (it would probably just confuse things). It seems easier to just tell the reader that Bitcoin has a decentralized ledger of all transactions. I suppose it is a reasonably interesting fact, but it doesn't actually give the reader any more information about Bitcoin itself. Cliff12345 (talk) 16:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yap might be interesting in and of itself, but not in the context of Bitcoin. The following paragraph has a 1975 Yap paper as its reference:

"Integral to Bitcoin is a transaction history log. Making a purchase involves updating this decentralized log, called the blockchain, which shows who owns how many bitcoins currently and records the participants in all prior transactions as well."

I didn't read that paper but certainly it doesn't substantiate the statements made in that paragraph since it was written 30+ years before the inception of digital currencies. Chris Arnesen 02:18, 18 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisarnesen (talk • contribs)

Silk Road

From the comments, it seems not anyone can edit this page.

Hyperlinks to Silk Road redirects to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road_%28marketplace%29 would be more appropriate.

There may be multiple examples in the article. 63.231.28.164 (talk) 06:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure who did it, but it appears to have been fixed. Cliff12345 (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

History section format

I spent a little time tidying up the history section into paragraphs from the current timeline format here, but upon copying my change over to this article had it reverted by Thomas.W. After a brief discussion we do not agree on the best format for the section, and would like to hear other opinions. Samwalton9 (talk) 16:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

(I said this above and Samwalton9 knows but I'll say it here for the sake of clarity) I put your changes back in, they improved the article in my opinion. If others disagree we should keep it here. WhereAmI (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Possible sources

Bitcoin is Memory, Kenyon College

Regulating Digital Currencies: Bringing Bitcoin within the Reach of the IMF, University of Chicago

--KyleLandas (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


Distracting commentary

Section "Payment network and mining" reads well until the diversion that the Bitcoin network "exceeds the combined processing strength ...". That needs to go elsewhere, as it distracts from the topic of describing the transaction process. Also, the section needs to explain the diagram - I think it's showing a chain of transactions as recorded in the blockchain, but which part shows Owner 0's bitcoins transferred to 1, or 1's to 2? -84user (talk) 04:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

I put that back in there (from a delete) because at the time it seemed more appropriate. Re-reading, it doesn't quite make sense. I don't feel that strongly about it though, super computer processing and bitcoin processing are quite different.WhereAmI (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Potential For Bitcoin's Use in Fraud and Collusion By Corrupt and Opaque Governments Immense

So lets say 1 million companies develop a similar electronic currency along Bitcoin principles. I'd trust a PepsiCoin or NestleCOin or even (though the company is hateful GMO peddling) a MonsantoCoin more than this Bitcoin. What solid assets does BitCoin have? Nothing? Nothing to BURN DOWN if they disappear suddenly and the governments falseflag a 'too big to fail'? The collusive governemnts have already hammered the 99%ters with banks once, now they wil use the non-material, 'no solid asset to riot at' BitCoin. The governments and banks are just itching for fightback against the 99% after the bank riots worldwide.

No place better to hide criminals in than the internet eh? Well, the Banks might as well do a HSBC-Coin or BOA-Coin instead, I can't believe any honest government would want to accept a non-existent currency in the electronic world at all. Ridiculous. The next we know, they'll be digitising people and then pull a depopulation agenda while the 1% will doubtless get to keep their flesh and blood bodies with plenty of cadavers for use for replacement parts as well.

If we are not careful after electronic currency, humanity will be at 'Welcome to the year 9595' . . . the picture of any BitCoins worldwide on the net by the way are misleading, there will be no actual physical coins and these will not be of gold. The picture is very dangerous and much like Tungsten being used as Gold because that looks like gold. The physical world has a material parallel that does not lie, everything else is a lie, especially things in the electronic world. Give me government backed Precious Metals or even better REAL GOODS and REAL SERVICES anyday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.106.148.63 (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The Dollar isn't backed by anything physical either. And who is the "they" you are afraid will disappear? Bitcoin is open source and decentralized; it is quite hard to kill an idea. And Bitcoin can't be faked, meanwhile people get tricked into buying fake physical things all the time. --TiagoTiago (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


Shouldn't some of the information removed in this edit be moved elsewhere?

I noticed that a lot of information removed in this edit seems to be quite useful (e.g. the information about wallets), shouldn't we at least put this information in the Protocol of Bitcoin article? Cliff12345 (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Me, I'm dumbfounded. Does anyone else find it problematic that Fleetham unilaterally applied what appears to be a full-on re-write of this article, including a 27,000 character reduction, removing entire sections of the article, merely noting, edit for clarity, re-sectioning, remove outline style?
Since this is essentially a rewrite, I'd expect there to be a bit of discussion first. Further, I doubt anyone would defend Fleetham's rewrite as being unbiased. After removing huge heaps of detail, his edits include:
  • Adding Bitcoins can be compared to the stone currency of Yap. (no reference)
  • AddingThe currency had early technical problems, and vulnerabilities were soon exposed such as a 2009 exploit that allowed the creation of unlimited Bitcoins
  • Amplifying Economist Paul Krugman has been critical of Bitcoin, suggesting that the structure of the currency incentives hording...also stating that its value solely from the expectation that others will accept it as payment.. Krugman considers it wasteful to spend real resources, such as electric power, on the creation of Bitcoins
  • Removing whole sections of protocol and technical details which had been carefully written for a general audience. These sections were no more technical or less essential in nature than the protocol details you see on very general information pages like internet. Why were these removed without discussion?
  • The entire reception section, which was fairly balanced, is now replaced with criminal use, which has been generously edited and filled-out with cherry-picked references that are the most critical to Bitcoin.
Can Fleetham explain why he deleted huge sections of the article without discussion, only to preserve the majority of references that were most critical of Bitcoin? And in the meantime, does anyone object if we revert to the Pre-Fleetham rewrite of October 27?
Canton (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
If you revert, do a reference to this section please. Fleetham are you reading this? You deleted some badly written sections, but that does not justify you deleting a larger portion of the article which was well-written. Canton, why not go ahead with that revert? I could revert but I'm a bit low on bandwidth at this time. I want an unbiased Bitcoin article, not full of propaganda spread by ignorant mainstream media. Logictheo (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, I appreciate that some editors are concerned with making improvements to the page. I would like to have a clear, concise article, and I hope that's an aim everyone can agree on. If the majority of your concerns are NPOV in nature, I suggest reverting the page back to my edit and making the appropriate changes. Why not add some sourced, pro-Bitcoin content? Anyway, I'd like to hear what your preferred approach to page improvement is, and hopefully we can work together and produce a top-notch, informative article that's also one digestible by the ordinary reader.
And as for a source comparing Bitcoins to the currency of Yap, while my monetary economics book that compares Yap's stone discs to a monetary system based on accurately recording a complete transaction history is currently packed away, I would suggest reading the below quote and ruminating a bit on how it compares to Bitcoins. Integral to both Bitcoins and the Yap system is an accurate record of transaction history.
"Consider the island of Yap. The Island of Yap provides us with some fundamental insights into money. The Yap use large circular stones as currency. Some of them are too big to move. It does not matter. Everyone knows who owns which. When a large stone was sunk during transportation between islands the elders decided that the loss was no one’s fault, so the stone still belonged to its owner. The stone has transferred hands even though it is at the bottom of the ocean!" From page 25 of "Can There Be a Theory of Money?" Salim Rashid. University of Illinois at Urbana−Champaign (You'll have to Google it because the link I have is on a blacklist)
Fleetham (talk)
Re: Yap. I think you missed the "fundamental insights into money" that the author was trying to convey. What applies to Yap applies to the US Dollar and every other currency in the world. And this includes keeping accurate transaction histories. --C S (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I can't remember how to log-in here right now but there does appear to be some missing information in this article. One suggestion may be to put "controversy" in one section instead of having it all throughout the article?24.0.133.234 (talk) 18:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


Proposal to delete section '2013 bitcoin prices'

I'd like to propose that we delete this section, and move its content to the history section. In my opinion there are two things wrong with this section:

  • The facts regarding prices (highs, lows, ups, downs) are very much outdated
  • Even if those facts were brought up to date, it seems self-defeating to have a section of the article that will, by definition, need to be updated regularly so as to be current.

Canton (talk) 14:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Seems a sensible idea, perhaps we could move the price history to the History of Bitcoin article if we split it (see discussion here)? Cliff12345 (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)


"Speculators outnumber users" in lead

Earlier I deleted "As of 2013 the number of speculators outweigh the number of actual users" because it wasn't supported by the reference, http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/07/02/beware-the-risks-of-the-bitcoin-winklevii-outline-the-downside/ .

Fleetham added this back in without adjustment, so to avoid a delete/undelete battle I've adjusted it to reflect the actual veracity of the source:

"In July 2013, Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss asserted that "there is relatively small use of Bitcoins in the retail and commercial marketplace in comparison to relatively large use by speculators."

Now to be clear, I don't actually dispute that "speculation" outweighs "use in purchasing products and services" -- it jives with my belief about Bitcoin -- but:

  1. Can we use some language that's more nuanced than "actual users" (which in my opinion is fairly meaningless in this context) and,
  2. Let's find an ```actual source``` that reflects some research -- e.g. bitcoins transacted on exchanges vs. merchant services, and compare this with forex trading of traditional currencies -- not merely a quote from an interview

Canton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

There are several sources that discuss a preponderance of speculators. The one cited in the lede comes not from the Winklevosses themselves and does not reflect a personal opinion. It's from a prospectus attached to a Bitcoin investment trust that the two are in some way involved in. I believe it does reflect actual research and/or an understanding of current market conditions. Other sources include:
  • The Economist, which states, "Though an increasing number of legitimate businesses are adopting the currency—one Finnish software developer has offered to pay its employees in Bitcoin—it still has relatively few users. Its primary commercial use is probably to buy drugs from Silk Road, a sort of pirate eBay hidden in the “deep web”. This suggests that the new users are buying Bitcoin as an investment, not as a means of exchange. For any currency to thrive it needs users, not just speculators."
  • Kiplinger, which states "speculators are having a field day... Speculators are driving the value [of Bitcoin]..."
  • The New Statesman, which states "The best way to justify the exponential increase in the market capitalisation of Bitcoin would be to point to a similar exponential increase in people using the currency to perform their everyday lives, and that simply hasn't happened. Take-up is strong, but nowhere near the level it would need to be to explain a half-billion market cap. Whereas speculation – people buying Bitcoin low to sell high – does."
In addition, I believe I recently calculated the velocity of money for Bitcoins. Even without removing speculative Bitcoin activity, it's about half that of the US dollar, suggestinig that people aren't spending (or more accurately transacting) their Bitcoins. Why wouldn't you spend a currency? Because you're a speculator.
Fleetham (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
My mistake for sure -- I didn't realize the wsj blog entry was pulling from an S1 filing not just quoting the Winklevosses. In that case, what about using the S1 itself as a reference? Seems possibly more newsworthy than the WSJ blog. www.sec.gov. I still think it's better to use some language that's more clear than 'actual users' -- e.g. "Speculative trading of bitcoins on currency exchanges greatly surpasses use of bitcoin to purchase products or services." What do you think? P.S. I really appreciated some of the clarity / grammar fixes you (Fleetham) applied generally a couple days ago.
Canton (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
I see no reason to link to the filing itself as it would simply bury the quote, which has been nicely picked out by a reliable source, WSJ. That means no wading thought a well-nigh incomprehensible primary source. I believe that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources--perhaps for this reason. I also don't really understand your insistence on dropping the reference to users. I would prefer the word "spenders," but that's poor prose. How about: "Few spend Bitcoins, and those that do are outnumbered by speculators"? Fleetham (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Possibly also my mistake -- I was assuming that the WSJ blog wasn't as good a source as a primary source, but if it's good enough for Wikipedia, it's good enough for me. :) As for Few spend Bitcoins, and those that do are outnumbered by speculators this seems like another step backwards, to being too vague and general again. What we agree on is that the volume of speculation is incredibly high, and dwarfs the volume of purchasing services and products. This is an important point for a lead paragraph. But Few spend bitcoins suggests a comparison of how many individuals use bitcoins in various ways, which is not at all supported by any of the evidence we've been discussing. I would not in fact be surprised if the majority of individuals using bitcoins are using it for purchases, inter-personal transfers, and donations. BitPay alone has signed up over 10,000 individual merchants. And if you include gambling as "spending" bitcoins, then I can guarantee you that the number of "spenders" dwarfs the number of "speculators".
What did you find objectionable with my earlier proposal, something like Speculative trading of bitcoins on currency exchanges greatly surpasses use of bitcoin to purchase products or services?
Canton (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You're correct that the source doesn't directly support the idea that the number of individual speculators is large. What about: "Few Bitcoins are spent, and speculators are by far the largest users of the currency." or "Few Bitcoins are spent, and speculation is the primary use for the currency" Fleetham (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm still unclear on how either of those are improvements to something that's accurate like Speculative trading of bitcoins on currency exchanges greatly surpasses the use of bitcoin to purchase products or services. You still haven't told me what's wrong or insufficient about this.
I don't see a reason to add in an easily refuted claim like "Few bitcoins are spent" -- that's too subjective, since many would consider hundreds of millions of USD worth of spending to be plenty significant. And writing that speculation is the primary use for the currency is just as true as saying that speculation is the primary use for the USD or Euro by looking at Forex trade volume alone.
My impression is that you're trying to present the idea that "Bitcoins aren't used to buy stuff, they're only used to speculate." But this simply isn't true. There's a thriving Bitcoin marketplace with many thousands of merchants and (presumably) many thousands of end customers. Are you aware of this? Canton (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd prefer not to engage in a wide-ranging discussion about Bitcoins and Bitcoin activity in general but focus on what appears to be the point of contention: a single quote from a SEC filing. I think my most recent suggestions are adequate paraphrases; if "the primary use of Bitcoins is speculation," it is necessary that "few Bitcoins are spent (viz. not transacted for the express purpose of speculation)." The quote in question directly supports the idea of the former and, therefore, the latter. Would it appease you if the words "relatively" or "comparable" were employed? I'm not sure what your primary concern is, and I still don't understand why the original prose was objectionable. I feel that the distinction between a "speculator" and an "actual user" is not only easily grasped but one that aptly reflects the source, which asserts that there is much speculation and little use as a currency. (I think that the only alternative the source could be plumping for is that the amount of use Bitcoins see in retail transactions is "normal" and the amount of speculation is "excessive," which amounts to the same thing: much speculation and little use.) Fleetham (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay. So then just quote the WSJ blog / SEC filing: "Currently, there is relatively small use of Bitcoins in the retail and commercial marketplace in comparison to relatively large use by speculators.". Except use lowercase "bitcoins". :) And you must agree, this is in fact quite different from your original claim, "the number of speculators outweigh the number of actual users". BTC volume and numbers of individuals are not at all the same thing, and are possibly not even correlated (or are inversely correlated). Canton (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I think I would prefer a close paraphrase to a straight quote because improves the accessibility of the lede. I was initially agreeable, but the best thing I could come up with was "As a 2013 SEC filing for a prospective Bitcoin ETF states, 'there is relatively small use of Bitcoins in the retail and commercial marketplace in comparison to relatively large use by speculators.'"
That's unwieldy. What about: "Use of Bitcoins in retail and commercial transactions is small compared to its use by speculators." (And you were joking about the lowecaseness here, right?) Fleetham (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Nope, not joking about lowercaseness. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bitcoin#Capitalized_or_not.3F Canton (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Two points, one minor and one major: 1) Why are we using the Winklevoss twins as a reference for the statement in the lede? Can we really not do better? 2) There's an NPOV problem here. Some people get introduced to Bitcoins through somewhat misinformed sources and think of Bitcoin as some shady thing, so that bias leads them to emphasize things like the amount of speculation over consumer usage. But as pointed out by Canton, the amount of speculation on any major currency is going to vastly outdo any consumer usage. Somehow people feel it's ok when we're talking about reserve currencies and less ok when we speak of "weird" currencies (even those by countries with extremely bad credit or stability issues). But therein lies the bias. Yes, I understand that people are arguing for inclusion over the contested statement because they're arguing a lot of periodicals of good repute say and emphasize it. But that's like using the WSJ and NY Times as authorities for physics articles and perpetuating physics fallacies because a lot of journalists believe them, although physicists don't. This is an article about a currency (and by the way, note the protracted arguments with people who insisted in the past that it wasn't a "real currency") and so subject matter expertise should trump what journalists say. In particular, if the public at large believes something fallacious, that should either be omitted or mentioned with a caveat about the misconception, just like we would do on any technical topic. --C S (talk) 11:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Clarification: I'm not saying the RSes that are reporting on Bitcoin speculation are incorrect on the facts. It's their emphasis, bias, POV, whatever you want to call it. Sometimes this POV isn't even there, particularly in "neutral" sources like the SEC filing, but is being assumed by readers who don't understand the proper context. Currency speculation happens. A lot. For example, I read a lot of news in RSes about the Japanese Yen. Some of it can even be interpreted (by the misinformed) as considering the Yen purely as a speculative currency. But we all know it would be wrong to overemphasize this, right? Because the financial journalists that write about Yen speculation are certainly not thinking the reader is going to take their words as Wikipedia evidence that the Yen is not a real currency or whatever. They assume the informed reader will have common sense. --C S (talk) 11:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
Not to disregard C.S. right off the bat, but unless there are strong objections to me replacing the current, incorrect quote with the following close paraphrase, please let me know: "Use of Bitcoins in retail and commercial transactions is small compared to its use by speculators." (And I did read the bit about Bitcoin capitalization; it clearly dictates capital-B Bitcoins in this case... "Bitcoin" as a noun, "bitcoin" when a unit. Perhaps Canton, you cleave to a German court ruling that Bitcoins are a unit of account and therefore advocate de-capitalization in all instances!?)
And to address C.S.--I don't think it's fair to make comparisons with what are, quite literally, the most respected and accepted currencies in the world today and Bitcoin. I think the mistake here is that since all can be considered currencies, one assumes that they are directly comparable. But I think that a lot separates Bitcoins from the US dollar. How do you know whether your comparison is valid or if it's akin to saying in 2006, "sure, there's some speculation in the housing market; there's a lot of that with the U.S. dollar as well, so no need to worry!" Also, I don't think it's necessary to misinterpret articles to come to the conclusion that Bitcoin speculation is the primary or one of the few primary uses for this currency. And I'm not sure what context would be better for a quote that clearly delineates the current preeminence of speculators than one published by an entity that should be aware of such a thing--a Bitcoin speculator trying to sell an investment product. (Also, I'm not sure why you feel the connection with the Winkelvosses is so important. Does this in some way lessen the value of the source in your mind? I'd be curious to know more about this...) Fleetham (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
The US Dollar and Bitcoin are currencies, so it's silly to point out facts about one that apply to both (and many currencies) as something notable. As for your strawman, I never said anything about whether one should "worry" about Bitcoin or not. What you are doing is this (using a hypothetical case, my apologies to Burger King): you argue that Burger Kings appear in inner-cities and that this fact is so notable as to appear in the lede in the Burger King article. Others point out that McDonalds also appear in inner-cities too, so this is a bad argument. Then you argue, clearly the use of Burger Kings as meeting places for drug gangs is worrisome... are you saying that we shouldn't worry about that? How can you make a comparison to McDonalds which is noted for not allowing drug gangs in their restaurants? /end hypothetical
If you want to argue the analogue of "Burger Kings are meeting places for drug gangs", then do so directly. Don't argue "Burger Kings are in inner-cities" is notable and then claim people opposing this POV are somehow opposing something else. If you want to point out that Bitcoin speculation has gained notability in the press, it's one thing to point out the notability in the press, it's another to have the article actually take the viewpoint that Bitcoin speculation is the "primary use" -- phrases like this are difficult to make sense of and show your own bias quite clearly. And similarly if you want to point out the dangers of Bitcoin, do so directly. Don't try to imply things by putting in tautologous statements about currencies simply because you aren't able to put in what you really want. --C S (talk) 17:12, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
As for the disputed statement in the lede (which was modified), I've removed it. You just aren't getting it. "Use of Bitcoins in retail and commercial transactions is small compared to its use by speculators." is true of the US Dollar too. Putting a semi-tautologous statement about currencies in the lede is your POV and misunderstanding. Whether noted Bitcoin speculators like the Winklevosses state it is more or less irrelevant as obviously they have a vested interest. What is true and NPOV to state is that for whatever reason the press has glommed on to the idea of Bitcoin speculation and made it a focus of their stories about Bitcoin. What is not NPOV is to say they are right and write the article from their perspective, particularly when it perpetuates misunderstandings like the quote I removed. Thus for now, I've put in a placeholder statement that "Bitcoin speculation has gained notoriety in the popular media". It can obviously be improved, but in my opinion, it is the more NPOV statement. --C S (talk) 17:23, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
All I can say is that it is WIkipedia policy for articles to reflect reliable sources. You appear to dislike this, saying of the media: "What is not NPOV is to say they [the media] are right and write the article from their perspective."
Yes, this article is written from the perspective of reliable sources. I'm sorry you disagree with them. I've replaced the lede mention. Fleetham (talk) 05:32, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


Source Paper

The concept was introduced in a 2008 paper by a pseudonymous developer known as "Satoshi Nakamoto". (This page was last modified on 19 November 2013 at 19:27.)

which 2008 paper? what about citing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.245.55.74 (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point. At the end of that sentence I added a link to the pdf version of the paper on bitcoin.org. [17] Does anybody know if the paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal or anything like that, or was it just distributed as-is on crypto mailing lists? Chris Arnesen 00:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I added a link to the paper at the end of that sentence but my edit was quickly reverted. Can someone else please weigh in here? To me (and the person who brought it up in the first place above, the sentence 'The concept was introduced in a 2008 paper by a pseudonymous developer known as "Satoshi Nakamoto".' screams for either a citation or a link to the paper itself. Perhaps someone can suggest an alternate means of citing or providing a link to the paper? Chris Arnesen 02:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I've fixed it up, hopefully this works out? --benlisquareT•C•E 03:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks benlisquare for fixing that up. I think it's good to link to the paper in that sentence because the paper really is well-written and interesting to read. The paper itself, however, doesn't support the assertion that it (I mean the paper) was introduced in 2008. Based on this article, I *think* that the right supporting reference for the 2008 assertion is this New Yorker article, but I can only read the first page without a subscription to the New Yorker. Just for fun, here is the original announcement of the paper on a Crypto mailing list. I've learned though (thanks again benlisquare) that secondary sources are preferred on Wikipedia. Chris Arnesen 03:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I got my hands on the New Yorker article. It's a good one. I'll use that as the reference and link the word "paper" to the actual paper on bitcoin.org. Chris Arnesen 14:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

On the whole page I cannot find one link explaining exactly how bitcoin actually works on the technical level. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.245.55.74 (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I feel this main Wiki page should focus more on the technology and operational usage whereas the history, controversy, bubbles and all that can go on a separate page. I think until we can get this and the "Bitcoin protocol" page up to snuff, we should think about pointing curious readers more strongly to en.bitcoin.it which is sadly in a far more advanced state than these articles. Chris Arnesen 00:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I am reading Protocol_of_Bitcoin right now. A chain of epiphanies :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.245.55.74 (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


Splitting the article

I propose this article be split into several smaller ones. Some suggestions would be History of Bitcoin and Controversy over Bitcoin. The former would help resolve the back-and-forth between editors wishing to preserve and delete the Timeline. The latter would help resolve contention over whether the lede need include positive and negative points about Bitcoin (as instead it can mention that the currency has been surrounded with significant controversy). ―Dree12 (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion there isn't enough material to justify subpages. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I digress. I feel that Bitcoin is notable enough for the subpages. I have some data to back this up. A Google search for "Bitcoin" returns "About 55,200,000 results", more than "rupee" at "About 53,300,000 results". Yet the article History of the rupee exists (though admittedly the article Controversy over the rupee does not). The article is also one of the most-viewed across the entire encyclopedia (see http://stats.grok.se/en/201310/bitcoin), ranking 35th as of this writing. This is an extremely high ranking, higher than even China. With this much attention to the article itself, I feel a controversy subpage is justified. Finally, the subject is notable as it has been covered in diverse media. In the last day alone, CBC, The Globe and Mail, The Guardian, Financial Post, and dozens others have published articles relating to Bitcoin.
Thus, I believe this article has grown beyond the optimal article size. Splitting it into subtopics will allow readers to see a concise overview and delve deeper if they so choose. ―Dree12 (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Myself, I think that splitting up the Bitcoin article into subpages would be a significant hindrance to visitors whose goal is to understand Bitcoin in one reading. The article as it stands could definitely be trimmed and refined, but even without refinement, it's hardly a very long article considering the incredible complexity of the topic. Anyone who has tried to explain Bitcoin in 5 minutes or less at a party knows what a struggle this can be.
Here's what I do think: The references are totally out of hand. They take up a full quarter of the article. Serious clean-up needed. And the general article could be tidied up quite a bit -- but not by starting with a rewrite or a splitting. Canton (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I think splitting is a good idea, the article is becoming very large (the Wikipedia size guideline agrees). However (in line with Canton's concerns), I think we should leave a brief overview of each section in the original article to ensure that people can read the article and still get a good understanding of Bitcoin i.e. we should have most of the history/controversy in the History/Controversy of Bitcoin article, but we should leave a summary of each in the Bitcoin article. Cliff12345 (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I would support spitting the article if it means some of the excess information can be hived off agreeably. Fleetham (talk) 05:42, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Splitting off history in particular seems like a good idea to me, especially if it takes a long a good number of the references with it. Canton (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
It seems to me that the large timeline should be moved to the History of Bitcoin article if we split it, though maybe we should leave some of the timeline's key points in the Bitcoin article. EDIT: Perhaps we could also move the full price history to the history article (I got this idea from this discussion)? Cliff12345 (talk) 16:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I did just change the timeline format of the history section to a tidier paragraphed one though it was reverted. Awaiting clarification on why. Samwalton9 (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I checked out your changes and they seemed quite sensible. (talk) reverted your changes but I disagree with the revert. He can come here to discuss it, but I will be restoring your changes.WhereAmI (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I would also like to split it and came here today to propose this. I would prefer two separate History and Controversy pages. I also think a page, although it might not be noteworthy yet, on the legality of Bitcoin. My justification is because different countries are going to treat Bitcoin differently, so each legality can be split up similar to how articles about laws in different countries are split. I disagree entirely that splitting the Bitcoin page will hinder the knowledge of Bitcoin - people come to Wikipedia to read an article to learn some knowledge about a topic, not to become an expert on a subject.WhereAmI (talk) 17:45, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm also for two separate History and Controversy pages (in case I caused some confusion, I only typed "History/Controversy of Bitcoin" as shorthand for "History of Bitcoin and Controversy of Bitcoin"). Cliff12345 (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I have created the pages Controversy of Bitcoin and History of Bitcoin under the Wikipedia:WikiProject Bitcoin that I recently created. This will help as a draft before we go live with the pages. Please consider using it and gaining feedback before going live, unless enough time passes where no one responded. As a bonus, I even added that oddly formatted timeline back in on the draft for revisiting.--WhereAmI (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm thinking about doing the split for History of Bitcoin today. If there are objections please let me know.--WhereAmI (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
In my work in cutting down the History/Growth section, it seemed best that I create a Controversy of Bitcoin as well mostly because of Regulatory issues.--WhereAmI (talk) 18:13, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Ok I did it. All content should be available in the new History of Bitcoin article, I just tried to move things and not delete. Please put something in if you feel it was removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhereAmI (talk • contribs) 18:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
The history article looks good (I made a couple of minor edits). Here's a link to the controversy article (the link above seems to link to the history article). I'm thinking that perhaps we could add some of the "Reception" section of the Bitcoin article to the controversy article. Cliff12345 (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)


Capitalized or not?

Is it Bitcoin or bitcoin? The article switches at random between upper and lower case - what is the consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.120.189 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if the article accurately reflects it, but there are two ways in which this word is used requiring different capitalizations. There is a proper noun Bitcoin, essentially the protocol and there are the units of currency/whatever, a singleton of which is called a bitcoin. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
This is correct, example usage: "I installed Bitcoin software, downloaded the Bitcoin blockchain, and received 1 bitcoin after giving my Bitcoin address to my employer. I received 0.03 bitcoins as a tip." -mononymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.14.242 (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The New Yorker says "Standards vary, but there seems to be a consensus forming around Bitcoin, capitalized, for the system, the software, and the network it runs on, and bitcoin, lowercase, for the currency itself." Fleetham (talk) 16:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
This standard described above, which I agree with, needs to be (re)applied to the article. E.g. "However, new Bitcoins are created at an ever-decreasing rate." and "Bitcoins are increasingly used as payment for legitimate products and services" should both be lower-case bitcoins.Chris Arnesen 22:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisarnesen (talk • contribs)
Thanks to Nyttend for cleaning up Bitcoin vs bitcoin. [18]. I'd write "A bitcoin exchange" instead of "A Bitcoin exchange" though since there it's referring to the unit of currency. What do you think? Cheers, Chris Arnesen 01:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
I disagree with Chrisarnesen. The standard style should be "A Bitcoin exchange". The rule of thumb is "bitcoin anywhere that you'd write BTC, otherwise Bitcoin". Chris Arnesen 06:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


Source Paper

The concept was introduced in a 2008 paper by a pseudonymous developer known as "Satoshi Nakamoto". (This page was last modified on 19 November 2013 at 19:27.)

which 2008 paper? what about citing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.245.55.74 (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point. At the end of that sentence I added a link to the pdf version of the paper on bitcoin.org. [19] Does anybody know if the paper was published in a peer-reviewed journal or anything like that, or was it just distributed as-is on crypto mailing lists? Chris Arnesen 00:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I added a link to the paper at the end of that sentence but my edit was quickly reverted. Can someone else please weigh in here? To me (and the person who brought it up in the first place above, the sentence 'The concept was introduced in a 2008 paper by a pseudonymous developer known as "Satoshi Nakamoto".' screams for either a citation or a link to the paper itself. Perhaps someone can suggest an alternate means of citing or providing a link to the paper? Chris Arnesen 02:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I've fixed it up, hopefully this works out? --benlisquareT•C•E 03:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks benlisquare for fixing that up. I think it's good to link to the paper in that sentence because the paper really is well-written and interesting to read. The paper itself, however, doesn't support the assertion that it (I mean the paper) was introduced in 2008. Based on this article, I *think* that the right supporting reference for the 2008 assertion is this New Yorker article, but I can only read the first page without a subscription to the New Yorker. Just for fun, here is the original announcement of the paper on a Crypto mailing list. I've learned though (thanks again benlisquare) that secondary sources are preferred on Wikipedia. Chris Arnesen 03:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I got my hands on the New Yorker article. It's a good one. I'll use that as the reference and link the word "paper" to the actual paper on bitcoin.org. Chris Arnesen 14:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Article Quality

Please can someone re-write this article for the general Wikipedia reader.

It gets my vote as the most incomprehensible Wikipedia article to date.

E.g. - is Bitcoin 'real'; why can't it easily be 'forged', what's the basis of its value — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.106.181 (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The reason it can't be forged is very technical. The answer "because cryptography" is well within the scope of the article. The other two questions are meaningless without definitions/context, likely making them unsuitable questions for the article. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
It is possible there is enough source material to split this into two articles: one covering the general aspects, utility, and economy; one covering the invention and technical aspects. DPRoberts534 (talk) 04:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

"There is also growing awareness of their usage in black market transactions, frustrating bitcoin's promoters." also the reference to Iran usage to circumvent sanctions Seem more like propaganda by leaving out other related information and implying a nefarious nature. Similar statements do not exist on the US Dollar page. Which is used in larger numbers in criminal activity than any other currency.

1. black markets exist in every currency.
2. Is the silk road reference still needed, is it still active? multiple alternative avenues exist in bitcoin to trade illicit drugs not just silk road.
3. sanctions are imposed by an external country's based on political means. The morality of Iran and american-Iranian relations should not be disputed on this page.
Is this encyclopedic information or just something to discredit bitcoin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.172.27.2 (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The term "wallet" appears many times in the article, and I would very much like to know what it means. The section entitled "Bitcoin wallets" would be a good place for a definition. My impression is that a wallet is a set of one or more cryptographic private keys, possibly supplemented with software for generating new keys and for using a keyto spend bitcoin, or software for following the blockchain, or software for requesting updates to the blockchain. If a "paper wallet" really is a wallet, then software must not be a necessary attribute, because paper cannot run software.

The first phrase of the "Bitcoin wallets" section, "Anyone wishing to use bitcoins is assigned one or more bitcoin addresses," uses the passive voice, and thereby leaves me wondering who will assign me my addresses. I suspect that in reality I generate them myself.

I lack confidence to alter the article, but I'd suggest that the salient features of the Bitcoin system are these:

1. The state of all Bitcoin is determined by a decentralized transaction-history log called the blockchain.
2. A participant has one or more private cryptographic keys. From each private key, an "address" can be generated.
3. A transaction in the blockchain announces the transfer of a specified amount of bitcoin from one address to another address. Constructing a valid transaction requires the use of the private key associated with the sending address.

Would any more confident person want to confirm this, and work it into the article? 68.185.94.153 (talk) 02:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

For my two cents, this article focuses too much on the controversy and media coverage, and not enough on the technology itself. Chris Arnesen 21:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Who is the creator?

in the 'who is the creator' section....it does not once meantion the person most suspected of being Satoshi! (Max Keiser for anyone who doesn't know) No need to list evidence here, since there is too much of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.137.54.65 (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Here core bitcoin developer Jeff Garzik sheds some light on Satoshi Nakamoto's code and what work his team have been doing on the project. Thought this might be of interest under Satoshi Nakamoto part? "But in spite of being an excellent architect and designer, Satoshi’s coding practices were unconventional, says Garzik, adding that the original version of Bitcoin was Windows only, not very portable, and “a jumble of source code” with several half-finished projects." [3] Bitkoof (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The references cover speculation about the true identity of Satoshi Nakamoto. It doesn't deserve an explicit mention here on the main Bitcoin page.Chris Arnesen 01:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


Criminal activity

I've merged the "Reddit" section and the "Criminal activity in the lede" section here. I'll plan to archive these old comment exchanges between @Fleetham: and @OrangeCorner: unless someone objects.Chris Arnesen 01:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thought some people here might be interested in this current discussion on Reddit about this article: Targaryenspeak or forever remain silent 15:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1opdua/wikipedia_bitcoins_have_been_associated_with/

I re-included a mention of criminal activities in the lede. There is much evidence for the notion that it is widely considered that Bitcoins are closely associated with activities such as money laundering. Fleetham (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
  • CNN Money calls Bitcoins a "shady online currency."
  • Wired states that "The FBI sees the anonymous Bitcoin payment network as an alarming haven for money laundering..."
  • The Financial Times states "Citing rules designed to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing, the US federal government has seized bank accounts belonging to... Bitcoin exchange[s]."
  • The US Senate and New York State are investigating Bitcoins
A person in charge of the New York State regulator handling one of the two investigations stated that Bitcoins constitute "a virtual Wild West for... criminals."
  • The Washington Post states that there is a "stigma" tying Bitcoins to illicit activities.
  • CNN Money says that the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission has "warn[ed] of scams involving virtual currencies"
  • IEEE Spectrum reports on a "Bitcoin ATM [that] Makes Money Laundering Easy," and in the article the entrepreneurs involved in the venture freely admit that their machine aids money laundering saying, "it's basically like a money laundering person's dream."

________________________________________________________________________ Fleetham,

I had to warm up my trusty Wikipedia account to comment on this discussion here. I trust you are making this edit in good faith as you are a long time Wikipedia contributor, however I happen to agree with the folks on the Bitcoin sub Reddit. I could make the points they have been making, but since you have already read them, I'll save my breath and not reassert them all here again.

For the sake of consistency and neutrality though, I would point out that on the Wikipedia page on "Contaminated Currency" has many sources showing that that U.S. Dollars are widely used for and associated with "criminal activity" including drugs and money laundering. Text from article. Links below.

"In 1994, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that in Los Angeles, out of every four banknotes, on average more than three are tainted by cocaine or another illicit drug". See long list of "Drug Money" references below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_currency

However when I go to the Wikipedia article for the U.S. Dollar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Dollar

I'm greeted by the below text that says nothing about the U.S. Dollar being used for drug money or criminal activity. I've been a Wikipedia contributor for a while and I think we ought to keep our standards consistent and neutral when ever possible. We can either change all the currency articles to include a mention of their role in criminal activity in the lead paragraph or we can remove the mention of "criminal activity" from the Bitcoin article in order to be neutral.

"The United States dollar (sign: $; code: USD; also abbreviated US$), is referred to as the U.S. dollar or American dollar. It is the official currency of the United States and its overseas territories. It is divided into 100 smaller units called cents.

The U.S. dollar is the fiat currency most used in international transactions and is one of the world's most dominant reserve currencies.[15] Several countries use it as their official currency, and in many others it is the de facto currency.[16] It is also used as the sole currency in two British Overseas Territories: The British Virgin Islands and the Turks and Caicos islands."

I'm not suggesting you aren't correct. There has indeed been much media attention and speculation about the use of Bitcoin in association with "criminal activity", however I don't believe it deserves to be on the lead paragraph, just as I don't believe a neutral description of the U.S. Dollar should focus on that fact (the U.S. Dollar Article doesn't even have a section about "Criminal Activity").

Can we compromise here and add language to the existing "Criminal Activities" Section of the Bitcoin article?

Thanks for your contributions to this this article, I hope we can figure this out together.

OrangeCorner (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


^ "Drug Money". Snopes. Retrieved 2008-07-23. Jump up ^ Abrahamson, Alan (13 November 1994). "Prevalence of Drug-Tainted Money Voids Case Law: Court cites findings that more than 75% of currency in L.A. bears traces of cocaine or other illegal substances". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2008-07-23. Jump up ^ Price, Debbie M. (6 May 1990). "Use of Drug-Sniffing Dogs Challenged;ACLU Backs Complaint by Men Whose Pocket Cash Was Seized". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-07-23. Jump up ^ Jenkins AJ (1 October 2001). "Drug contamination of US paper currency". Forensic Science Int. Retrieved 2008-07-26. Jump up ^ Ritter, Jim (26 March 1997). "4 out of 5 dollar bills show traces of cocaine". Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved 2008-07-23. Jump up ^ Sones, Bill; Rich Sones (19 October 1997). "Most U.S. bills contaminated with traces of cocaine". Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved 2008-07-23. Jump up ^ Siegal, Ronald (1989-06-01) [1991]. Intoxication: life in pursuit of artificial paradise. BD Dutton. ISBN 0-525-24764-5. Jump up ^ Wagner, Michael (16 November 1994). "Why There's Cocaine on Your Money". Sacramento Bee. Retrieved 2008-07-23. Jump up ^ "Cocaine Contamination of United States Paper Currency". The Journal of Analytical Toxicology 20: 213–216. July/August 1996. ^ Jump up to: a b Vinzant, Carol X. "The Secret Life of the Dollar". Money.AOL. Jump up ^ Egelko, Bob (25). "Supreme Court expands police search powers: Drug-sniffing dogs now have access to any car stopped". San Francisco Chronicle (online: SFGate). ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Tony Thompson (10 November 2002). "£15m of notes tainted by drugs are destroyed". The Observer. Retrieved 2008-07-27. ^ Jump up to: a b "UK Banknotes tainted with cocaine". BBC News. 4 October 1999. Retrieved 2008-07-26. Jump up ^ Richard Sleeman, I. Fletcher A Burton, James F. Carter, David J. Robertsb (4 November 1998). "Rapid screening of banknotes for the presence of controlled substances by thermal desorption atmospheric pressure chemical ionisation tandem mass spectrometry" (PDF). The Analyst. Retrieved 2008-07-26. Jump up ^ Rebecca Morelle (13 September 2007). "Drug taint links cash to crime". BBC News. Retrieved 2008-07-26. ^ Jump up to: a b c Laureen Veevers (1 October 2006). "'Shared banknote' health warning to cocaine users". The Observer. Retrieved 2008-07-26. Jump up ^ "Hepatitis C Virus Infection in Cocaine Users: A Silent Epidemic". Healthlink MCW. 9 October 2001. Retrieved 2008-07-26. Jump up ^ NIH (24–26 March 1997). "5. What Recommendations Can Be Made to Patients to Prevent Transmission of Hepatitis C?". NIH. Retrieved 2008-07-26. Jump up ^ "Who Is at Risk for Hepatitis C?". WebMd. 9. Retrieved 2008-07-26. Jump up ^ Andrea Mann, ed. by Helen Harris, Mary Ramsay (December 2006). "'Hepatitis C in England: The Health Protection Agency Annual Report 2006". Health Protection Agency Centre for Infections. Retrieved 2008-07-26. Jump up ^ Rebecca Morelle (10 January 2007). "Cocaine contaminates Irish euros". BBC News. Retrieved 2008-07-26. Jump up ^ "Cocaine traces on Spanish euros". BBC News. 25 December 2007. Retrieved 2008-07-26. Jump up ^ "German euros full of cocaine". BBC News. 25 June 2003. Retrieved 2008-07-26. Jump up ^ "Brittle euro notes baffle Germans". BBC News. 2 November 2006. Retrieved 2008-07-26. Jump up ^ "Drug use 'behind crumbling euros". BBC News. 13 November 2006. Retrieved 2008-07-26. Jump up ^ "What is bitcoin?.[20]

This isn't a discussion about US currency. If you feel that the article on the US dollar is lacking in some way, I suggest you take your argument to that talk page. The fact of the matter is, many reliable sources have suggested a close link between this so-called "crypto-currency" and criminal activity. You may feel that Bitcoins should be free from such a stigma, but that doesn't mean that Bitcoins aren't stigmatized as such. Fleetham (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
You are correct, this isn't a discussion about "US currency", but it is a discussion about "a currency" which is why I bring up another currency as a comparison. If you prefer a "cyprto-currency" I'll use Litecoin's Wikipedia article as my comparison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litecoin, again no reference criminal activity. OrangeCorner (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that normal fiat currencies do not have such a close association with money laundering as Bitcoins, and that no reliable sources routinely refer to the US dollar as being linked to criminal activity—unlike Bitcoins. Does CNN call the US dollar a "shady currency"? Does The Washington Post say that there is a "stigma" associated with transactions made using cash? Does the Federal government routinely seize assets of entities simply because they facilitate transactions using the US dollar? The answer is no. But all of the above has occurred with Bitcoins. If you want to make the argument that "Bitcoins = Fiat currency," then please do so. If you simply want to prevent a lede mention of the close association between this peculiar form of exchange and criminal activity, please stop. Fleetham (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
I can't agree with your assertion that "normal fiat currencies do not have such a close association with money laundering". In fact the physical form of U.S. Dollars is THE defining image people think of in popular culture when discussing money laundering (as anyone who watches Breaking Bad can bear witness to): http://pandawhale.com/post/6017/breaking-bads-pile-of-cash OrangeCorner (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
And may I point out the title of the r/bitcoin thread immediately above the one which prompted your defense of Bitcoins here on Wikipedia: "The Race To Silk Road 2.0 – Eight Sites Battle It Out To Become The Internet’s Go-To Drug Site." Are you of the opinion that most other message boards for currencies also routinely discuss how you can purchase illicits with their currency of choice?Fleetham (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
In fact that is exactly what I would assert. Every time there is a big drug bust or cartel taken down the inevitable next discussion in traditional media and social media is who will replace them (no one is naive enough to think the bust in question will end of the drug trade). OrangeCorner (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
First, where's the proof for all of this alledged money laundering going on? Some remarks by a bunch of boneheads in the media who literally haven's looked into the subject matter for more than one our? In fact, their main source is almost certainly wikipedia! See how this works? Seriously, if you use bitcoin for money laundering you are either very very tech-savvy or an idiot, cash is much much better. I really can't imagine a lot of money laundering going on with bitcoin right now. Second, why feel the need to include alledged illicid uses, but not all the gifts to charity etc.? ( https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Donation-accepting_organizations_and_projects ) Again, because the media doesn't talk about it as much? Well they probably would if wikipedia tells them that's what it's used for! I'm sorry but all of this is horribly prejudiced and biased, and I really don't understand where all of this hate comes from. -Alpaca Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.208.136 (talk) 08:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

And there is now another Reddit thread about this article: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1ovzzl/wikipedia_bitcoin_page_intro_contains_subjective/ Targaryenspeak or forever remain silent 12:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC) There have been several editors who removed a lede mention of Bitcoin's links to criminal activity. I have reinstated this mention per WP:LEDE, which states "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Fleetham (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

____________ Fleetham,

I think part of why you are getting this reaction by other editors is because the articles and sources you cite have a fundamentally incorrect understanding of how the Bitcoin Protocol functions. These articles falsely assert that "Bitcoin is anonymous" and can "operate in the shadows" thus a safe haven for criminal activity. In fact Bitcoin is an open and transparent public ledger and a copy of all transactions that have ever taken place on the Bitcoin network are stored in the blockchain. This is absolutely fundamental to how Bitcoin functions. From a technical perspective this is the reason "double spend" attacks are impossible, and thus why Bitcoin is capable of functioning at all. If I assert false things, citing ill technically informed media sources, that does not in fact make them accurate. OrangeCorner (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whatever technical stumbling blocks make Bitcoin's facilitation of criminal behavior less than ideal, it is clear that this currency is routinely used in a criminal context. Fleetham (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
"this currency is routinely used in criminal context". Again that's the problem with your assertion, the same could be said about every currency in the history of mankind. In fact I've seen the analysis of the percentage of Bitcoin that has been involved in "criminal activity" (3% to 5% depending on the estimate) which is lower than the estimates I've seen for the U.S. Dollar cash based economy (7% to 10%). I could re-look up the studies if you really want to contend that Bitcoin has a quantifiably higher usage in criminal activity than other currencies.OrangeCorner (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
While it may appear that Bitcoins and a normal fiat currency have comparable levels of use by criminals, a large percentage of Bitcoin transactions are speculative, according to VICE Motherboard: "The majority of bitcoin volume as it stands is mostly speculation. A large portion is also devoted to grey market gambling."
I appreciate your intellectual honesty in acknowledging that, "Bitcoins and a normal fiat currency have comparable levels of use by criminals". However I don't follow the connection you are trying to make to speculation. Currency speculation is a sizable part of the dollar economy also. "According to the Bank for International Settlements,[3] the preliminary global results from the 2013 Triennial Central Bank Survey of Foreign Exchange and OTC Derivatives Markets Activity show that trading in foreign exchange markets averaged $5.3 trillion PER DAY in April 2013." http://www.bis.org/press/p130905.htm As for gambling that is a legal activity in many of the world's jurisdictions and I'm not willing to lump it in with criminal activities.OrangeCorner (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
The sole reference I could find that relates percentage of transaction volume that is for expressly criminal purposes is a source that states 6% of all Bitcoin transactions made during a one month period in 2013 were at a single online drugs market. The Guardian reports that such drugs markets and online gambling are the two most popular uses for Bitcoins. And the above VICE Motherboard quote shows that speculative buying takes up the majority of transactions. So, if you add gambling, add transactions at other online drugs markets, and remove speculation, that 6% figure grows. By how much? That's hard to say. As a Bloomberg Views columnist recently stated: "one of the major alleged uses of Bitcoin -- though, of course, one can never truly know -- is buying illicit drugs." Fleetham (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Also, see this quote from The Economist regarding drugs purchases and speculation: "Its primary commercial use is probably to buy drugs... This suggests that the new users are buying Bitcoin as an investment, not as a means of exchange. For any currency to thrive it needs users, not just speculators." Fleetham (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

If that is meant to show that Bitcoin isn't a "currency" because it has speculators I would point out a rising number of customers are using Bitcoin for normal everyday merchant transactions. As evidenced by BitPay recently passing 10,000 Bitcoin accepting merchants on its system alone. http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/16/bitpay-10000-merchants/

And here's another academic source that states the percentage of total Bitcoin transactions that occurred on a single online drugs market was in the range of 4.5 to 9%. Fleetham (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Ars Technica says that 1/2 of transaction volume can be attributed to a single online gambling site. Fleetham (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
No, speculation is not a "a sizable part of the dollar economy also" as you claim. No one holds US dollars for the sole purpose of selling them at a later date for a higher price. Anyway, unless you want to do anything other than make the defense that "because criminal activity occurs with US dollars, Bitcoins therefore have a squeaky clean reputation as the currency used by ethical folks for purchases of pizzas and whatnot," I'd prefer to end this conversation. If you have reliable sources to support your assertions, I would be happy to see them. Fleetham (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm a little confused by your statement that "no one holds US Dollars for the sole purpose of selling them at a later date for a higher price." Of course they do. I just showed you the quote from the Forex market about the volume of Dollars being traded on a daily basis. Some of that is for commerce, some is for saving. Currencies trade in pairs, lets take the example of the Argentinean Peso and the U.S. Dollar. In fact so many people right now in Argentina want U.S. Dollars instead of their local currency, the Argentinean government has put capital and currency controls in place. http://www.news.com.au/money/money-matters/argentina-cash-controls-and-weak-peso-bring-bargains-headaches/story-e6frfmd9-1226665997190 OrangeCorner (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
And I just calculated the velocity of money for Bitcoins since the first of July. It's 3 vs. 6.589 for the US dollar in Q2 2013. Velocity of money gives you a rough measure of saving and spending activity: a higher number means more spending and a lower one, more saving. As the number for Bitcoins is lower than that for the US dollar, this supports the idea that a larger amount of Bitcoin transactions are speculative. It suggests that people aren't sending their Bitcoins as quickly as you would with normal currency, and one explanation for this is that the Bitcoins were purchased as an investment and nothing more. Fleetham (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Also see this quote from a SEC filing made by an investment vehicle that speculates on Bitcoins: "Currently, there is relatively small use of Bitcoins in the retail and commercial marketplace in comparison to relatively large use by speculators." Courtesy a WSJ article on the matter. Fleetham (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Interesting calculation on the velocity difference between USD and BTC. Though I'm not sure it supports the point you think it does. I expect that BTC will always have a slower velocity than USD (even when their are BTC accepting merchants on every street corner) because if the value of your money isn't being inflated away, rational actors have more of an incentive to "save" that money. And there is a difference between the professional speculator and those simply choosing to "save" more of there money, often by spending it more conservatively. OrangeCorner (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we have each established, 1. Crime happens using BTC, at roughly the same level as other currencies. 2. BTC is used for many things from savings, to paying merchants, and yes professional speculators, just as other currencies are.

I'm happy to end this discussion as well (though I think it has been informative). Lets get to brass tax. You made a good point at the beginning about "The lead should ... summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."

So is the specific language you use to describe Bitcoin in the lead a fair description of the "controversy"? "CNN has called Bitcoins a "shady online currency,"[20] and its links to criminal activities such as money laundering have prompted scrutiny from the FBI, US Senate, and the State of New York." I would propose a more technically accurate description.

"Concern about companies utilizing Bitcoins operating outside of compliance with money transmission standards such as "Anti Money Laundering (AML)" and "Know Your Customer(KYC)" have prompted reviews by state and federal agencies.OrangeCorner (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, I'm happy to discuss this with an individual who is "willing to do the leg work" and provide some reliable citations. Sorry to be rather critical, but all I'm getting from you seems to be Bitcoin fanboyism. Perhaps you would like to make good on your offer of providing sources that show the Bitcoin ratio of legitimate/illegal transactions is lower than that of US dollars. As you said earlier, "I could re-look up the studies if you really want to contend that Bitcoin has a quantifiably higher usage in criminal activity than other currencies." It certainly has a higher percentage of critical mentions from reliable new sources! Fleetham (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
To reference to a 2012 Economist article in the lede is pretty silly. That's ancient history in terms of Bitcoin evolution. The fact that Baidu and other major retailers have started accepting bitcoin payments sounds almost like an afterthought. Even information from early 2013 should be considered somewhat out of out of date. The price of bitcoins has gone up by orders of magnitude since then. American venture capitalists are dumping tens of millions of dollars into Bitcoin startups. Coinbase, for example, now has hundreds of thousands of users and tens of thousands of merchants, like a factor of 10 increase from earlier this year. I am genuinely curious how the current transaction rate breaks down between speculators, illicit activities, legit activities and so on. Does anybody know of any recent (i.e. in the last couple months) research or reporting on that? As a point of style, there are two sentences in the lede structured as "However, ...", whereas there should be zero. Chris Arnesen 23:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)


Lede

It appears that many editors are happy to remove any critical mention of Bitcoins from the lede, and would prefer an article that suits their personal beliefs instead of one that reflects the views of reliable sources. I would appreciate it if such editors would cease destructive back-and-forth editing and discuss what they desire the article to look like. We can work together to create a page that is much better than the one we currently have, and I'm more than willing to help with improvements beyond the inclusion of criminal activities linked to Bitcoin. Fleetham (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Orbixx: I agree with you when you say, "all I want to see is neutrality when Bitcoin is written about" and think you're idea of an equal distribution of negative/positive comments is a good starting point for coming to an agreement. Fleetham (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You are removing the "positive bias" and leaving in the negative bias. That is not neutral. Mrcatzilla (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The only thing I find objectionable is the wording. When you say "explosive growth," it really sounds like a marketing brochure. And while you may also be able to make a claim along the lines of "Bitcoins acceptance by legitimate vendors increased by 10,000%," this is just as misleading. The only reason you have "explosive growth" is because no one accepted Bitcoins until recently. Bitcoin acceptance is growing off of a very low base, so the growth looks "explosive." No one would argue that 10,000 additional outlets accepting US dollars as payment would constitute "explosive growth" because so many already do. Fleetham (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
That is a valid complaint, and you can edit out the offending wording, but do not remove the sentence altogether, considering it is backed with valid sources. I could not find a better adjective than "explosive", so I invite you to find a replacement. Mrcatzilla (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed the wording. Let me know if that's acceptable... I would also like to add to the lede that the primary use of Bitcoins continues to be for online gambling. There are several reliable sources that have stated this, and it appears that 1/2 of total Bitcoin activity stems from online gambling. Fleetham (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
You have to keep in mind that there is a difference between volume and number of transactions. Which of the above are "activity"? Online gambling is a lot of very small transactions while real use is a relatively smaller number of higher-value transactions. Also, the "sources" that state this are already outdated as they are from pre-April bubble period (January 2013 is decades ago in Bitcoin-time). Mrcatzilla (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, I think it's important to be able to get some understanding of how Bitcoins are actually used. You say that "gambling transactions are many but small in value" and that "your source is too old--the state of Bitcoins six months ago is nothing like today." Please forgive me for being a skeptic, but my impression is that if you malign Bitcoins in any way, some fanboy will pop up and say "oh no, it's actually nothing like that--take my word for it." Unless someone can come up with reliable sources that contradict the statement made by The Guardian in March, that Bitcoins are primarily used in gambling and drugs buying, I think that's important enough to be given space in the lede. What could be more central to Bitcoins besides the way in which people use Bitcoins? Fleetham (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I am not disputing that it is used in online gambling - it is, and the use of Bitcoin for gambling is rapidly expanding because the "normal" financial system does not like gambling very much, so people flock to something the powers that be can't control. But you really need to quit asserting that Bitcoin is "primarily used for drugs". According to the analysis of blockchain data by The Genesis Block (http://thegenesisblock.com/analysis-silk-roads-historical-impact-bitcoin/), between February 2011 and July 2013 Silk Road sales accounted for just 4% of transaction volume. In fact I am going to go ahead and add it to the "criminal use" section. Mrcatzilla (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's basically my point: the "normal" financial system doesn't like gambling, drugs purchases, or money laundering, and a natural consequence is the use of Bitcoins. What interests me is the extent to which Bitcoins are used in this way. You say 4% at Silk Road, but another, academic source say 4.5--9%. I think that this source should replace yours simply because it's of higher quality (as WP:RS states, "news reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact."). . Fleetham (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
What does it even mean to say a financial system "doesn't like" money laundering, etc.? A great many banks do not like to scrutinize their clients' activities too closely. If the government didn't require they enact anti-money-laundering controls, they'd do nothing. Certain major investment banks are in the news recently precisely for this reason. --C S (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
The current state of the lede looks great to me, I also have no problem with switching out the aforementioned source for that linked academic paper either. Cheers guys Orbixx (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Mrcatzilla (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest adding Namecheap to the small list of large vendors that accept Bitcoin in the Lede. They are a rather large registrar and noteworthy enough to include in this short list. See here. Dewknight (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I suggest removing the sentence "However, new Bitcoins are created at an ever-decreasing rate." from the lede. The rate isn't scheduled to change until 2017, and in light of how fast the Bitcoin ecosphere has been evolving, that's effectively a century from now.Chris Arnesen 02:09, 18 November 2013 (UTC)


Cryptobank

There's an entry now for Cryptobank which seems appropriate to link into, although it applies to all crypto-currencies, not just XBT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.223.156.171 (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The Cryptobank article doesn't cite any sources. Until it does, it's not appropriate to link to. It's not a very appealing term anyhow. Would someone else please weigh in to break the tie? Chris Arnesen 23:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

hoarding has a negative or confusing meaning when used in common speech

It's correct when it's used in academic terms but not in common terms. When you talk to strangers or acquaintances you don't say. "I need to hoard up some money to buy a new computer". Instead you use the word save. Though if you try to mention the economic term 'hoarding' and talk about that ie: "hoarding was common when some resources were scarce" is appropriate. Logictheo (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

As hording is inimical to Bitcoin's being able to function and has led to the deprecation of other such private currencies, I think a word with a negative connotation would be preferable. And in this instance, hording is not equivalent to saving. As you mention, you would save (not hoard) for a future purchase. If you hold currency to later sell at a higher price, you would be hording (not saving). Fleetham (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
The neutral term would be "holding". And whether holding large amounts of Bitcoin or any other currency is "inimical" is your own bias. --C S (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"Hoard" is the correct word when used in the economic context as it is in the article. The word "hoard" isn't being used in "common speech" in the article. Chris Arnesen 19:53, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

"Speculators outnumber users"

The consensus-less old comments in this discussion have been archived. The sentence in question is "Speculators have been attracted to Bitcoin, fueling volatility and price swings. As of July 2013, the use of Bitcoin in the retail and commercial marketplace is relatively small compared with the use by speculators." The reference for that statement is second-hand speculation by the Winklevii. Can someone suggest a better reference? Seriously, the Winklevii? In all seriousness, I'm super curious to know how the Bitcoin network traffic breaks down between speculative, illicit, and legitimate transactions Chris Arnesen 04:57, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This recent article in The Atlantic [21] supports the assertion that "the use of Bitcoin in the retail and commercial marketplace is relatively small compared with the use by speculators". I propose we use this article to replace the Winklevii reference. The Atlantic author cites this recent research article [22], which you might find interesting. Chris Arnesen 06:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Making this change right now ... Chris Arnesen 02:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


Developers

I left a quick note at Talk:Autopackage#Mike Hearn that Mike Hearn appears to be one of the developers of Bitcoin. I see the Bitcoin article does not mention any developers except Satoshi. The article makes a passing mention of the "Bitcoin Foundation" without explanation, and does not really say when and how it formed. Should we expand this slightly and maybe also mention some of the notable members? -84user (talk) 13:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

When a notable source makes such a mention in a notable fashion, such will be included. Right now, none of the sources point towards late developers. Satoshi made most of the original Bitcoin system. The other developers have only maintained it. --74.192.152.146 (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
False, more than 80% of Satoshi code has been rewritten over the years. Mrcatzilla (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Satoshi Nakamoto needs to be mentioned because he/she/they are the founder(s) of Bitcoin. While the later developers might be sufficiently notable to have their own Wikipedia articles, e.g. Gavin Andresen, I agree with 74.192.152.146 that to get a mention here they'd need to be noted in a notable fashion in a secondary resource. Until such a time that someone can provide such a reference, they shouldn't be included. Chris Arnesen 00:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin theft in lede (needs reference)

It seems that saying Bitcoin theft is "routine" is a contentious statement. I'd appreciate it if editors would discuss the matter here instead of reverting.

First of all, there have been numerous reported thefts, the FBI has discussed its ease of theft as something that will continue to draw cybercriminals to the cryptocurrency, and theft isn't a recent phenomenon. I can't imagine any reasonable person looking at the amount of documented theft and saying that such a thing is not an "ordinary" or "routine" part of Bitcoin. It really does "happen all the time."

Second, a good portion of the article is devoted to Bitcoin theft. When discussing the lede in relation to the body of the article, WP:LEDE, the most relevant policy in this instance, states that "if there is a difference in emphasis between the two, editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy." Therefore, as there is a certain measure of emphasis given to theft in the body of the article, a certain measure should also be provided in the lede. Fleetham (talk) 07:36, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the reason thefts have such weight in the article is because when Bitcoin makes the news, thefts are often mentioned. People looking for reliable sources are going to find ones about thefts. However, saying thefts are "routine" is WP:SYNTH. We don't get to say that unless the preponderance of reliable sources say it's routine (One source saying so is not sufficient.). --Laser brain (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with what Laser Brain said. The sentence doesn't say "routine" anymore. Now it's "Thefts of bitcoins from web services and online wallets have been covered in the media, prompting assertions that the safest way to store bitcoins is on secure paper wallets." That statement needs a reference. Can someone please provide one? Chris Arnesen 00:51, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


Edit request, 20 November 2013

It should be also noted that the U.S. Dollar as well as a few other currencies have also been known to be used for all of the above purposes. 64.128.73.158 (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: I think you are referring to the Criminal activities section of the article, yes? No doubt those things happen with several currencies, but apart from the fact that you have offered no reliable sources, the subject of this article is Bitcoin. There's no need or justification for going off at a tangent. --Stfg (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree Chris Arnesen 23:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and consistency issues

There are serious problems in this article with WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and consistency. The consistency issues are relatively minor—we should be capitalizing "Bitcoin" as is done in the preponderance of reliable sources about the topic. More seriously, I have found several instances where editors have synthesized statements from sources. You cannot do this. A good example is the statement formerly in the lead about Bitcoins being "routinely stolen". You can't go get a handful of news stories about Bitcoins being stolen and then write that they are routinely stolen. That's WP:SYNTH. You have to find reliable sources that actually state that. Additionally, there are conclusions and speculation in this article that are seemingly supported only by the research of the editor. This is WP:OR. For example, you can't say the value of Bitcoin is "highly volatile" and then put a link to a graph to support that statement. You have to actually find sources that say it's highly volatile. There was some god-awful sentence that read something like "Perhaps this is why people don't launder money using Bitcoin." Really?

I've started fixing some of the issues, but could use a hand from other interested editors. --Laser brain (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

There's a Talk section above dedicated to capitalization Bitcoin vs. bitcoin. The consensus there, which I agree with, is that proper noun Bitcoin should be used in all cases except when one is talking about the actual unit of currency, e.g. "I bought some hot sauce on the internet for 0.01 bitcoin." Chrisarnesen (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, except no one says that. They would say 0.01 BTC. --Laser brain (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough :) Let's focus instead on an actual sentence from the article, "The operators of these computers, known as "miners", are rewarded with transaction fees and newly minted Bitcoins." I'd argue that should read, "newly minted bitcoins" because it's referring to the actual unit of currency. Conversely, the Bitcoin protocol article starts, "The Bitcoin protocol for the bitcoin cryptocurrency is an open source cryptographic protocol that operates on a peer-to-peer network." There I'd argue it should read, "the Bitcoin cryptocurrency" because it's referring to the whole enchilada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisarnesen (talk • contribs) 18:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Alt Coins

Please add a section entitled AltCoins which are spawned currencies looking to imitate BitCoin popularity. See:

http://altcoins.com/ http://www.coindesk.com/peercoin-vault-of-satoshi-deal/ http://www.coindesk.com/litecoin-spikes-200m-market-capitalization/ Mmoench (talk) 01:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Declined. You did not follow the instructions. This template is not for generic requests to add content—it is for specific "change x to y" type requests. --Laser brain (talk) 16:50, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, alt coins are discussed in the cryptocurrency article, which is linked from here. I think that's enough. Chris Arnesen 06:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin bubbles

"Many have mentioned speculative bubbles in connection with Bitcoin, and Reuters journalist Felix Salmon correctly predicted the bursting of one such Bitcoin bubble in April 2013." This is an interesting topic that deserves a section on the main Bitcoin page, but the fact that some journalist (Felix Salmon) predicted the popping of the April 2013 bubble is not notable, especially since the price rebounded to its pre-burst level within a few months, questioning the whole notion that it was a bubble in the first place. Chris Arnesen 04:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisarnesen (talk • contribs)

This sentence has been improved to my satisfaction by User:Samwalton9 [23]. Thanks! I'll leave this talk item active for a few more days then archive it. Chris Arnesen 23:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add to

External Links

Could Bitcoin be as transformational as the World Wide Web? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDO7TDMlxsY&feature=share&list=PLBQN2TrH0_SZd7bWhAy_tqjmoWCU4yA8X

MadBitcoins News http://www.youtube.com/user/madbitcoins/featured

The Bitcoin Channel http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2ORQrqEEJ168UCXJfJdNtQ

World Bitcoin Network News http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgo7FCCPuylVk4luP3JAgVw/videos

BitPay https://bitpay.com/ Doctorrecommended (talk) 19:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done, sorry. Have a read of WP:ELNO. Samwalton9 (talk) 19:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. Chris Arnesen 09:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Lede: Theft of bitcoins. Safest way to store bitcoins.

"Thefts of bitcoins from web services and online wallets have been covered in the media, prompting assertions that the safest way to store bitcoins is on secure paper wallets generated on an uncompromised computer." That statement needs a reference. Can someone please provide one? Chris Arnesen 08:53, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Someone added a sentence to the lead about self-generated paper wallets being the most secure. However, this violates WP:LEAD because it's not stated and cited in the body, that I can find. What is the source for the "prompting assertions" statement? --Laser brain (talk) 16:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

How do folks feel about Coindesk as a reliable source? --Laser brain (talk) 17:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Seems legit to me. Yesterday I added a Coindesk article as reference for the assertion that more than 1000 brick and mortar businesses take bitcoin. Chris Arnesen 17:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

In the Murky World of Bitcoin, Fraud Is Quicker Than the Law

dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/in-the-murky-world-of-bitcoin-fraud-is-quicker-than-the-law/?ref=business&_r=0

Read NY Times article and search web for more stories.

If you get robbed of Bitcoins, who can you call for help ? Nobody !!!!

Your Bitcoin wallet is like the wild west stagecoach, you get robbed, but no sheriff, Lone Ranger or Texas rangers are coming to your rescue !!!

It's unregulated, you're SCREWED !!!

Another major Bitcoin trading house hacked, again / Bitcoins worth millions are gone !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.155.102.111 (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

paper wallets

It should be clarified that the paper wallet is probably the most insecure way to store BTC. Because at least the producer who prints the paper are know the private key. It is not the case only if it is you who print it. 91.77.255.38 (talk) 02:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't you mean that paper wallets are probably the most SECURE way to store BTC? I sure hope so because just last night I transferred a bunch of my BTC to a paper wallet. Chris Arnesen 02:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
It is impossible to prove that the producer of a banknote or a coin had destroyed the private key after the end of a printing process and doesn't preserve it. Though this sort of storage is unsecure. 91.77.255.38 (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Paper wallets, if secured properly, are the MOST secure way to store bitcoins. You're supposed to create your own paper wallet. You ARE the producer.Chris Arnesen 06:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
What does it mean secured properly??? It can't be secured. It is fine only if you print it by yourself and no one else saw your private key. 91.77.233.96 (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
That's right, it's only secure if you print it by yourself and no one else sees your private key. I put a password on my private key so that even if somebody finds my paper wallet, they would also need to figure out my password to use it. That's called two-factor authentication. There's a bunch more info here : https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Securing_your_wallet#Paper_Wallets Don't buy banknotes or coins, you can print your securely without too much hassle. Chris Arnesen 09:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Tokens

As Bitcoin goes more mainstream the use of physical tokens, i.e., real coins, is sure to rise. Here's a recent link to this topic in case someone wants to add it to the article. Orthotox (talk) 08:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

As already noted this is a completely insecure way of storing bitcoins. One can't be sure that the producer of a banknote or a coin had destroyed the private key after the end of a printing process and doesn't preserve it. Looks like someone is forcing this idea to be able to control the currency.91.77.233.96 (talk) 09:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I read the article. Where does the article say that the use of physical tokens is sure to rise? Chris Arnesen 09:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Orthotox are searching for physical bitcoin to buy. I answered that he shall not buy a physical bitcoin because a producer will have an access to his money and can transfer his bitcoins back to his wallet.ZAB (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

some discussion of this point (literally discussion about this section of the Talk:Bitcoin page) on bitcointalk. Chris Arnesen 20:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Theft from paper and coin wallets

Will somebody else please remove the paragraph "However it is impossible to prove ..." ? I think I've already used up my three reverts for the day.

@ZAB: What you're doing is called edit warring. The cycle is "bold, revert, discuss (BRD)". You were "bold" by putting this out there:

"However it is impossible to prove that the producer of a banknote or a coin had destroyed the private key after the end of a printing process and doesn't preserve it. Therefore this sort of storage is insecure and is a subject for a fraud, unless it was printed by the owner of a wallet himself."

I reverted because

  • language is awkward
  • "subject for a fraud" needs to cite a reference.

The process dictates that now we come here to discuss it. Instead you just re-applied your changes. That's unacceptable edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisarnesen (talk • contribs)

Awkward language is not a reason for revert. If you are a native English speaker you can fix the language. What sort of citation do you need? If private key is known to second party than the wallet is compromised. If you claim that everyone who use paper wallet are printing it by himself than just read an above section on this talk page. You are acting in the interests of such unscrupulous physical bitcoin notes and coins producers. ZAB (talk) 10:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Whatever my reason for reverting may have been, we'll make a better article if we try to stick to the BRD cycle. I'll be happy to help with the language. I understand what you're trying to say. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability and let us know if there's any question about what's needed in this case. Can anyone else suggest a reference? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisarnesen (talk • contribs)
We can add a reference to this article [24] (important sentence written in the end of Summary section) or Private-key cryptography. But in this case this looks overwhelming though. I would appreciate if you help with the language.ZAB (talk) 11:25, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
en.bitcoin.it is just another wiki like this one. What articles does that page reference on this topic?Chris Arnesen 11:35, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
I do not know why you want the source for this obvious thing. Even the name of a Private key pointing that it should be hidden from not an owners and any show off the key render wallet compromised. May be this is ok [25]?ZAB (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not know why people are so gullible in case of physical bitcoins. Probably the reason that disclosure of a credit card number doesn't make it junk, but that is because all money transactions can be traced. Bitcoins transaction can't be traced with the same ease and the producer of a coin like https://www.casascius.com can stall the amount just because he knows the private key once and preserved it. ZAB (talk) 12:16, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Here are my core doubts
  • That pre-produced bitcoin coins and banknotes have been sold in significant numbers.
  • That within those pre-produced bitcoins there has been an significant enough amount fraud that it warrants mention here on the main page.

Please try to find a reference that addresses those two points. Chris Arnesen —Preceding undated comment added 17:49, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what amount of minted coins where sold, but it is associated with a bitcoin, almost every paper have a photo of this kind https://www.casascius.com/photos.aspx. Also people are seeking for such solutions like this physical coins and printed banknotes. Mentioning this phenomenon without the warning of its deep vulnerability is nothing than an advertising. Are you selling printed notes? You aggressive position against mentioning this in the article is very strange.91.77.233.96 (talk) 20:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Of course I don't sell printed notes. If this is is such a widespread and notable phenomenon, it shouldn't be too hard to find a reference to cite. Chris Arnesen 20:44, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Your first doubt can be resolved by the number of offers a physical coins. There is no way to count all of them but it is for sure a very spread phenomenon. You can buy it here http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=casascius or here https://kauppa.bittiraha.fi/bitcoin-kolikot You second doubt is very strange, what exactly you are doubting? That the producer can preserves the private keys? They can so this is an insecure solution.91.77.233.96 (talk) 21:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
You've provided a link to a second vendor of physical bitcoins. Nobody doubts that such a thing is being sold. What we'd really like to see is an article that describes how widespread a phenomenon this is, and also how much fraud there has been involving said physical bitcoins. Please read Wikipedia:Citing_sources.Chris Arnesen 04:26, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
The maker of the Casascius Bitcoins has stopped taking orders "pending resolution of ... regulatory issues".[26] It's a one-person business, and they were intended more as curiosities than currency. The 1-Bitcoin object was advertised as "Perfect as a small gift to introduce someone to Bitcoin". John Nagle (talk) 07:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
That is the reference you are looking for http://casascius.uberbills.com/ it is a number of physical coins produced by Casascius. The volume is huge by the way. 91.77.248.39 (talk) 11:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
There are way more casascius coins in circulation than I thought there would be, about 60k BTC worth. But I wouldn't call that a "huge" volume; it's like half of a percent of the total number of bitcoins in circulation. As Nagle says, I think they're mostly a curiosity. I'm fine with mentioning them in the article because they exist and they come up in the media so often. It would still be nice to find a non-primary reference though that talks about "coin" wallets. Chris Arnesen 04:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Link to price history

I would suggest to have full price history in Bitcoin_History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bitcoin#2013_bitcoin_prices) and brief one with link in Bitcoin_this_article. Like 1 price/year + direct link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bitcoin#2013_bitcoin_prices Example: http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin#Hodnota_Bitcoinu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.141.90.137 (talk) 13:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Concretely, I propose 1) Merging the contents of History of Bitcoin#2013 bitcoin prices and History of Bitcoin#Prices and value history under the latter and 2) Adding a link within this sentence "Large fluctuations in the value of Bitcoin have led some to question its ability to function as a currency" (in Bitcoin#Economics) as "Large fluctuations in the value of Bitcoin have led some to question its ability to function as a currency". Any objections? Chris Arnesen 02:14, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
 Done Chris Arnesen 20:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


WikiProject Bitcoin

I made Wikipedia:WikiProject Bitcoin to help organize the improvement of Bitcoin and possibly other cryptocurrency articles on Wikipedia. Please consider joining if that interests you.WhereAmI (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

@WhereAmI: Thank you for creating this group. I just joined it. Can you add it to the others at the top of the section "This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:" Chris Arnesen 23:50, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I still haven't figured out how to make a Bitcoin WikiProject banner appear at the top of this talk page. Heads up that I'm about to remove some of the WikiProject tags from the top of this talk page. From Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Article_tagging, "All editors should avoid tagging an article with a disruptive number of WikiProject banners." If you look at the articles in the Crime project, for example, their actual TOPIC is crime, like a serial killer or some specific crime event. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisarnesen (talk • contribs) 15:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


Cryptocurrency

The reference provided for "Bitcoin has been called a cryptocurrency because it is decentralized and uses cryptography to control transactions and prevent double-spending, a problem for digital currencies." doesn't support the statement. Can someone suggest an alternative reference? Chris Arnesen 04:35, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I will be looking for some more references tomorrow, and I will either find one that supports this or remove the statement. --Laser brain (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I've added a couple of references that support the decentralized and cryptography claims, I haven't been able to find anything about double spending. Cliff12345 (talk) 18:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, it's the peer to peer network that helps prevent double-spending, rather than the cryptography. In fact that's what Satoshi himself wrote at the end of his 2009 posting here: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-source?xg_source=activity -84user (talk) 01:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
The mercatus reference "A primer for lawmakers" is a good one for many of the statements made in the opening paragraph. I'm happy with the opening paragraph referencing the way it is now, and consider this item as closed.

 Done

Low quality article

It does not explain the technical foundation of bitcoins, it does not explain how they are mined, it mixers miners and users, etc. The focus is mainly on press reports about how it has been used for criminal activity. I do not know enough about the topic myself but someone who does would do well to review it. 80.39.145.253 (talk) 16:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

There's no concrete action to be taken on the basis on the above comment. We're all well aware of the article's quality (or lack thereof). I'll move this section to the archive soon unless somebody objects.Chris Arnesen 04:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2013

 Done

See also:

  • [Electronic_money|Electronic money]

128.73.93.12 (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's raise a sockpuppet army!

And specifically target particular editors that Bitcoin advocates don't like! [27] I'm sure that will work out just fine - David Gerard (talk) 08:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The removal of huge swathes of talk page discussion contemporaneous with the advocacy post on Reddit is problematic. I would strongly suggest people interested in the article read the archive discussions as well - David Gerard (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
You're both missing the point of the reddit post and making baseless assumptions that it is in any way related to Chris archiving discussions. I'm actually confused what your point is, have you seen any evidence of using that post for anything but constructive improvement of the article? Samwalton9 (talk) 09:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
From Talk_page_guidelines#When_to_condense_pages : "Large talk pages become difficult to read and strain the limits of older browsers. Also loading time becomes an issue for slow internet connections. It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections." If anyone ever thinks I've prematurely archived / refactored archived a discussion, please feel free to resurrect it from the archive. In that case I'd welcome constructive feedback of the form "This section shouldn't have been archived yet because of X and Y". Chris Arnesen 17:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I know you are trying to be humorous here, but for those who are perhaps without a clue, please remember WP:POINT. Calm down and let's make an encyclopedia article, not get wrapped up in the heat of the moment! --Robert Horning (talk) 12:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Agree - Continue to allow neutral, referenced facts. Anything that is written from an obviously non-neutral perspective should be removed, reddit post or no reddit post. As somebody who frequents /r/bitcoin, I understand the drive to evangelize, but Wikipedia is not the place. WikiTryHardDieHard (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I don't see anything troublesome about the Reddit post in question. There are daily posts on Reddit about how bad the Wikipedia article is, and I think the author was merely trying to coordinate efforts to improve it. If redditors can post up any sources we've neglected, that would be helpful. It's unfortunate that Fleetham was called out by name, but it is indeed true that they have been perceived as having a history of editing against consensus on this article. --Laser brain (talk) 12:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately that appropriate place to coordinate editorial issues is here on this talk page, not on Reddit. A general call for help in participating on Wikipedia is fine, but even that should be tempered to avoid conflicts with WP:CANVAS. I haven't seen anything in that particular Reddit post that is necessarily awful, but it is attempting to coordinate editing of this article off-wiki. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


Lack of Neutrality

I have tagged the Reception section with WP:NPOV as it portrays a wholly negative image of Bitcoin. In the last few weeks, the US Senate has talked about the legitimacy of the currency, Germany has declared it legal tender, and Richard Branson announced that Virgin would accept Bitcoin as payment for flights into space. This section displays an incredible negative bias. Mikesc86 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

The article as a whole seems biased, there are large sections dedicated to criminal use and theft, but very little on the legitimate uses of Bitcoin. As an example, the history section has had its timeline moved to a separate article, yet a timeline listing every major Bitcoin theft has been left here, perhaps that list could also be moved to the History of Bitcoin article? Cliff12345 (talk) 00:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with both of you. Concretely, I think the Bitcoin#Reception section can be deleted in it's entirety. It's incredibly biased and the references are ridiculously old. The "Theft and exchange shutdowns" material should be preserved, but I agree that it doesn't belong on the main page. I'd support moving that section to the "History of Bitcoin" article for now. Chris Arnesen 05:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I would say that the general concensus in the media these days is positive. One only needs to look at any recent articles to see that the majority are praising it. This article (and especially this section) are extremely outdated and out of touch with current events. 1.123.132.208 (talk) 05:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I've been moving content from the reception section into parts of the article I thought they worked better in (e.g. discussion of economic bubbles into the "bubbles" subsection). I'd like to move the rest of the info still there into the speculation section since it's all about the speculative value now (and I think having a reception section is weird and vague), but I'm afraid that if I do that without adding the tag to the new section I'll be obfuscating the POV concern. But the section it's going to doesn't necessarily deserve the tag. I guess I should wait until I can add some counterbalancing info? delldot ∇. 14:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that this article was originally assembled when the preponderance of media coverage was negative. Fixing this article is going to involve doing current research and refreshing most of the sections. --Laser brain (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

If people agree that it's the whole article and not the section, I guess I shouldn't worry much about the one tag. Does anyone object to getting rid of the reception section and integrating its info into the economics section? delldot ∇. 15:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. --Laser brain (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Ditto. Chris Arnesen 03:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bitcoin#Reception section has recently been rewritten with a much more balanced tone (by Samwalton9 if I recall). Chris Arnesen 06:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)  Done


Controversy of Bitcoin

Controversy of Bitcoin. I disagree that "Controversy of Bitcoin" should be it's own article. Instead we should split the content into articles according to subject, and distribute the "controversy" items accordingly. Specifically,

  • "Criminal activities" talks about how Bitcoin is used to buy drugs, for money laundering, gambling. This falls under the subject of what Bitcoin is used for.
  • "Energy use and environmental impact" belongs under the subject of Bitcoin mining.
  • "Theft and technical vulnerabilities". Theft at Bitcoin exchanges should be mentioned where we talk about exchanges. Theft due to the Android bug would be mentioned where we talk about Bitcoin clients (software wallets).
  • "Regulatory issues" would be discussed in a "Regulation of Bitcoin" section or page.

Chris Arnesen 08:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I totally agree. KEEP the controversies here in this article please. It belongs here, and given the latest news, up front.Tgm1024 (talk) 16:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Bitcoin is unarguably technically the most secure currency in existence; no-one has ever hacked/stolen any bit-coins ( as proofed by the watertight block chain ), there is no significant energy or environmental impact from mining (yet) and the only reason some criminals have used the system of money is because it's great. You can keep your 'controversy' we aren't all fear-driven imbeciles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.228.97 (talk) 07:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Great, I think we have consensus on this one. I'll leave this here a couple more days for comment then send this section to the archive so that we can focus on the real outstanding issues.Chris Arnesen 17:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The infobox

The infobox features prominently at the top of the article. The information it contains though isn't particularly salient or interesting. I'm guessing the infobox was added in its current form because that's what the infobox looks like on other currency articles, e.g. the United States dollar. I think the infobox for the Internet article serves as a better template for what we should try to achieve here. What do you think? Chris Arnesen 04:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The infobox for the Internet is such that it allows links to the plethora of related articles. Bitcoin only has two related article as far as I know (History and Protocol), so I think its fine as it is. Samwalton9 (talk) 13:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, the internet infobox was a bad counter-example. My main point is that there's a bunch of information in the infobox, none of which is particularly salient or interesting. Plus the "source" item is misleading. What do you think about just putting the logo image there? Chris Arnesen 14:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree with that. --Laser brain (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
This change has been applied. I'll leave this here for a few days in case there are any late objections. Chris Arnesen 23:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
User:BitBus reverted your edit and then you removed the infobox again. In my opinion its removal degraded an already poor article. Mikesc86 (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
User:BitBus describes his contributions to Wikipedia as, "Recent Changes patrol". As far as I can tell, that means he comes on Wikipedia every few months and reverts edits. He didn't actually consider the pros and cons of the infobox. He just saw a large deletion and immediately reverted it. I don't think he has anything meaningful to contribute here. User:Mikesc86, dould you please elaborate on why you think the information in the infobox was important, interesting, or salient? Chris Arnesen 06:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
It provides a quick summary of Bitcoin for users browsing the article. They may not want to read everything. Further, it matches the infobox used for other currencies, and consistency can only be a good thing for Wikipedia. My biggest objection to its removal was that it was not replaced with something better. Just a logo is clearly not an improvement, so I think the infobox should remain in its current form until a better alternative is found. Mikesc86 (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I should also point out there was a negative public reaction to the change: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1rap01/wikipedia_replaced_bitcoin_currency_infobox_with/ Mikesc86 (talk) 12:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
The infobox was removed because the information in it doesn't really provide that much value for the casual reader, in my opinion, and I think Chris Arensen agreed. Does the "Ledger" section really tell anyone anything, if they haven't read the article? "Limited release"? What does that mean? That phrase doesn't even appear in the article body, so the infobox is in violation of article guidelines stating that nothing should be in the infobox that isn't covered in the prose. At the very least, it needs to be trimmed. --Laser brain (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd hardly call a reddit thread with a 11 upvotes and 3 downvotes a "negative public reaction". Besides, they're all welcome to weigh in here. I've argued elsewhere that this article need not (*should* not) attempt to adhere to the style guides for "currencies", which is what that infobox clearly was doing. Even if we did pretend that the article should adhere to those standards, in addition to what Laser Brain said above, I'll add that the "Source" item was silly; in what sense in the genesis block the "source" of Bitcoins. The "Method" item was true but way down on the list of what is interesting about Bitcoin. Besides "Satoshi", there's hardly a consensus on what we should use as the subunits. If my proposed edit for the opening sentence is accepted, I'd agree that we should move the BTC XBT and bitcoin-symbol to some other prominent position on the page, for example an infobox. Mikesc86, would that satisfy your concerns?Chris Arnesen 23:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
User:Mikesc86, I just realized that you'd already reverted my infobox changes before weighing in here. Don't do that. Chris Arnesen 04:35, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
OK. I truncated the infobox (again). This time I left the bitcoin logo and the "Symbol" item in place, removed everything else. Mikesc86 et al, please discuss here before reverting my changes. Chris Arnesen 04:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Apparently we're going to edit war about this instead of having a conversation. Yet another person as come out of the woodwork and re-added the infobox. --Laser brain (talk) 20:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
We never heard back from the most recent reverter User:KyleLandas, so I'll give it another try. Chris Arnesen 06:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Please stop Edit Warring. It should be quite clear by now the majority are against this change. You only have one supporter. User:KyleLandas made is their reasoning perfectly clear in the edit summary. Mikesc86 (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Which edit summary? Chris Arnesen 07:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
This one: 20:27, 25 November 2013‎ KyleLandas (talk | contribs)‎ . . (46,809 bytes) (+1,909)‎ . . (Undid revision 583280755 by Chrisarnesen (talk) There is no consensus for this change. There are only two supporters and no counter discussion. Once consensus is reached, please make a move) Mikesc86 (talk) 11:07, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
If there are two supporters and no counter discussion, I'd say there IS a consensus! (I'm one of the "supporters" right?) I'm happy to discuss it. The cycle we're aiming for is bold, revert, discuss. So you can revert my changes but only if you're willing to discuss it here. So please restate your case and try to address at least a few of the issues that Laser Brain and I raised above. Chris Arnesen 11:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
This information is not being deleted. I placed the completed infobox in the economics section for now. Even with that done, I wholly disagree with this forced article change. --KyleLandas (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The indentation level on this thread is getting absurd. Moving the discussion back out to the margin...

Kyle, moving the currency infobox to the economics section was a great idea, thanks. That's the kind of constructive contribution that will make this article better. I definitely feel less passionate about the infobox now that it's in a subsection, but the concerns raised above about the "source" "ledger" and "subunit" items have still not been addressed in this discussion. It would still be great if you could try to address some of those concerns. Chris Arnesen 19:01, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm chipping away at it starting with the worst offenders. Removed the "source" item that had a link to the genesis block on blockchain.info. Chris Arnesen 08:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally I'm all for putting the infobox back at the top. Date of introduction, users, issuance, and subunits are all valid things to have in an infobox at the top of the article in my opinion. Samwalton9 (talk) 10:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I moved a modified version from the economics section back up to the top. As always, I welcome constructive feedback. Chris Arnesen 11:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

@KyleLandas: and I differ on the "Inflation rate" item in the infobox and I'd like to discuss it here. I wrote:

Bitcoin creation rate will drop to 12.5BTC in 2017.

That's a concise statement that tells the user precisely how the creation rate will behave over the next 7+ years.

Kyle said in his edit summary, "This is not comprehensive. It is a micro-view of the inflation-rate. I am restoring it to the original statement." which is:

The rate of new Bitcoin creation will be halved every four years until there are 21 million BTC.

This statement has a couple shortcomings.

  • It's imprecise. It doesn't actually tell the reader how the rate will behave over the next few years. The rate could be getting a little lower every day, like R = 100BTC * 2^((Time since 2009 in years)/4). In fact the rate is a "step function", which is in no way clear from the phrase "will be halved every four years". Even if the user knows that it's a step function, the statement gives no indication of when the next step will occur. I.e. the rate could drop from 50 to 25 tomorrow, then again in four years from tomorrow.
  • The 21 million bitcoin ceiling won't be hit until 2140!!! Everyone reading the article will be long dead when that day arrives. That number is correct, it's just not interesting enough to feature so prominently.

Chris Arnesen 18:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


Merchants accepting bitcoin

Reading through the entire article this morning I noticed there's virtually no mention of how and why merchants adopt Bitcoin. Even a careful reader will not be able to infer that Bitcoin has been added to ecommerce sites as an option alongside credit cards and PayPal, and that merchants do this because the processing fees are much lower and there's no risk of chargebacks. Generally, I think the article has too many words on history, speculation, crime, and protocol details, and too few words on how and why it is actually used. Canton (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that might be due to a dearth of sources. There just aren't all that many. Some I did manage to round up I pasted below. Fleetham (talk) 16:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
A sentence was recently added, "By November 2013 there were about 600 online businesses willing to accept payment in bitcoin." I like the spirit of this addition, but I question the number. Both Coinbase and Bitpay claim ten thousand+ merchants each. What's the real number? (The businessinsider.com article referenced by that sentence isn't loading for me, despite several attempts.) Chris Arnesen 04:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Today I had better luck loading the article http://www.businessinsider.com/rise-of-bitcoin-2013-11#ixzz2li5Yn79I. Sure enough, the author states, "Only about 600 online businesses worldwide accept Bitcoin, along with a scattered number of brick-and-mortar establishments such as Le Petit Jardin." For one thing, I'm super dubious of that number since both Bitpay and Coinbase each claim 10000+ merchants, and those are just two Bitcoin service companies. Secondly, if we're going to reference this article we should reference the original version from the Christian Science Monitor instead of the re-post on businessinsider.com. Chris Arnesen 01:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I contacted the author of the Christian Science Monitor article. I'll let yall know what she has to say about the 600 number.Chris Arnesen 03:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I never did hear back from the author. But now more than ever, I'm convinced that 600 is wrong by several orders of magnitude. This announces 75k merchants that can now accept bitcoin http://www.shopify.com/blog/10446157-shopify-merchants-can-now-accept-bitcoin#axzz2lutTfDRjChris Arnesen 05:53, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Still haven't heard back from the author. I yanked this sentence until we can come up with a more accurate number.Chris Arnesen 08:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you can't just "yank" cited content that you happen to dislike. I've restored the mention. Fleetham (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
@Fleetham: returns! Can't I yank content that I know to be incorrect? I don't know where that Christian Science Monitor got her number from but it's wrong. I contacted her to say as much but never heard back. I'll try to find a better reference. Chris Arnesen 19:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm researching this right now. So far I've learned that the "600" number most like was meant to be the number of "brick and mortar" stores that accept bitcoin, not the number of online merchants, which is larger by a couple orders of magnitude.Chris Arnesen 19:31, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
No, you cannot remove cited content you know to be untrue. See WP:TRUE. Fleetham (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
@Fleetham:. Which part of WP:TRUE are you referring to? I read it as saying that even true statement can be yanked (reverted). If that's the case then certainly an untrue statement is fair game for reversion. It doesn't say that an untrue statement *can't* be yanked just because it *does* have a reference. That wouldn't be a very sensible rule.Chris Arnesen 20:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Considering the link Chris posted above ([28]) says that over 75,000 vendors are accepting bitcoin on there alone, it's safe to say that the 600 number is outdated or wrong. Samwalton9 (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Turns out that shopify merchants, of which there are 75k, need to opt in to accepting bitcoin. I can't find a reference that says how many shopify merchants have actually opted in. I've found reliable references that support this language : "over a thousand brick and mortar stores and more than ten thousand merchants online". I'll make the change.Chris Arnesen 20:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The reference that I added only talks about Bitpay's 14000 vendors. Coinbase has another 10k+, but they don't charge a monthly fee like Bitpay so that needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Those are the two largest bitcoin merchant service companies in the USA. It would be nice to find a reference that tallies the number of merchants worldwide. Please keep an eye out.Chris Arnesen 00:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Here it is. This article states that Coinbase has 16k merchants "http://techcrunch.com/2013/12/12/coinbase-raises-25m-from-andreessen-horowitz-to-build-its-bitcoin-wallet-and-merchant-services/"Chris Arnesen 15:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I changed it to say "more than twenty thousand" and added the above link which says Coinbase alone has 16k merchants. Still looking for a better worldwide number and reference ...Chris Arnesen 17:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Taxation and regulation

I propose removing the section Bitcoin#Taxation and regulationin its entirety. The Bitcoin main page isn't the right place to offer nation-specific tax and legal advice. Chris Arnesen 05:10, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I readded a significant amount of the material you removed. If your going to use "legal advice" as reason to remove material, please take the effort and at least try to learn what you are talking about. At the very least, read the Wiktionary or Wikipedia articles. Please, specifically, see the types of information which is not considered legal advice, and be very careful of the particular details, such as who must provide it for it to be considered legal advice, and the difference between legal advice and plain legal information. I would also recommend you do your own research on the subject, as those articles are not particularly authoritative. Int21h (talk) 18:07, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
As a fellow Wikipedian once said, "please at the very least try to learn what you're talking about", and as it says at the top of this page, pretty please "be polite and welcoming, and assume good faith." I didn't remove anything on Taxation and regulation, I just proposed doing so. That section was moved verbatim to the History of Bitcoin page in this edit by User:Cliff12345. @Int21h:, in light of the fact that the section exists in the history article, do you think it should be duplicated on the main Bitcoin page too? I think not. Chris Arnesen 18:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry, I thought it was you who removed it, which is why I took offense. "Legal advice" is just such a silly reason given its murky legal status is a very visible aspect. Yes, I think it should be in the main article. I am aware of the FinCEN stuff, but it should be summarized in this article as well (we're talking just a sentence or two.) In the beginning, it was just FinCEN that was known about, but now there are others, enough for a section/subsection; maybe not even that, but just a summary as part of another section (I don't really know where though.) Not all of it needs to be here, just the most current information, the ultimate result, summarization, aims, results, who, etc. As more information accumulates in the history article, it will become both more necessary, and more difficult, to summarize. But in any event the subject is no more historical than any other subject in the main article. Int21h (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Mining hardware image

Samwalton9 solicited feedback and suggestions on from our compatriots on reddit [29]. One user suggested adding to the main page an image of Bitcoin mining hardware, "If you would like to add an asic pic, I'll release anything from codinginmysleep.com to public domain for the cause." There are several images already on Bitcoin protocol#Bitcoin mining, and I'd support adding one to the main page. Chris Arnesen 05:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)


Trademark

I think we should add a section about the trademark. I saw there is for instance a new application pending in India.--92.106.169.114 (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Trademark on what, specifically? Could you please elaborate, perhaps provide a link to an article that discusses it? Chris Arnesen 04:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2013

www.laburbujacambrica.blogspot.com.es/2013/12/bitcoins-y-como-multiplicar-el-valor-de.html 81.33.95.157 (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Request is not of the form please change X to Y Chris Arnesen 20:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done


Exchange failure rate

The following text: "A Wired study showed that 45 percent of Bitcoin exchanges end up closing.[63]" should be changed to "A published research study showed that 45 percent of Bitcoin exchanges end up closing [63].", and the current reference [63] should be replaced by:

[63] Moore, Tyler and Nicolas Christin (2013). Beware the Middleman: Empirical Analysis of Bitcoin-Exchange Risk. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security (FC'13). Naha, Japan. April 2013. (Paper available at http://fc13.ifca.ai/proc/1-2.pdf)

Reason for the edit request: Wired didn't have anything to do that study, they were simply reporting on the Financial Crypto paper. 111.189.248.225 (talk) 08:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the catch. --Laser brain (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Laser Brain for making the change. The sentence and reference still aren't quite right though. "A published research study showed that 45 percent of Bitcoin exchanges end up closing." That's not a true statement. The paper examined 40 Bitcoin exchanges, and 18 of those ended had closed by the time the paper was written. The authors make no assertion that their sample of exchanges was exhaustive, nor that they expect the failure rate to be 45% in the future. Their main conclusions are, "Less popular exchanges are more likely to be shut than popular ones" and "popular exchanges are more likely to suffer a security breach." In any case, as I understand it, secondary sources are preferred over original research papers (primary sources). Wikipedia:No_original_research Chris Arnesen 17:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Hm, that's a fair point. If we're coming right out and saying "a paper said such-and-such", I think we can cite the paper, but a secondary source would be preferred. If the statement is misleading anyway, we should fix it. Perhaps the Wired ref is fine as it was. I wouldn't object to being reverted if the change wasn't helpful. --Laser brain (talk) 21:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Your edit was an improvement. I was just saying that we're not quite to the finish line on this one. Chris Arnesen 05:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
I lazily removed the sentence. Samwalton9 was kind enough to restore it with a more accurate phrasing, "A published research study showed that of 40 Bitcoin exchanges studied, 18 ended up closing over a period of 3 years." I consider this item as resolved now. Chris Arnesen 17:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Under "Exchanges", we have "A published research study showed that of 40 Bitcoin exchanges studied, 18 ended up closing over a period of 3 years.[27]" That's correct, but dated. The paper came out in January 2013. At least three more of the exchanges listed in that paper have tanked since then. The article probably should mention the cutoff date for their stats. --John Nagle (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Not sure it necessarily matters when the cutoff date is, the quote clearly states that they closed over that period of 3 years and makes no claims to them still being around now. Samwalton9 (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

2012 Economist article in lede

To reference to a 2012 Economist article in the lede is pretty silly. That's ancient history in terms of Bitcoin evolution. The fact that Baidu and other major retailers have started accepting bitcoin payments sounds almost like an afterthought. Even information from early 2013 should be considered somewhat out of out of date. The price of bitcoins has gone up by orders of magnitude since then. American venture capitalists are dumping tens of millions of dollars into Bitcoin startups. Coinbase, for example, now has hundreds of thousands of users and tens of thousands of merchants, like a factor of 10 increase from earlier this year. Recent research indicates that the majority of Bitcoin usage right now is by currency speculators. We need to rewrite this lede paragraph "In 2012, The Economist reasoned ..."Chris Arnesen 03:57, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The sentence now reads, "Bitcoin has been a subject of scrutiny for its use in illicit activities." with a reference to the Economist article.Chris Arnesen 06:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

 Done

  1. ^ http://www.plus500.com/Instruments/BTCUSD
  2. ^ Android users at risk 11 August 2013
  3. ^ http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-developer-jeff-garzik-on-satoshi-nakamoto-and-the-future-of-bitcoin/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bitcoin/Archive_9&oldid=1111871208"