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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
Hi, I found this source to be interesting. Is it acceptable for the article? Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 13:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
While bitcoin is called an alternative currency, that is not what the section is about. The contents describe the situation when it is used as a hedge against inflation and financial crises. That is why I propose to replace the title by "As hedge". Another alternative that comes to mind may be "Safe haven". Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 12:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The "Speculative bubble" section presents 5 different opinions ranging from "Bitcoin is a speculative bubble" to the rejection of the term. It is a matter of dispute whether bitcoin is a speculative bubble or not. The section name is not neutral, picking one of the opinions and presenting it as a fact. I am sure that a more neutral section name can be found. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 20:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
@ Wuerzele: your edit #634475859 uses the following justification: "Bitcoin magazine is a primary source". I do assume good faith, but your justification turns out to be poorly researched:
Examining the article you marked as a primary source, it is very easy to find out that the sources of the data (the primary sources) used in the article are:
This makes it easy to judge that the discussed article is a secondary source. Based on this evidence, I find your edit unjustified, and have to revert it for that reason. Hope you will do a better job next time. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 10:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
@ Wuerzele: now I see that instead of taking seriously my suggestion to research the problem properly, you hurried up to push your opinion again. Due to the existing hedging fallacy and Proof by verbosity, I cannot refute all what you said above, but I refute enough to prove that your edit #634782486 is not justified by your above arguments. Your current claim I shall refute is: Bitcoinmagazine is not a WP:independent source.
Regarding your arguments related to Jon Matonis, they have the same level of relevance, but I do not intend to continue, seeing that this rebuttal is already both convincing that you:
Having refuted your justification again, I see that your edit specified above is unjustified, and am reverting it for that reason. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 04:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I think that it is possible to enhance the "Price and volatility" section by adding a chart to it. There are already two sources containing charts related to the subject. One of the related charts is the chart #7 in the Bitcoin Charts, Finally article. The Bitcoin Volatility – The 4 perspectives also contains charts depicting bitcoin volatility. I guess that it would be best to take the above mentioned chart #7 as the basis. There are some issues I am having with the chart, though:
@ JorgeGabriel: your recent additions to the "Ponzi scheme dispute" section are unrelated to the subject. There once was a "Ponzi scheme" subsection in the "Criminal activities" section, which contained the news you are referring to, using even better sources than your contributions. The contents was removed by Fleetham. Please discuss here if you want the contents to be restored, I do not object against it, I just insist that this particular contents is not subject to dispute and does not belong to the "...dispute" section where you put it. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 22:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Note 14 should be translated into English. This is the English Wikipedia. JorgeGabriel ( talk) 13:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
To recap, before Fleetham made his edit #633586783, the wording of the note #7 was:
Bitcoin facilitates illegal trading like USD, gold, etc. It is like cash in facilitating illegal trades. The difference is that bitcoin transaction history is publicly available, while cash transaction history is not. Bitcoin also facilitates legal trading.
Fleetham justified his
#633586783 as follows: "add further info to footnote for balance". I think that it is OK to achieve the
WP:NPOV, but the current result is actually violating the policy, and here is why looks like needing a closer inspection:
Summarizing the above discussion, it looks that there is no contest that Andolfatto's views in note#7 are presented correctly and in a way compliant with WP:NPOV. Thanks, Fleetham, that is what I wanted to know. Now to the need to balance aspects, which is what Fleetham appears to be worried about. Indeed, there is a requirement per WP:NPOV to represent the aspects giving different points an appropriate weight. Here are the facts:
Summing up, the editorializing "Despite this" is misleading and inappropriate. The claims inserted to the end of note#7 are already present in the article. Deleting them from note#7 will improve the readability of the note, while not disbalancing the text of the article in any way. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 09:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
As explained here, I removed the duplicates of the claims already present in the article. (see edit #635351791 and the justification I wrote here. Fleetham reverted using this unjustified revert. I do not start any edit war, I am just pointing out that:
@ Fleetham: This is a dispute handling the neutrality of the article. To remind you, there have been these findings related to your edits:
I reverted the contents of the paragraph #4 of the lead section to the status quo. That does not mean I am content with its present wording. There are issues that must be handled:
Actually, I'd prefer that you "comment on content, not on the contributor" per Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Let's keep the conversation civil and focused on achieving a rules-based consensus. Fleetham ( talk) 13:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I continue the discussion about the content with respect to the neutral point of view. Above I proposed that the first sentence of the paragraph #7 of the lead section misquoted its source, pretending that the hearing actually "has been" held, while the source clearly stated that it was written by The Washington Post journalist Ryan Tracy on 5 November 2013 before the event started. The same Washington Post journalist Ryan Tracy wrote on 18 November 2014 2013: 'U.S. authorities, appearing Monday [18 November 2014 2013] at the first-ever congressional hearing on virtual currencies, outlined the pitfalls and promises of bitcoin amid concern the anonymity and decentralized nature of some virtual currencies can help facilitate crimes. The hearing provided a financial lift to bitcoin as U.S. officials, who have previously highlighted the currency's role in money laundering and other illicit activities, called it a "legitimate" financial service.' This is the actual report from the hearings containing facts from the hearings, not a preview written before the scrutiny started.
Ladislav Mecir (
talk) 10:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC) This demonstrates that the current first sentence of the paragraph #4 is nonneutral in presenting the preview opinion as a fact, instead of properly using the facts from the source informing about the event.
Ladislav Mecir (
talk)
10:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Taking into account that it is infeasible to list all items that can be purchased with bitcoins in the lead section, it is also inappropriate and nonneutral to list all illicit items that can be purchased with bitcoins. Therefore, the list of illicit items should be removed from the lead. Similarly, it is infeasible to list all opinions on bitcoin, therefore, to be nonneutral, it is also not avisable to list all the opinion Fleetham tried to introduce. Also, it is infeasible to list all the merchants offering goods or services for bitcoin, therefore one should not single out Silk Road either. To not leave out important informations, I propose to use this formulation replacing the current wording of the paragraph #4:
The first-ever U.S. congressional hearing on virtual currencies was held on 18 November
20142013. Authorities appearing at the hearing outlined the pitfalls and promises of bitcoin amid concern the anonymity and decentralized nature of some virtual currencies can help facilitate crimes. At the hearing, the officials who have previously highlighted the currency's role in money laundering and other illicit activities, called bitcoin a "legitimate" financial service.
The text is verified by above mentioned Washington Post article. The proposed wording represents the concerns that bitcoin can be used for illicit purchases balanced by the result of the senate hearings. Importantly, this wording also respects the reservations presented by Creationlayer, and does not present journalist opinions, but facts. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 16:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The first-ever U.S. congressional hearing on virtual currencies was held on 18 November
20142013. Authorities appearing at the hearing outlined the pitfalls and promises of bitcoin amid concern the virtual currencies can help facilitate crimes. At the hearing, the officials who have previously highlighted the currency's role in money laundering and other illicit activities, called bitcoin a "legitimate" financial service.
@ Wuerzele: thank you for correcting the mismatch in dates. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 13:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
@ Creationlayer: @ JorgeGabriel: @ Wuerzele: - you may have already noticed that Fleetham made edits contradicting the consensus achieved above. I warned him that he is disrupting the consensus, but did not succeed to convince him to stop. The only way how to proceed further is if one of you tries to convince Fleetham to stop making edits that are not compatible with the WP policies. Thank you. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 01:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
90 minutes is not enough to establish a consensus, especially given that many of us work 9-5 jobs and can't keep monitoring your constant stream of edits. So I restored the content that you removed (thus pushing a biased POV). Vladimir old chap I think you need to take a small wiki-break from wiki-editing. You're constantly reverting and editing people's edits to push your pro-bitcoin agenda and there's hardly an opening for any other properly-cited yet somewhat-negative-to-bitcoin-aficionados to get a word in. Why not get off the computer and take a small holiday? When you come back, the article will be in much better shape. BoA-BTCopsec-14 ( talk) 22:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
There doesn't appear to be a current consensus on how the lede should deal with the issue of criminality and bitcoin... While one editor (Ladislav) appeared to have gotten a consensus that the phrase "bitcoin is a subject of scrutiny" should be removed, the entire paragraph that began with that quote was removed and replaced by what appeared to be POV-pushing material... I went ahead and removed the "subject of scrutiny" phrasing from the lede, but further changes should be discussed. There's no firm consensus on removing an entire paragraph related to bitcoin being used in online black markets. Fleetham ( talk) 23:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
A recent editor removed sourced content that explained that while many bitcoin thefts have occurred, the Bitcoin Foundation states that theft is impossible. The note left explaining this removal stated: "The Bitcoin Foundation clearly claims that theft is impossible if and only if the private key is secure. If that weren't the case, the system would not work. In every single instance of theft, the key was improperly secured."
This is false. The Bitcoin Foundation states, in full, "Cryptography is the key to Bitcoin's success. It’s the reason that no one can double spend, counterfeit or steal bitcoins. To ensure that Bitcoin is a viable money for both current users and future adopters, we legally protect the protocol and its many lawful, productive uses.". See this page.
No where in that is mention of securing private keys. Please take more care when editing...
Are you looking to have your edits reverted? Apologies in advance if that's a WP:PA... Fleetham ( talk) 23:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
What is false? If it were possible to steal Bitcoin without first stealing the private key, the system would not work. This is a fact. I believe it is painfully obvious that Bitcoin Foundation does not state that the theft of a private key is impossible.
"Cryptography is the key to Bitcoin's success" clearly assumes that the private key is kept private, not leaked in any fashion.
I am reverting your revert. That statement adds nothing but confusion, especially if you read the following few sentences.
Mrcatzilla (
talk)
02:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Let me summarize the state of this dispute. After the edit #636087685, there was this sentence:
There have been many cases of bitcoin theft[39] despite claims made by the Bitcoin Foundation that theft is impossible.[221]
While both parts of the sentence are properly sourced, the whole sentence fits the description at WP:SYN stating: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Thus, the sentence is a synthesis of the published material. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 01:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Article mentions the biggest Bitcoin purchase of a $500,000 Bali house, yet in Estonia a $1.3 million manorhouse has been reported to have been bought for Bitcoin. Two sources in English: http://news.err.ee/v/economy/53ba6308-7ca1-4b4a-9a52-0156165267d6 http://hans.lougas.ee/2014/03/bitcoin-can-buy-you-a-1-3m-manor-house/
The formulation:
Although its status as a currency is disputed, media reports often refer to bitcoin as a cryptocurrency or digital currency.
Fits the definition of WP:SYNTH since it combines different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion that the claims may contradict each other, while no such implication is present in the source. To correct it, I propose to replace the formulation by:
Media reports often refer to bitcoin as a cryptocurrency or digital currency. The status of bitcoin as a currency is disputed.
Keeping the citation already present in the article to verify the claims. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 08:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
In his revert #637305164 Fleetham wrote: "Discuss this on talk", while that is exactly the opposite of what he is doing. Pretending there was some consensus on his changes. Since that is actually not the case, I revert the head section to the consensual state following the last neutrality dispute and open this new dispute to find out whether there is any new consensus on the neutral wording of the section. I summarize my opinions here:
I'm happy to engage in a content related discussion, and I'm sure we can hammer out a summary of the criminal activities section that is mutually agreeable. Fleetham ( talk) 12:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The WP:NPOV dispute at #Achieving neutral point of view has been resolved on 27 November 2014, by inserting a paragraph summarizing the fears of illicit uses of bitcoin.
Fleetham requested a discussion to change the consensus. Instead of discussing a change as declared, Fleetham inserted a duplicate of the list of illicit items that can be bought with bitcoins from the "Criminal activities" section.
That is not acceptable, being an unbalanced change, and a change not adhering to the policy to put summaries of contents of the article body to the lead section. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 10:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
To make things straight for other editors, this is a neutrality dispute that has been properly announced using the "POV-section" template, and started due to Fleetham's request. Since then, Fleetham announced his willingness to discuss the neutrality of the section here, but disproved his willingness making these edits that were found nonneutral and nonconsensual: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].
(For interested editors, notice that Fleetham made himself one of the "above par" sources of the article, as his "as far as I know, bitcoins are ALWAYS seized when online black markets have been shut down" statement demonstrates, and an authority to remove sources he considers "below par" without a proper justification.)
Wuerzele TyHeers Scott Illini Pgan002 Creationlayer Mrcatzilla TimidGuy Chrisarnesen Richardbondi please check this balancing
In 2013, U.S. financial regulators and law enforcement agencies and senators Tom Carper and Tom Coburn expressed concerns that bitcoin can be used for illicit activities. [9] At the senate hearing, held on 18 November 2013, the officials, who emphasized the role of bitcoin in criminal activities prior to the hearing, called the currency a "legitimate" financial service. [10]
Justification:
Bitcoin Comes Under Senate Scrutiny
By RYAN TRACY
CONNECT
Bitcoin is about to get some time in the Capitol Hill spotlight.
A pair of Senate committees will hold hearings on the policy issues raised by virtual currencies in the coming weeks, according to Senate aides, a development that comes amid growing attention from government regulators to digital forms of money.
Bitcoin, a currency that is essentially a computer code and is not backed by any government, has seen its value surge this year because of interest from retailers and investors. But government agencies have also stepped up their oversight of the loosely regulated currency amid fears it could be used to facilitate criminal activity.
The two Senate hearings – the first to focus on bitcoin – are likely to examine how regulators are responding to the new forms of payment, the aides said. Potential points of discussion include how financial-industry regulators will watch over investment in the new currencies and how virtual currencies might impede tax collection or facilitate trade in illegal products out of the sight of law enforcement.
No dates have been set for the hearings and the witness lists are not final, but representatives of the government and private sector are expected to testify. The hearings will be held by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs and by a subpart of the Senate Banking Committee, the aides said.
By summoning officials from the executive branch to talk about bitcoin, lawmakers are signaling that virtual currencies should be a priority. Sens. Tom Carper (D., Del.) and Tom Coburn (R., Okla.), the top lawmakers on the Homeland Security panel, have also asked several financial-industry regulators and law-enforcement agencies for information about their policies on virtual currencies.
In an Aug. 12 letter, the senators cited a number of policy concerns, including a Texas case this year in which a man was charged with running a bitcoin-related Ponzi scheme and a May Government Accountability Office report that said the use of virtual currencies could lead to lost tax revenue.
“As with all emerging technologies, the federal government must make sure that potential threats and risks are dealt with swiftly; however, we must also ensure that rash or uninformed actions don’t stifle a potentially valuable technology,” Messrs. Carper and Coburn wrote in their letter, which went to the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Department of Justice and the Treasury Department.
22:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleetham ( talk • contribs)
Authorities See Worth of Bitcoin
By RYAN TRACY CONNECT Updated Nov. 18, 2013 11:56 p.m. ET WASHINGTON—Senior U.S. law-enforcement and regulatory officials said they see benefits in digital forms of money and are making progress in tackling its risks. The price of bitcoin, the most common virtual currency, soared to a record following the comments.
U.S. authorities, appearing Monday at the first-ever congressional hearing on virtual currencies, outlined the pitfalls and promises of bitcoin amid concern the anonymity and decentralized nature of some virtual currencies can help facilitate crimes. The hearing provided a financial lift to bitcoin as U.S. officials, who have previously highlighted the currency's role in money laundering and other illicit activities, called it a "legitimate" financial service.
Is Bitcoin another flash in the pan? Or are the early investors onto something -- that will make them rich? WSJ's Jason Bellini has #TheShortAnswer. More Price Zooms Ahead of Hearing Read the Regulators' Testimony Bits and Pieces Mystery still surrounds Bitcoin. Its creator -— or creators -— has remained anonymous and specific details surrounding the history of the virtual currency remain fuzzy. Still, buzz is growing. Here's a rough timeline of the Bitcoin evolution.
View Graphics
"The Department of Justice recognizes that many virtual currency systems offer legitimate financial services and have the potential to promote more efficient global commerce," Mythili Raman, acting assistant attorney general for the department's criminal division, said in testimony before the SenateHomeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who didn't attend the hearing, said in a letter to senators that virtual currencies "may hold long-term promise, particularly if the innovations promote a faster, more secure, and more efficient payment system."
Enlarge Image
Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman, at hearing. Associated Press The price of bitcoin soared early Monday after the officials' statements were widely reported. On one exchange, Tokyo-based Mt. Gox, the price topped $700. Bitcoin traded at about $13 in January.
The total market capitalization of the bitcoin economy now exceeds $8 billion based on recent prices, according to the website Bitcoincharts.com.
The congressional hearing is the first of two being held this week, with the Senate Banking Committee expected to hear from a senior Treasury Department official and a Massachusetts banking regulator on Tuesday. Despite interest in bitcoin, Monday's hearing was attended by only one member of the Senate panel, Sen. Tom Carper (D., Del.), who chairs the committee. Other senators were still en route to Washington after spending the weekend in their home states.
Enlarge Image
Gabriel Scheare uses the world's first bitcoin ATM in October at a coffee shop in Vancouver, Canada. The ATM, named Robocoin, allows users to buy or sell the digital currency. Getty Images Sen. Carper didn't outline any legislative proposals for digital money and said he was focused on gathering information. "Virtual currencies, perhaps most notably bitcoin, have captured the imagination of some, struck fear among others and confused the heck out of the rest of us, including me," Sen. Carper said.
Bitcoin is a four-year-old virtual currency that isn't backed by a central bank and can be traded on a number of exchanges or swapped privately. Its price has vaulted to records in recent weeks, fueled by investor views that the virtual currency can have a credible future as an alternative to traditional methods of payment. A number of merchants are accepting bitcoin as payment because the transaction costs associated with the currency are generally lower than those with credit or debit cards.
The skyrocketing prices of bitcoin, along with the use of the currency by both online and brick-and-mortar retailers, have caught Washington's attention. Regulators have warned money-transfer businesses they must follow the same rules as established financial institutions, including complying with anti-money-laundering laws. Authorities have begun meeting with other government agencies to follow new developments, including one led by the Federal Bureau of Investigation that is tracking emerging threats related to the technology. Last month, authorities disclosed they took down Silk Road, an online marketplace for illicit goods that used bitcoin as a form of payment.
At a Monday Senate hearing, Jennifer Shasky Calvery of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and Mythili Raman of the Department of Justice Criminal Division discussed the matter of virtual currencies such as Bitcoin. (Photo: AP) U.S. law-enforcement officials outline the pitfalls and promise of virtual currencies at the first-ever Senate hearing on the matter. Aaron Lucchetti reports on the News Hub. (Photo: Getty) From the Archives Bitcoin Couple Leave Wallet Behind (Nov. 14, 2013) Hire Boosts Bitcoin Credibility (Nov. 14, 2013) For Virtual Prospectors, Life in the Bitcoin Mines Gets Real (Sept. 19, 2013) Bitcoin Primer: What to Know
Video: What's a Bitcoin?
Ms. Raman said that while the anonymity of virtual currencies appeals to criminals and poses a challenge for law enforcement, U.S. authorities have "been able to keep pace with that, and we've been able to develop protocols and strategies to address it."
At Monday's hearing, officials from the U.S. Secret Service, which investigates counterfeit currencies, and the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network detailed successful investigations into criminals using bitcoin or other currencies.
Jennifer Shasky Calvery, director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, said virtual currency transactions are still relatively small in value compared with global criminal proceeds.
She said she didn't believe the virtual currencies had exposed significant gaps in current law. "We feel like we have a pretty good basis to act," she said. Ms. Shasky will attend Tuesday's Senate Banking Committee hearing.
Sen. Carper said he is "encouraged that maybe it's possible to have the benefits of virtual currencies and to actually be able to not facilitate" criminal activity.
However, he also expressed concern that virtual currencies are being used for crimes, including "selling weapons, child pornography and even murder-for-hire services."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleetham ( talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 22:57, 17 December 2014
In 2013, U.S. financial regulators and law enforcement agencies expressed concerns that bitcoin can be used for illicit activities. [11] At the senate hearing, held on 18 November 2013, the officials, who emphasized the role of bitcoin in criminal activities prior to the hearing, called the currency a "legitimate" financial service. [12]
At a 2013 US Senate hearing on virtual currencies, law enforcement officials, who had emphasized the role of bitcoin in criminal activities prior, recognized that cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin provide legitimate financial services.
Fleetham ( talk) 02:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)US law enforcement officials and regulators, who had emphasized the role of bitcoin in criminal activities prior, recognized at a November 2013 US Senate hearing on virtual currencies that cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin can provide legitimate financial services to legitimate customers.
U.S. law enforcement officials and financial regulators, who had emphasized the role of bitcoin in criminal activities prior, [13] recognized at a November 2013 U.S. Senate hearing on virtual currencies that cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin can provide legitimate financial services to customers. [14]
Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 07:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Ladislav Mecir, I only agree with the proposed sentence, if it indeed replaces the litany of evil /black market gloss as Fleetham calls it, which he inserted as a 4th paragraph of the lede, as was previously discussed. -- Wuerzele ( talk) 19:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
It's very clearly not neutral in its current form, absurdly so IMO. This article should be primarily about the technology. Instead we have multiple references in the lede for the fact that bitcoin can be used to buy child porn. I can't even look at the article that I spent so much time on earlier this year it's so bad and biased now. I really appreciate the efforts of everyone who tries to hold the line against Fleetham and the other bitcoin haters. I just don't have it in me anymore. Chris Arnesen 16:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Whatever the case, the statement "a clear warning sign that bitcoin is risky" is unsupported opinion and should be removed. "Developing countries are less receptive." makes a causal claim that is not cited, and should be cited or removed. ☃ Unicodesnowman ( talk) 01:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The opinion "Tennessee Department of Financial Institutions Commissioner Greg Gonzales said “(Digital) currency is defined as an electronic medium of exchange that does not have all the attributes of real currencies.”" gives undue weight to a particular opinion in the moneyness dispute. I propose to replace the opinion by a fact: "The status of bitcoin as a currency is disputed." Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 23:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Support substitution of fact. @ Ladislav Mecir: any objections? Yoshi24517 Chat Absent 22:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
So, are we done here? Is everything fixed? I wanted to see if we could nominate this for a good article. Yoshi24517 Chat Absent 22:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't look like there are anymore problems. Archiving to Bitcoin Archive 22, and nominating per WP:GA Yoshi24517 Chat Absent 22:56, 6 January 2015 (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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
Hi, I found this source to be interesting. Is it acceptable for the article? Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 13:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
While bitcoin is called an alternative currency, that is not what the section is about. The contents describe the situation when it is used as a hedge against inflation and financial crises. That is why I propose to replace the title by "As hedge". Another alternative that comes to mind may be "Safe haven". Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 12:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
The "Speculative bubble" section presents 5 different opinions ranging from "Bitcoin is a speculative bubble" to the rejection of the term. It is a matter of dispute whether bitcoin is a speculative bubble or not. The section name is not neutral, picking one of the opinions and presenting it as a fact. I am sure that a more neutral section name can be found. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 20:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
@ Wuerzele: your edit #634475859 uses the following justification: "Bitcoin magazine is a primary source". I do assume good faith, but your justification turns out to be poorly researched:
Examining the article you marked as a primary source, it is very easy to find out that the sources of the data (the primary sources) used in the article are:
This makes it easy to judge that the discussed article is a secondary source. Based on this evidence, I find your edit unjustified, and have to revert it for that reason. Hope you will do a better job next time. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 10:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
@ Wuerzele: now I see that instead of taking seriously my suggestion to research the problem properly, you hurried up to push your opinion again. Due to the existing hedging fallacy and Proof by verbosity, I cannot refute all what you said above, but I refute enough to prove that your edit #634782486 is not justified by your above arguments. Your current claim I shall refute is: Bitcoinmagazine is not a WP:independent source.
Regarding your arguments related to Jon Matonis, they have the same level of relevance, but I do not intend to continue, seeing that this rebuttal is already both convincing that you:
Having refuted your justification again, I see that your edit specified above is unjustified, and am reverting it for that reason. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 04:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I think that it is possible to enhance the "Price and volatility" section by adding a chart to it. There are already two sources containing charts related to the subject. One of the related charts is the chart #7 in the Bitcoin Charts, Finally article. The Bitcoin Volatility – The 4 perspectives also contains charts depicting bitcoin volatility. I guess that it would be best to take the above mentioned chart #7 as the basis. There are some issues I am having with the chart, though:
@ JorgeGabriel: your recent additions to the "Ponzi scheme dispute" section are unrelated to the subject. There once was a "Ponzi scheme" subsection in the "Criminal activities" section, which contained the news you are referring to, using even better sources than your contributions. The contents was removed by Fleetham. Please discuss here if you want the contents to be restored, I do not object against it, I just insist that this particular contents is not subject to dispute and does not belong to the "...dispute" section where you put it. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 22:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Note 14 should be translated into English. This is the English Wikipedia. JorgeGabriel ( talk) 13:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
To recap, before Fleetham made his edit #633586783, the wording of the note #7 was:
Bitcoin facilitates illegal trading like USD, gold, etc. It is like cash in facilitating illegal trades. The difference is that bitcoin transaction history is publicly available, while cash transaction history is not. Bitcoin also facilitates legal trading.
Fleetham justified his
#633586783 as follows: "add further info to footnote for balance". I think that it is OK to achieve the
WP:NPOV, but the current result is actually violating the policy, and here is why looks like needing a closer inspection:
Summarizing the above discussion, it looks that there is no contest that Andolfatto's views in note#7 are presented correctly and in a way compliant with WP:NPOV. Thanks, Fleetham, that is what I wanted to know. Now to the need to balance aspects, which is what Fleetham appears to be worried about. Indeed, there is a requirement per WP:NPOV to represent the aspects giving different points an appropriate weight. Here are the facts:
Summing up, the editorializing "Despite this" is misleading and inappropriate. The claims inserted to the end of note#7 are already present in the article. Deleting them from note#7 will improve the readability of the note, while not disbalancing the text of the article in any way. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 09:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
As explained here, I removed the duplicates of the claims already present in the article. (see edit #635351791 and the justification I wrote here. Fleetham reverted using this unjustified revert. I do not start any edit war, I am just pointing out that:
@ Fleetham: This is a dispute handling the neutrality of the article. To remind you, there have been these findings related to your edits:
I reverted the contents of the paragraph #4 of the lead section to the status quo. That does not mean I am content with its present wording. There are issues that must be handled:
Actually, I'd prefer that you "comment on content, not on the contributor" per Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Let's keep the conversation civil and focused on achieving a rules-based consensus. Fleetham ( talk) 13:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I continue the discussion about the content with respect to the neutral point of view. Above I proposed that the first sentence of the paragraph #7 of the lead section misquoted its source, pretending that the hearing actually "has been" held, while the source clearly stated that it was written by The Washington Post journalist Ryan Tracy on 5 November 2013 before the event started. The same Washington Post journalist Ryan Tracy wrote on 18 November 2014 2013: 'U.S. authorities, appearing Monday [18 November 2014 2013] at the first-ever congressional hearing on virtual currencies, outlined the pitfalls and promises of bitcoin amid concern the anonymity and decentralized nature of some virtual currencies can help facilitate crimes. The hearing provided a financial lift to bitcoin as U.S. officials, who have previously highlighted the currency's role in money laundering and other illicit activities, called it a "legitimate" financial service.' This is the actual report from the hearings containing facts from the hearings, not a preview written before the scrutiny started.
Ladislav Mecir (
talk) 10:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC) This demonstrates that the current first sentence of the paragraph #4 is nonneutral in presenting the preview opinion as a fact, instead of properly using the facts from the source informing about the event.
Ladislav Mecir (
talk)
10:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Taking into account that it is infeasible to list all items that can be purchased with bitcoins in the lead section, it is also inappropriate and nonneutral to list all illicit items that can be purchased with bitcoins. Therefore, the list of illicit items should be removed from the lead. Similarly, it is infeasible to list all opinions on bitcoin, therefore, to be nonneutral, it is also not avisable to list all the opinion Fleetham tried to introduce. Also, it is infeasible to list all the merchants offering goods or services for bitcoin, therefore one should not single out Silk Road either. To not leave out important informations, I propose to use this formulation replacing the current wording of the paragraph #4:
The first-ever U.S. congressional hearing on virtual currencies was held on 18 November
20142013. Authorities appearing at the hearing outlined the pitfalls and promises of bitcoin amid concern the anonymity and decentralized nature of some virtual currencies can help facilitate crimes. At the hearing, the officials who have previously highlighted the currency's role in money laundering and other illicit activities, called bitcoin a "legitimate" financial service.
The text is verified by above mentioned Washington Post article. The proposed wording represents the concerns that bitcoin can be used for illicit purchases balanced by the result of the senate hearings. Importantly, this wording also respects the reservations presented by Creationlayer, and does not present journalist opinions, but facts. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 16:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
The first-ever U.S. congressional hearing on virtual currencies was held on 18 November
20142013. Authorities appearing at the hearing outlined the pitfalls and promises of bitcoin amid concern the virtual currencies can help facilitate crimes. At the hearing, the officials who have previously highlighted the currency's role in money laundering and other illicit activities, called bitcoin a "legitimate" financial service.
@ Wuerzele: thank you for correcting the mismatch in dates. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 13:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
@ Creationlayer: @ JorgeGabriel: @ Wuerzele: - you may have already noticed that Fleetham made edits contradicting the consensus achieved above. I warned him that he is disrupting the consensus, but did not succeed to convince him to stop. The only way how to proceed further is if one of you tries to convince Fleetham to stop making edits that are not compatible with the WP policies. Thank you. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 01:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
90 minutes is not enough to establish a consensus, especially given that many of us work 9-5 jobs and can't keep monitoring your constant stream of edits. So I restored the content that you removed (thus pushing a biased POV). Vladimir old chap I think you need to take a small wiki-break from wiki-editing. You're constantly reverting and editing people's edits to push your pro-bitcoin agenda and there's hardly an opening for any other properly-cited yet somewhat-negative-to-bitcoin-aficionados to get a word in. Why not get off the computer and take a small holiday? When you come back, the article will be in much better shape. BoA-BTCopsec-14 ( talk) 22:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
There doesn't appear to be a current consensus on how the lede should deal with the issue of criminality and bitcoin... While one editor (Ladislav) appeared to have gotten a consensus that the phrase "bitcoin is a subject of scrutiny" should be removed, the entire paragraph that began with that quote was removed and replaced by what appeared to be POV-pushing material... I went ahead and removed the "subject of scrutiny" phrasing from the lede, but further changes should be discussed. There's no firm consensus on removing an entire paragraph related to bitcoin being used in online black markets. Fleetham ( talk) 23:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
A recent editor removed sourced content that explained that while many bitcoin thefts have occurred, the Bitcoin Foundation states that theft is impossible. The note left explaining this removal stated: "The Bitcoin Foundation clearly claims that theft is impossible if and only if the private key is secure. If that weren't the case, the system would not work. In every single instance of theft, the key was improperly secured."
This is false. The Bitcoin Foundation states, in full, "Cryptography is the key to Bitcoin's success. It’s the reason that no one can double spend, counterfeit or steal bitcoins. To ensure that Bitcoin is a viable money for both current users and future adopters, we legally protect the protocol and its many lawful, productive uses.". See this page.
No where in that is mention of securing private keys. Please take more care when editing...
Are you looking to have your edits reverted? Apologies in advance if that's a WP:PA... Fleetham ( talk) 23:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
What is false? If it were possible to steal Bitcoin without first stealing the private key, the system would not work. This is a fact. I believe it is painfully obvious that Bitcoin Foundation does not state that the theft of a private key is impossible.
"Cryptography is the key to Bitcoin's success" clearly assumes that the private key is kept private, not leaked in any fashion.
I am reverting your revert. That statement adds nothing but confusion, especially if you read the following few sentences.
Mrcatzilla (
talk)
02:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Let me summarize the state of this dispute. After the edit #636087685, there was this sentence:
There have been many cases of bitcoin theft[39] despite claims made by the Bitcoin Foundation that theft is impossible.[221]
While both parts of the sentence are properly sourced, the whole sentence fits the description at WP:SYN stating: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Thus, the sentence is a synthesis of the published material. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 01:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Article mentions the biggest Bitcoin purchase of a $500,000 Bali house, yet in Estonia a $1.3 million manorhouse has been reported to have been bought for Bitcoin. Two sources in English: http://news.err.ee/v/economy/53ba6308-7ca1-4b4a-9a52-0156165267d6 http://hans.lougas.ee/2014/03/bitcoin-can-buy-you-a-1-3m-manor-house/
The formulation:
Although its status as a currency is disputed, media reports often refer to bitcoin as a cryptocurrency or digital currency.
Fits the definition of WP:SYNTH since it combines different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion that the claims may contradict each other, while no such implication is present in the source. To correct it, I propose to replace the formulation by:
Media reports often refer to bitcoin as a cryptocurrency or digital currency. The status of bitcoin as a currency is disputed.
Keeping the citation already present in the article to verify the claims. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 08:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
In his revert #637305164 Fleetham wrote: "Discuss this on talk", while that is exactly the opposite of what he is doing. Pretending there was some consensus on his changes. Since that is actually not the case, I revert the head section to the consensual state following the last neutrality dispute and open this new dispute to find out whether there is any new consensus on the neutral wording of the section. I summarize my opinions here:
I'm happy to engage in a content related discussion, and I'm sure we can hammer out a summary of the criminal activities section that is mutually agreeable. Fleetham ( talk) 12:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The WP:NPOV dispute at #Achieving neutral point of view has been resolved on 27 November 2014, by inserting a paragraph summarizing the fears of illicit uses of bitcoin.
Fleetham requested a discussion to change the consensus. Instead of discussing a change as declared, Fleetham inserted a duplicate of the list of illicit items that can be bought with bitcoins from the "Criminal activities" section.
That is not acceptable, being an unbalanced change, and a change not adhering to the policy to put summaries of contents of the article body to the lead section. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 10:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
To make things straight for other editors, this is a neutrality dispute that has been properly announced using the "POV-section" template, and started due to Fleetham's request. Since then, Fleetham announced his willingness to discuss the neutrality of the section here, but disproved his willingness making these edits that were found nonneutral and nonconsensual: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].
(For interested editors, notice that Fleetham made himself one of the "above par" sources of the article, as his "as far as I know, bitcoins are ALWAYS seized when online black markets have been shut down" statement demonstrates, and an authority to remove sources he considers "below par" without a proper justification.)
Wuerzele TyHeers Scott Illini Pgan002 Creationlayer Mrcatzilla TimidGuy Chrisarnesen Richardbondi please check this balancing
In 2013, U.S. financial regulators and law enforcement agencies and senators Tom Carper and Tom Coburn expressed concerns that bitcoin can be used for illicit activities. [9] At the senate hearing, held on 18 November 2013, the officials, who emphasized the role of bitcoin in criminal activities prior to the hearing, called the currency a "legitimate" financial service. [10]
Justification:
Bitcoin Comes Under Senate Scrutiny
By RYAN TRACY
CONNECT
Bitcoin is about to get some time in the Capitol Hill spotlight.
A pair of Senate committees will hold hearings on the policy issues raised by virtual currencies in the coming weeks, according to Senate aides, a development that comes amid growing attention from government regulators to digital forms of money.
Bitcoin, a currency that is essentially a computer code and is not backed by any government, has seen its value surge this year because of interest from retailers and investors. But government agencies have also stepped up their oversight of the loosely regulated currency amid fears it could be used to facilitate criminal activity.
The two Senate hearings – the first to focus on bitcoin – are likely to examine how regulators are responding to the new forms of payment, the aides said. Potential points of discussion include how financial-industry regulators will watch over investment in the new currencies and how virtual currencies might impede tax collection or facilitate trade in illegal products out of the sight of law enforcement.
No dates have been set for the hearings and the witness lists are not final, but representatives of the government and private sector are expected to testify. The hearings will be held by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs and by a subpart of the Senate Banking Committee, the aides said.
By summoning officials from the executive branch to talk about bitcoin, lawmakers are signaling that virtual currencies should be a priority. Sens. Tom Carper (D., Del.) and Tom Coburn (R., Okla.), the top lawmakers on the Homeland Security panel, have also asked several financial-industry regulators and law-enforcement agencies for information about their policies on virtual currencies.
In an Aug. 12 letter, the senators cited a number of policy concerns, including a Texas case this year in which a man was charged with running a bitcoin-related Ponzi scheme and a May Government Accountability Office report that said the use of virtual currencies could lead to lost tax revenue.
“As with all emerging technologies, the federal government must make sure that potential threats and risks are dealt with swiftly; however, we must also ensure that rash or uninformed actions don’t stifle a potentially valuable technology,” Messrs. Carper and Coburn wrote in their letter, which went to the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Department of Justice and the Treasury Department.
22:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleetham ( talk • contribs)
Authorities See Worth of Bitcoin
By RYAN TRACY CONNECT Updated Nov. 18, 2013 11:56 p.m. ET WASHINGTON—Senior U.S. law-enforcement and regulatory officials said they see benefits in digital forms of money and are making progress in tackling its risks. The price of bitcoin, the most common virtual currency, soared to a record following the comments.
U.S. authorities, appearing Monday at the first-ever congressional hearing on virtual currencies, outlined the pitfalls and promises of bitcoin amid concern the anonymity and decentralized nature of some virtual currencies can help facilitate crimes. The hearing provided a financial lift to bitcoin as U.S. officials, who have previously highlighted the currency's role in money laundering and other illicit activities, called it a "legitimate" financial service.
Is Bitcoin another flash in the pan? Or are the early investors onto something -- that will make them rich? WSJ's Jason Bellini has #TheShortAnswer. More Price Zooms Ahead of Hearing Read the Regulators' Testimony Bits and Pieces Mystery still surrounds Bitcoin. Its creator -— or creators -— has remained anonymous and specific details surrounding the history of the virtual currency remain fuzzy. Still, buzz is growing. Here's a rough timeline of the Bitcoin evolution.
View Graphics
"The Department of Justice recognizes that many virtual currency systems offer legitimate financial services and have the potential to promote more efficient global commerce," Mythili Raman, acting assistant attorney general for the department's criminal division, said in testimony before the SenateHomeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who didn't attend the hearing, said in a letter to senators that virtual currencies "may hold long-term promise, particularly if the innovations promote a faster, more secure, and more efficient payment system."
Enlarge Image
Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman, at hearing. Associated Press The price of bitcoin soared early Monday after the officials' statements were widely reported. On one exchange, Tokyo-based Mt. Gox, the price topped $700. Bitcoin traded at about $13 in January.
The total market capitalization of the bitcoin economy now exceeds $8 billion based on recent prices, according to the website Bitcoincharts.com.
The congressional hearing is the first of two being held this week, with the Senate Banking Committee expected to hear from a senior Treasury Department official and a Massachusetts banking regulator on Tuesday. Despite interest in bitcoin, Monday's hearing was attended by only one member of the Senate panel, Sen. Tom Carper (D., Del.), who chairs the committee. Other senators were still en route to Washington after spending the weekend in their home states.
Enlarge Image
Gabriel Scheare uses the world's first bitcoin ATM in October at a coffee shop in Vancouver, Canada. The ATM, named Robocoin, allows users to buy or sell the digital currency. Getty Images Sen. Carper didn't outline any legislative proposals for digital money and said he was focused on gathering information. "Virtual currencies, perhaps most notably bitcoin, have captured the imagination of some, struck fear among others and confused the heck out of the rest of us, including me," Sen. Carper said.
Bitcoin is a four-year-old virtual currency that isn't backed by a central bank and can be traded on a number of exchanges or swapped privately. Its price has vaulted to records in recent weeks, fueled by investor views that the virtual currency can have a credible future as an alternative to traditional methods of payment. A number of merchants are accepting bitcoin as payment because the transaction costs associated with the currency are generally lower than those with credit or debit cards.
The skyrocketing prices of bitcoin, along with the use of the currency by both online and brick-and-mortar retailers, have caught Washington's attention. Regulators have warned money-transfer businesses they must follow the same rules as established financial institutions, including complying with anti-money-laundering laws. Authorities have begun meeting with other government agencies to follow new developments, including one led by the Federal Bureau of Investigation that is tracking emerging threats related to the technology. Last month, authorities disclosed they took down Silk Road, an online marketplace for illicit goods that used bitcoin as a form of payment.
At a Monday Senate hearing, Jennifer Shasky Calvery of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and Mythili Raman of the Department of Justice Criminal Division discussed the matter of virtual currencies such as Bitcoin. (Photo: AP) U.S. law-enforcement officials outline the pitfalls and promise of virtual currencies at the first-ever Senate hearing on the matter. Aaron Lucchetti reports on the News Hub. (Photo: Getty) From the Archives Bitcoin Couple Leave Wallet Behind (Nov. 14, 2013) Hire Boosts Bitcoin Credibility (Nov. 14, 2013) For Virtual Prospectors, Life in the Bitcoin Mines Gets Real (Sept. 19, 2013) Bitcoin Primer: What to Know
Video: What's a Bitcoin?
Ms. Raman said that while the anonymity of virtual currencies appeals to criminals and poses a challenge for law enforcement, U.S. authorities have "been able to keep pace with that, and we've been able to develop protocols and strategies to address it."
At Monday's hearing, officials from the U.S. Secret Service, which investigates counterfeit currencies, and the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network detailed successful investigations into criminals using bitcoin or other currencies.
Jennifer Shasky Calvery, director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, said virtual currency transactions are still relatively small in value compared with global criminal proceeds.
She said she didn't believe the virtual currencies had exposed significant gaps in current law. "We feel like we have a pretty good basis to act," she said. Ms. Shasky will attend Tuesday's Senate Banking Committee hearing.
Sen. Carper said he is "encouraged that maybe it's possible to have the benefits of virtual currencies and to actually be able to not facilitate" criminal activity.
However, he also expressed concern that virtual currencies are being used for crimes, including "selling weapons, child pornography and even murder-for-hire services."— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleetham ( talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 22:57, 17 December 2014
In 2013, U.S. financial regulators and law enforcement agencies expressed concerns that bitcoin can be used for illicit activities. [11] At the senate hearing, held on 18 November 2013, the officials, who emphasized the role of bitcoin in criminal activities prior to the hearing, called the currency a "legitimate" financial service. [12]
At a 2013 US Senate hearing on virtual currencies, law enforcement officials, who had emphasized the role of bitcoin in criminal activities prior, recognized that cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin provide legitimate financial services.
Fleetham ( talk) 02:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)US law enforcement officials and regulators, who had emphasized the role of bitcoin in criminal activities prior, recognized at a November 2013 US Senate hearing on virtual currencies that cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin can provide legitimate financial services to legitimate customers.
U.S. law enforcement officials and financial regulators, who had emphasized the role of bitcoin in criminal activities prior, [13] recognized at a November 2013 U.S. Senate hearing on virtual currencies that cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin can provide legitimate financial services to customers. [14]
Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 07:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Ladislav Mecir, I only agree with the proposed sentence, if it indeed replaces the litany of evil /black market gloss as Fleetham calls it, which he inserted as a 4th paragraph of the lede, as was previously discussed. -- Wuerzele ( talk) 19:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
It's very clearly not neutral in its current form, absurdly so IMO. This article should be primarily about the technology. Instead we have multiple references in the lede for the fact that bitcoin can be used to buy child porn. I can't even look at the article that I spent so much time on earlier this year it's so bad and biased now. I really appreciate the efforts of everyone who tries to hold the line against Fleetham and the other bitcoin haters. I just don't have it in me anymore. Chris Arnesen 16:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Whatever the case, the statement "a clear warning sign that bitcoin is risky" is unsupported opinion and should be removed. "Developing countries are less receptive." makes a causal claim that is not cited, and should be cited or removed. ☃ Unicodesnowman ( talk) 01:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
The opinion "Tennessee Department of Financial Institutions Commissioner Greg Gonzales said “(Digital) currency is defined as an electronic medium of exchange that does not have all the attributes of real currencies.”" gives undue weight to a particular opinion in the moneyness dispute. I propose to replace the opinion by a fact: "The status of bitcoin as a currency is disputed." Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 23:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Support substitution of fact. @ Ladislav Mecir: any objections? Yoshi24517 Chat Absent 22:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
So, are we done here? Is everything fixed? I wanted to see if we could nominate this for a good article. Yoshi24517 Chat Absent 22:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Doesn't look like there are anymore problems. Archiving to Bitcoin Archive 22, and nominating per WP:GA Yoshi24517 Chat Absent 22:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)