This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
The starting sentence: "Bitcoin has garnered comments and attention from economists and journalists, as well as investors and speculators." - this looks to be related to the "Reception" section. Thus, I would prefer to move it to "Reception", maybe together with the subsequent sentence. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 17:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Sressler ( talk) 12:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC) User:Sressler: "Bitcoin is a decentralized virtual currency..." [1] this characterization from the St. Louis Fed is accurate and we should use that characterization.
Although economists as of 2014 are still arguing, whether Bitcoin is money[72] this has not prevented their being used as a medium of exchange.[73] Bitcoin is used as a currency,[74] with about 1,000 brick and mortar businesses willing to accept payment in bitcoins as of November 2013[75] and more than 35,000 merchants online.[76] The bitcoin market currently suffers from volatility, limiting the ability of bitcoins to act as a stable store of value, which is condition 2 for a currency, <br besides condition 3 "being a unit of account, against which value an economy is measured".[72] At present, this appears in furthest reach given Bitcoin's money supply problems (disappearance of large exchangers) and finite reserves, the arbitrary cap of 21 million.[72] Nevertheless, Bitcoin has become a target for speculators trading bitcoins as a speculative asset, an investment vehicle, and a network serving customers of international remittance business.[77]
Being a unit of account is in furthest reach. and no your changes are not in concert with mine as they are misrepresenting teh source. BTW: the very last sentence which you deleted for no reason, isnt from me, was there before and since it is sourced I wouldnt delete it but move it to "speculators". As I have shown, subsection ledes are unusual on wikipedia ( exist in 12%- but you wrote "the norm").IN NO CASEweretehy subsection summaries, so I am all for cutting duplication ie move sentence to speculator subsection. -- Wuerzele ( talk) 09:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC).
I have got several notes to the "moneyness" of Bitcoin:
@ Agyle: saw you reverted insertion of the "arbitrary limit" of 21 million bitcoins. thanks for catching my error of not adding reference #7 - i dont know/recall what happened, I thought I did add it, but obviously I didnt @ Ladislav Mecir:thanks for rescuing the statement too. i've always wondered, where that 21 million number came from and when i found out, i had to add it.....happy spring, y'all, snow finally on the retreat and ground visible hereabouts!-- Wuerzele ( talk) 21:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Ladislav Mecir: Thank you again.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 06:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I would say that the previous formulation was not very readable, indeed. However, the formulation: "... user sends a payment it triggers..." is called "subject change" in some languages and it is strictly prohibited as not understandable. Thus, the updated formulation looks less readable than before. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 07:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Ladislav Mecir: I've added an Overview section as an introduction to the Transactions section which I think addresses the readability issues; I think users will have an easier time following Transactions after reading it. PTAL. Richardbondi ( talk) 03:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
A recent edit suggested that bitcoins miners be described as "those that volunteer to maintain the block chain." As miners maintain the block chain in the hopes of a 25 bitcoins reward, describing miners in this way is misleading. I understand that the wording is technically correct: volunteer does not necessarily denote someone who works without wages. As the word is often used to describe people who do charity work without pay, however, using it to describe miners could cause confusion. Why not simply say something along the lines of "those who freely take part in maintaining the block chain?" I've removed mention of miners as volunteers per WP:STATUSQUO. Fleetham ( talk) 05:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Wuerzele: (who presumably wrote the unsigned message above) No, and I can understand that questioning your content additions or changes can be annoying. I'll do less of that in the future. But that doesn't mean I don't have valid points, and the way to deal with such annoyances isn't to make personal attacks. Thanks for being civil in your above post. I suggest the best way forward is for everyone to worry less about minutia and focus more on adding cited content to the page. I don't think that the article is complete by any means, and there really is a lot of news articles about Bitcoin. By now there's probably also a much deeper pool of academic research. Fleetham ( talk) 07:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
In the "Buying and Selling Bitcoins" section I added the following:
This was reverted by another user today, and I'd like to propose its re-inclusion, since the news source is NPOV and the language used to describe CoinTouch was neutral. Beachy ( talk) 16:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Chrisarnesen: welcome back today after some weeks of absence. I noticed a number of deletions of my edits without properly explaining why (only "awkward" or "not a real thing"). As you may not know, or do not remember: I copy-edit for the main stream reader. If I add anything substantially new, it is carefully sourced info.
as far as the term 'pseudo-anonymous': It is a term I've seen used at least twice in connection to Bitcoin. [[An analysis of anonymity in the bitcoin system. Fergal Reid, Martin Harrigan. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.4524v2.pdf p1-28.7 May 2012. In Yaniv Altshuler, Yuval Elovici, Armin B. Cremers, Nadav Aharony, and Alex Pentland, editors, Security and Privacy in Social Networks, pages 197 223. Springer New York, 2013.]] and [[www. dl.acm.org/event.cfm?id=RE398 Sergio Martins and Yang Yang, Introduction to bitcoins: a pseudo-anonymous electronic currency system. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference of the Center for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research, CASCON '11, pages 349{350, Riverton, NJ, USA, 2011. IBM Corp.]]
It is not the same as pseudonymous, which means using a false identity to disguise a real one. Please check Pseudo-Anonymous, defined as Verified (Authenticated) but not traceable ( http://iiw.idcommons.net/Pseudo_Anonymity_and_Reputation_Systems) and [ Bitcoin not so anonymous, Irish researcher says. 2014 Deutsche Welle 29.07.2011 for example the developers would say that it's rather pseudo-anonymous.]] Before accusing/deleting , plse ask / discuss, just like you asked me, when I first came to this site. It's a small point, but its almost only single points you picked at.Thanks. -- Wuerzele ( talk) 06:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
i hear what you are saying. you claim pseudo-anonymous is "not commonly enough used" to be included on the page. That may be so. You say that "people have started using the right word now" (where right is undefined). i dont hear you understand why i wrote pseudo-anonymous instead of the term pseudonymous, which i was aware of. i see you didnt realize, that i could have possibly googled for pseudoanonymous. i see that you cant imagine, that i can wrap my mind around the assumed identity of a bitcoin address. i think you are talking past the point, and you are missing a nuance. i d appreciate, if you were more careful in assuming stuff and choosing neutral language in the edit summary. BTW i read the talk page before i "just weren't around yet to see it" and have seen what you have contributed on Bitcoin. i will not belabor this more. -- Wuerzele ( talk) 23:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Hmm @ Chrisarnesen: you could be right, but let's review these links. I defend the DMOZ link, because of its usability. I personally support the use of {{ dmoz}} instead of links flood. The shortcut of this policy is WP:ELMAYBE, but the full title is Links to be considered and regarding to it's content, in such cases like too many link this option really should be considered, I think. That's a recommended option to avoid of too many links. Chris, I hope you agree with me, this link is OK and resolves many problems.
I think the 2nd is rather too insignificant. Regarding the Interview link, it is better to place it in Bitcoin Foundation, there will be more useful. -- Rezonansowy ( talk • contribs) 13:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I support adding the DMOZ link to the EL list and removing the bitcoin.org link. @ Chrisarnesen: recently reinstated an EL to bitcoin.org, which I had deleted. While a lot of the content is acceptable, some does fall foul of WP:ELNO. In other places it doesn't fully meet the WP:ELYES criterion of "sites that contain neutral and accurate material..."
The above ELNO rule states that external links to avoid include those that mislead the reader by providing factually inaccurate information. The bitcoin.org FAQ, for example, states that Bitcoin "has a strong security track record" and that "there are often misconceptions about thefts and security breaches..."
Additionally, the FAQ is often a bit too forceful with its praise:
Such hagiographic language does not seem to fit with the site's stated aim to "remain a neutral informative resource about Bitcoin."
Some of the answers in the FAQ also make you think the site is not a neutral source. The answer to the question of criminal activities includes the statement: "Bitcoin can bring significant innovation... and the benefits of such innovation are often considered to be far beyond their potential drawbacks."
Chris states that bitcoin.org is only "loosely" associated with the Bitcoin Foundation. WP:ELNO admonishes any "blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." I'm not sure how the Bitcoin Foundation is associated with bitcoin.org, but their logo does appear on the site. In any case, some of the statements made on the Bitcoin Foundation website itself fail WP:FANSITE. Fleetham ( talk) 17:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Added DMOZ link. -- Rezonansowy ( talk | contribs) 17:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Fleetham reverted my edit: "... the US Treasury has called bitcoin a decentralized currency..." to a version using uppercase "Bitcoin" stating "see the lede". Citing: "Conventionally, the capitalized word "Bitcoin" refers to the technology and network, whereas lowercase "bitcoin" refers to the currency itself." The sentence explicitly refers to the currency ("decentralized currency"), so it is no doubt that the word should be lowercase. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 08:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Could somebody write an article on Bitcoin and taxes? There are a lot of different approaches between countries, and there seems to be a general lack of good basic information. Also, taxation procedures such as FIFO and LIFO accounting should be explained and their implications discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.11.33 ( talk) 21:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
The aspect of Bitcoin opening the doors to becoming the "internet of money" wasn't explicitly mentioned within the wikipedia page. I believe it is imperative that this issue be elevated into a subsection within the page or at least mentioned to some degree with key points highlighting aspects from the following articles:
Andreas Antonopoulos a prominent bitcoin leader explains bitcoin very well and provides a great analogy to look at twitter similar to e-mail and the internet: “This is the the internet of money; it’s not just money for the internet. [...] The bitcoin currency is just the first application – it’s like email on the internet – it’s good enough to change the world and have everyone adopt the internet…” http://www.singularityweblog.com/andreas-antonopoulos-on-bitcoin/
"It is true that Bitcoin can substitute for other currencies, but as with the Internet, the abstraction of a permissionless application layer means that it is much more than a substitute: it is like a transport layer for finance." http://theumlaut.com/2014/01/08/bitcoin-internet-of-money/
"The cryptographic advances and technologies underlying bitcoin will likely play a major role in the development of the Internet of Money, that is, an Internet era, digital money ecosystem. But, as is the case with all complex platforms, its architecture, protocols and governance will have to evolve. It remains to be seen whether the resulting platform will still be called bitcoin or if something else will have taken its place." http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2014/02/12/bitcoin-and-the-internet-of-money/
About Bitcoin#Security, another interesting issue is the "secure storage" (bitcoins banks), like " Xapo bank". -- Krauss ( talk) 16:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
See Bitcoin#Wallets (Security, theft and loss), some comment about "external storage" can be issued with this case explanation. -- Krauss ( talk) 21:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The lead summary of for the article has a distinct negative bias with a single positive remark "fees are lower", and 5 negative remarks "European warning", "bitcoins stolen", "illegal activities", "silk road", "China restrictions" in the last 2 paragraphs:
Bitcoin as a form of payment for products and services has seen growth,[13] and merchants have an incentive to accept the digital currency because fees are lower than the 2–3% typically imposed by credit card processors.[14] The European Banking Authority has warned that bitcoin lacks consumer protections.[15] Unlike credit cards, any fees are paid by the purchaser not the vendor. Bitcoins can be stolen and chargebacks are impossible.[16] Commercial use of bitcoin is currently small compared to its use by speculators, which has fueled price volatility.[17]
Bitcoin has been a subject of scrutiny amid concerns that it can be used for illegal activities.[18] In October 2013 the US FBI shut down the Silk Road online black market and seized 144,000 bitcoins worth US$28.5 million at the time.[19] The US is considered bitcoin-friendly compared to other governments, however.[20] In China, buying bitcoins with yuan is subject to restrictions, and bitcoin exchanges are not allowed to hold bank accounts.
But most importantly, the lead does not explain why some people are interested in Bitcoin. The answer to the question "why does this thing even exist?" is the most important answer in any Wikipedia article. So we need some words about its independence from central banks, its rapid worldwide transfer, zero transaction fees, the inability to have funds confiscated or transactions blocked, etc.
For controversial (and undecided) topics an article has to report the bias without being biased itself using words like "Proponents of the currency use it because..." Gandrewstone ( talk) 17:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you read the article carefully. I think most probably all the items you mentioned are already reflected in the article, properly referenced and in consensus. For example, we already know there is no such thing as generally zero transaction fees. MonteDaCunca ( talk) 18:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
My observation here is that the leading summary summarizes the "cons" of Bitcoin but not the "pros". This sets the tone and bias of the rest of the article. So in my opinion the "cons" should be removed from the leading summary, or the "pros" added, (regardless of whether they are repeated in the rest of the article). WRT zero transaction fees: as a user of Bitcoin I assure you that providing a transaction fee is generally optional. I've made lots of transactions with 0 txn fees. The only time you need one is if your transaction is small or it moves recently moved coins. In that case it is mandatory in an attempt to reduce transaction "spam". Regardless, please remember that the txn fee that we are talking about is a couple of cents so even WITH a transaction fee Bitcoin is still much cheaper than other transfer methods. Gandrewstone ( talk) 03:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Note: MonteDaCunca ( talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock of PennySeven ( talk · contribs) and has been blocked. If you see an editor with similar editing patterns (obvious from the SPI discussion), I suggest a quick revert and then filing an SPI report. LK ( talk) 06:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
"Most articles in Wikipedia contained "many errors"."
BBC is a Reliable Source.
Reality check!! ReadThisContributors ( talk) 16:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
"They printed off the articles on 25 April 2012 to analyse, and discovered that 90% of the entries made statements that contradicted latest medical research."
I'm sure the same is true for this bitcoin article and generally all articles on Wikipedia. ReadThisContributors ( talk) 16:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
90% of what is stated in Wikipedia contradict reality! lol ReadThisContributors ( talk) 16:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Currently, there are two citations used to support the 'Some media outlets do make a distinction between "real" money and bitcoins, however.' sentence. There is a problem with the second citation, however - the second citation does use the "real money" notion, but it does not make a distinction between bitcoin and the "real money". Thus, there is no reason to use it in the article for this purpose. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 13:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
The starting sentence: "Bitcoin has garnered comments and attention from economists and journalists, as well as investors and speculators." - this looks to be related to the "Reception" section. Thus, I would prefer to move it to "Reception", maybe together with the subsequent sentence. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 17:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Sressler ( talk) 12:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC) User:Sressler: "Bitcoin is a decentralized virtual currency..." [1] this characterization from the St. Louis Fed is accurate and we should use that characterization.
Although economists as of 2014 are still arguing, whether Bitcoin is money[72] this has not prevented their being used as a medium of exchange.[73] Bitcoin is used as a currency,[74] with about 1,000 brick and mortar businesses willing to accept payment in bitcoins as of November 2013[75] and more than 35,000 merchants online.[76] The bitcoin market currently suffers from volatility, limiting the ability of bitcoins to act as a stable store of value, which is condition 2 for a currency, <br besides condition 3 "being a unit of account, against which value an economy is measured".[72] At present, this appears in furthest reach given Bitcoin's money supply problems (disappearance of large exchangers) and finite reserves, the arbitrary cap of 21 million.[72] Nevertheless, Bitcoin has become a target for speculators trading bitcoins as a speculative asset, an investment vehicle, and a network serving customers of international remittance business.[77]
Being a unit of account is in furthest reach. and no your changes are not in concert with mine as they are misrepresenting teh source. BTW: the very last sentence which you deleted for no reason, isnt from me, was there before and since it is sourced I wouldnt delete it but move it to "speculators". As I have shown, subsection ledes are unusual on wikipedia ( exist in 12%- but you wrote "the norm").IN NO CASEweretehy subsection summaries, so I am all for cutting duplication ie move sentence to speculator subsection. -- Wuerzele ( talk) 09:25, 26 March 2014 (UTC).
I have got several notes to the "moneyness" of Bitcoin:
@ Agyle: saw you reverted insertion of the "arbitrary limit" of 21 million bitcoins. thanks for catching my error of not adding reference #7 - i dont know/recall what happened, I thought I did add it, but obviously I didnt @ Ladislav Mecir:thanks for rescuing the statement too. i've always wondered, where that 21 million number came from and when i found out, i had to add it.....happy spring, y'all, snow finally on the retreat and ground visible hereabouts!-- Wuerzele ( talk) 21:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Ladislav Mecir: Thank you again.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 06:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I would say that the previous formulation was not very readable, indeed. However, the formulation: "... user sends a payment it triggers..." is called "subject change" in some languages and it is strictly prohibited as not understandable. Thus, the updated formulation looks less readable than before. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 07:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Ladislav Mecir: I've added an Overview section as an introduction to the Transactions section which I think addresses the readability issues; I think users will have an easier time following Transactions after reading it. PTAL. Richardbondi ( talk) 03:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
A recent edit suggested that bitcoins miners be described as "those that volunteer to maintain the block chain." As miners maintain the block chain in the hopes of a 25 bitcoins reward, describing miners in this way is misleading. I understand that the wording is technically correct: volunteer does not necessarily denote someone who works without wages. As the word is often used to describe people who do charity work without pay, however, using it to describe miners could cause confusion. Why not simply say something along the lines of "those who freely take part in maintaining the block chain?" I've removed mention of miners as volunteers per WP:STATUSQUO. Fleetham ( talk) 05:49, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Wuerzele: (who presumably wrote the unsigned message above) No, and I can understand that questioning your content additions or changes can be annoying. I'll do less of that in the future. But that doesn't mean I don't have valid points, and the way to deal with such annoyances isn't to make personal attacks. Thanks for being civil in your above post. I suggest the best way forward is for everyone to worry less about minutia and focus more on adding cited content to the page. I don't think that the article is complete by any means, and there really is a lot of news articles about Bitcoin. By now there's probably also a much deeper pool of academic research. Fleetham ( talk) 07:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
In the "Buying and Selling Bitcoins" section I added the following:
This was reverted by another user today, and I'd like to propose its re-inclusion, since the news source is NPOV and the language used to describe CoinTouch was neutral. Beachy ( talk) 16:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
@ Chrisarnesen: welcome back today after some weeks of absence. I noticed a number of deletions of my edits without properly explaining why (only "awkward" or "not a real thing"). As you may not know, or do not remember: I copy-edit for the main stream reader. If I add anything substantially new, it is carefully sourced info.
as far as the term 'pseudo-anonymous': It is a term I've seen used at least twice in connection to Bitcoin. [[An analysis of anonymity in the bitcoin system. Fergal Reid, Martin Harrigan. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.4524v2.pdf p1-28.7 May 2012. In Yaniv Altshuler, Yuval Elovici, Armin B. Cremers, Nadav Aharony, and Alex Pentland, editors, Security and Privacy in Social Networks, pages 197 223. Springer New York, 2013.]] and [[www. dl.acm.org/event.cfm?id=RE398 Sergio Martins and Yang Yang, Introduction to bitcoins: a pseudo-anonymous electronic currency system. In Proceedings of the 2011 Conference of the Center for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research, CASCON '11, pages 349{350, Riverton, NJ, USA, 2011. IBM Corp.]]
It is not the same as pseudonymous, which means using a false identity to disguise a real one. Please check Pseudo-Anonymous, defined as Verified (Authenticated) but not traceable ( http://iiw.idcommons.net/Pseudo_Anonymity_and_Reputation_Systems) and [ Bitcoin not so anonymous, Irish researcher says. 2014 Deutsche Welle 29.07.2011 for example the developers would say that it's rather pseudo-anonymous.]] Before accusing/deleting , plse ask / discuss, just like you asked me, when I first came to this site. It's a small point, but its almost only single points you picked at.Thanks. -- Wuerzele ( talk) 06:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
i hear what you are saying. you claim pseudo-anonymous is "not commonly enough used" to be included on the page. That may be so. You say that "people have started using the right word now" (where right is undefined). i dont hear you understand why i wrote pseudo-anonymous instead of the term pseudonymous, which i was aware of. i see you didnt realize, that i could have possibly googled for pseudoanonymous. i see that you cant imagine, that i can wrap my mind around the assumed identity of a bitcoin address. i think you are talking past the point, and you are missing a nuance. i d appreciate, if you were more careful in assuming stuff and choosing neutral language in the edit summary. BTW i read the talk page before i "just weren't around yet to see it" and have seen what you have contributed on Bitcoin. i will not belabor this more. -- Wuerzele ( talk) 23:32, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Hmm @ Chrisarnesen: you could be right, but let's review these links. I defend the DMOZ link, because of its usability. I personally support the use of {{ dmoz}} instead of links flood. The shortcut of this policy is WP:ELMAYBE, but the full title is Links to be considered and regarding to it's content, in such cases like too many link this option really should be considered, I think. That's a recommended option to avoid of too many links. Chris, I hope you agree with me, this link is OK and resolves many problems.
I think the 2nd is rather too insignificant. Regarding the Interview link, it is better to place it in Bitcoin Foundation, there will be more useful. -- Rezonansowy ( talk • contribs) 13:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
I support adding the DMOZ link to the EL list and removing the bitcoin.org link. @ Chrisarnesen: recently reinstated an EL to bitcoin.org, which I had deleted. While a lot of the content is acceptable, some does fall foul of WP:ELNO. In other places it doesn't fully meet the WP:ELYES criterion of "sites that contain neutral and accurate material..."
The above ELNO rule states that external links to avoid include those that mislead the reader by providing factually inaccurate information. The bitcoin.org FAQ, for example, states that Bitcoin "has a strong security track record" and that "there are often misconceptions about thefts and security breaches..."
Additionally, the FAQ is often a bit too forceful with its praise:
Such hagiographic language does not seem to fit with the site's stated aim to "remain a neutral informative resource about Bitcoin."
Some of the answers in the FAQ also make you think the site is not a neutral source. The answer to the question of criminal activities includes the statement: "Bitcoin can bring significant innovation... and the benefits of such innovation are often considered to be far beyond their potential drawbacks."
Chris states that bitcoin.org is only "loosely" associated with the Bitcoin Foundation. WP:ELNO admonishes any "blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority." I'm not sure how the Bitcoin Foundation is associated with bitcoin.org, but their logo does appear on the site. In any case, some of the statements made on the Bitcoin Foundation website itself fail WP:FANSITE. Fleetham ( talk) 17:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Added DMOZ link. -- Rezonansowy ( talk | contribs) 17:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Fleetham reverted my edit: "... the US Treasury has called bitcoin a decentralized currency..." to a version using uppercase "Bitcoin" stating "see the lede". Citing: "Conventionally, the capitalized word "Bitcoin" refers to the technology and network, whereas lowercase "bitcoin" refers to the currency itself." The sentence explicitly refers to the currency ("decentralized currency"), so it is no doubt that the word should be lowercase. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 08:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Could somebody write an article on Bitcoin and taxes? There are a lot of different approaches between countries, and there seems to be a general lack of good basic information. Also, taxation procedures such as FIFO and LIFO accounting should be explained and their implications discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.135.11.33 ( talk) 21:23, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
The aspect of Bitcoin opening the doors to becoming the "internet of money" wasn't explicitly mentioned within the wikipedia page. I believe it is imperative that this issue be elevated into a subsection within the page or at least mentioned to some degree with key points highlighting aspects from the following articles:
Andreas Antonopoulos a prominent bitcoin leader explains bitcoin very well and provides a great analogy to look at twitter similar to e-mail and the internet: “This is the the internet of money; it’s not just money for the internet. [...] The bitcoin currency is just the first application – it’s like email on the internet – it’s good enough to change the world and have everyone adopt the internet…” http://www.singularityweblog.com/andreas-antonopoulos-on-bitcoin/
"It is true that Bitcoin can substitute for other currencies, but as with the Internet, the abstraction of a permissionless application layer means that it is much more than a substitute: it is like a transport layer for finance." http://theumlaut.com/2014/01/08/bitcoin-internet-of-money/
"The cryptographic advances and technologies underlying bitcoin will likely play a major role in the development of the Internet of Money, that is, an Internet era, digital money ecosystem. But, as is the case with all complex platforms, its architecture, protocols and governance will have to evolve. It remains to be seen whether the resulting platform will still be called bitcoin or if something else will have taken its place." http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2014/02/12/bitcoin-and-the-internet-of-money/
About Bitcoin#Security, another interesting issue is the "secure storage" (bitcoins banks), like " Xapo bank". -- Krauss ( talk) 16:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
See Bitcoin#Wallets (Security, theft and loss), some comment about "external storage" can be issued with this case explanation. -- Krauss ( talk) 21:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The lead summary of for the article has a distinct negative bias with a single positive remark "fees are lower", and 5 negative remarks "European warning", "bitcoins stolen", "illegal activities", "silk road", "China restrictions" in the last 2 paragraphs:
Bitcoin as a form of payment for products and services has seen growth,[13] and merchants have an incentive to accept the digital currency because fees are lower than the 2–3% typically imposed by credit card processors.[14] The European Banking Authority has warned that bitcoin lacks consumer protections.[15] Unlike credit cards, any fees are paid by the purchaser not the vendor. Bitcoins can be stolen and chargebacks are impossible.[16] Commercial use of bitcoin is currently small compared to its use by speculators, which has fueled price volatility.[17]
Bitcoin has been a subject of scrutiny amid concerns that it can be used for illegal activities.[18] In October 2013 the US FBI shut down the Silk Road online black market and seized 144,000 bitcoins worth US$28.5 million at the time.[19] The US is considered bitcoin-friendly compared to other governments, however.[20] In China, buying bitcoins with yuan is subject to restrictions, and bitcoin exchanges are not allowed to hold bank accounts.
But most importantly, the lead does not explain why some people are interested in Bitcoin. The answer to the question "why does this thing even exist?" is the most important answer in any Wikipedia article. So we need some words about its independence from central banks, its rapid worldwide transfer, zero transaction fees, the inability to have funds confiscated or transactions blocked, etc.
For controversial (and undecided) topics an article has to report the bias without being biased itself using words like "Proponents of the currency use it because..." Gandrewstone ( talk) 17:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you read the article carefully. I think most probably all the items you mentioned are already reflected in the article, properly referenced and in consensus. For example, we already know there is no such thing as generally zero transaction fees. MonteDaCunca ( talk) 18:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
My observation here is that the leading summary summarizes the "cons" of Bitcoin but not the "pros". This sets the tone and bias of the rest of the article. So in my opinion the "cons" should be removed from the leading summary, or the "pros" added, (regardless of whether they are repeated in the rest of the article). WRT zero transaction fees: as a user of Bitcoin I assure you that providing a transaction fee is generally optional. I've made lots of transactions with 0 txn fees. The only time you need one is if your transaction is small or it moves recently moved coins. In that case it is mandatory in an attempt to reduce transaction "spam". Regardless, please remember that the txn fee that we are talking about is a couple of cents so even WITH a transaction fee Bitcoin is still much cheaper than other transfer methods. Gandrewstone ( talk) 03:23, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Note: MonteDaCunca ( talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock of PennySeven ( talk · contribs) and has been blocked. If you see an editor with similar editing patterns (obvious from the SPI discussion), I suggest a quick revert and then filing an SPI report. LK ( talk) 06:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
"Most articles in Wikipedia contained "many errors"."
BBC is a Reliable Source.
Reality check!! ReadThisContributors ( talk) 16:37, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
"They printed off the articles on 25 April 2012 to analyse, and discovered that 90% of the entries made statements that contradicted latest medical research."
I'm sure the same is true for this bitcoin article and generally all articles on Wikipedia. ReadThisContributors ( talk) 16:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
90% of what is stated in Wikipedia contradict reality! lol ReadThisContributors ( talk) 16:59, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Currently, there are two citations used to support the 'Some media outlets do make a distinction between "real" money and bitcoins, however.' sentence. There is a problem with the second citation, however - the second citation does use the "real money" notion, but it does not make a distinction between bitcoin and the "real money". Thus, there is no reason to use it in the article for this purpose. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 13:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)