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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
@ Wuerzele: You recently reverted an edit stating that "the word harm is not neutral- copy edit is not WP:NPOV." However, my edit actually removed that word. Did you make a mistake here? I think edit is wholly innocuous, but perhaps you have a different opinion? Fleetham ( talk) 03:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The following section is entirely based off of one report called GUIDANCE FOR A RISK-BASED APPROACH PREPAID CARDS, MOBILE PAYMENTS AND INTERNET-BASED PAYMENT SERVICES and based on a search of the document could find no use of the terms "bitcoin" or "cryto" anywhere in the document, which is 47 pages long. Its unclear to me if the guidance would apply to bitcoin itself, or merely financial services companies that might interact with bitcoin. And if its the latter, its confusing in the way its presented at the least, and potentially not worth having a section devoted to it.
G7
The 2013 the G7's Financial Action Task Force warned, "Internet-based payment services that allow third party funding from anonymous sources may face an increased risk of [money laundering/terrorist financing]" concluding that this may "pose challenges to countries in [anti-money laundering/counter terrorist financing] regulation and supervision".[243] 96.38.120.194 ( talk) 05:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
In this edit diff claims were added that do not appear in the source. I have added a tag to the claims and will wait to see if 96.38.120.194 can produce the lines in source the claims come from or can source them before removing the edit. AlbinoFerret 23:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
One source is to a university, and passes verification, but bitcoinmagazine.com does not have an editorial statement that I can find and on the terms of use it says
"You acknowledge that such information and materials may contain inaccuracies or errors"
so it is likely an unreliable source. AlbinoFerret 04:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Ladislav Mecir: You recently removed a quotation from an academic source stating, "citation obviously distorted." Care to explain? Do you mean the source itself is "distorted?" Fleetham ( talk) 22:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm
"Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) are foreign organizations that are designated by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended. FTO designations play a critical role in our fight against terrorism and are an effective means of curtailing support for terrorist activities and pressuring groups to get out of the terrorism business."
Look down the list and you will find:
"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (formerly al-Qa'ida in Iraq)"
I will indicate this in the article.
Kraainem ( talk) 15:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I am seeking support for the inclusion of "Islamic State financing" as properly referenced.
The following was removed from the article:
"===Islamic State financing==="
"Organizations such as Islamic State may use bitcoins to move money according to Jennifer Shasky Calvery. She is the head of the US Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network [1] which is charged with fighting money laundering and terrorist finance."
See the argument in favor of the removal as well as the arguments in favor of it remaining in the article above in Talk Page.
It is clear that it deals with speculation. It is also clear that it has been correctly treated and referenced as speculation in terms of WP:CBALL. The WP:CBAll objection was raised by AlbinoFerret. He was the editor who brought up the WP:CBALL objection and he is the editor who refuses to accept the rebuttal of his WP:CBALL argument.
Please show your support for the subsection remaining in the article by stating so in this section. Thank you.
Kraainem ( talk) 18:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The sentence: "Non-drug transactions were thought to be far less than the number involved in the purchase of drugs,[268] and roughly one half of all transactions made using bitcoin c. 2013 were bets placed at a single online gambling website, Satoshi Dice.[269]" looks self-contradicting. If the second part is true, then the betting transactions were not far less than the drug transactions, am I missing something? Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 11:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
This section seems to need some work. Firstly, there is a quote contained within the section detailing a random law professor's opinion that despite not being a ponzi, bitcoin is a collective delusion. His opinion on this topic is not relevant to an encyclopedia and the "collective delusion" statement is irrelevant and creates unnecessary NPOV issues.
I removed the quote earlier but someone replaced it since it "was well sourced". The fact that this person has an opinion piece published by slate does not make his opinions on bitcoin relevant, let alone appropriate for an encycopedia. 98.65.203.162 ( talk) 16:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted the edits of 96.38.120.194 because the source was a self published source and not reliable per WP:SELFPUBLISH. http://moneyandstate.com is a blog, per the front page "This blog is about the human struggle for the separation of money and state, and about Bitcoin as the instrument by which it will happen." . AlbinoFerret 14:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
He's not just an investor in bitcoin, he has founded and worked in seveal companies in various parts of the bitcoin ecosystem and is a frequently a featured speaker at various industry conferences. His wiki page states "On March 8, 2013, he was interviewed on noted financial commentator Peter Schiff's podcast by Tom Woods about Bitcoin as an alternative currency."
"Tom Woods Interviews a Bitcoin Expert". His views are a great representation of the ponzi scheme counterargument among those that work in the field. The quote in question is even republished here (
http://www.cryptosnews.com/?p=1196) and you can change the source to that if you think its better than from the author himself.
98.65.203.162 (
talk)
18:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
How is an expert's own blog not a reliable source of what an expert says in that blog? 96.38.120.194 ( talk) 21:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Context matters folks... Erik Voorhees does not have to be an expert in this context. If we were quoting him in the Ponzi scheme article, I would agree that mentioning what he says would be inappropriate. However, this article isn't about ponzi schemes... it's about Bitcoin... and as someone directly involved in Bitcoin, Voorhees's opinion is relevant - precisely because he is directly involved. It's like quoting Bill Gates in an article about Microsoft. Voorhees is a founder of Bitcoin, reacting to comments about Bitcoin. His reaction to the accusations is directly relevant to the article. It does not matter whether his response is factually accurate or not... because in this context, we are not presenting his response as fact. Blueboar ( talk) 13:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Fleetham has added new sections for Child Pornography (which could be contained in Black Markets) and Terrorist Financing (which could be contained in Money Laundering). This only seems to especially highlight the most negative aspects of Black Markets and Money laundering. 96.38.120.194 ( talk) 00:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Fleetham is right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraainem ( talk • contribs) 12:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
This sweeping edit on the embattled section 'Criminal activity' ("adds CN and BS tags, copy edit, removes excess info on guns sold on black markets") made 9 changes. In his previous edit Fleetham reverted an editor with the words "discuss on talk page first" , but doesnt model that behavior. I am reverting this edit, since there are just too many controversial changes - formatting is worse, turing active to passive voice is undesirable per WP:MOS, sloppy editing introducing mistakes is undesirable("tens of thousands of can produce results" -?-) and unexplained removal of sourced information x 2 is not ok.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 01:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
That's just one of the changes. ☃ Unicodesnowman ( talk) 03:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Fleetham's recent edit, [2] introduces inconsensual changes again. This is an edit war, where Fleetham already reverted at least two editors stating that his changes to the Bitcoin#Malware section are not consensual. No editor here agrees that the introductions of grammatical errors and inconsensual formatting are "copy edits". Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 12:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Does this reference contribute much of anything to the article? It seems more relevant to crowfunding as a whole than to bitcoin, since they could have used a number of pseudo-anonymous payment methods. Its not unique because of bitcoin, its unique because its crowdfunded. 96.38.120.194 ( talk) 19:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Bitcoin use in Child Pornography justifies a subsection as follows:
"According to the Internet Watch Foundation, a U.K. based charity, bitcoin can be used to purchase child porn at almost 200 websites, some of which accept bitcoins exclusively. [2] The latter include a deep web crowdfunding website established to "make commercial grade child porn". [3] Bitcoin's ties to child porn extend to the block chain itself, which contains hyperlinks to child porn websites. [4] Bitcoin isn't the sole way to purchase child pornography online, as Troels Oertling, head of the cybercrime unit at Europol, states, "bitcoin isn’t the only digital currency used in the child porn business... Ukash and Paysafecard... have been used to pay for such material." [2]"
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Kraainem ( talk) 20:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: This is a bizarre synthesis of information about bitcoin, child porn, and ISIS, and certainly isn't a reason to have a special section for child porn. The wikipedia article about the internet itself doesn't even have a section on child porn, and the internet is much more unique in its function to porn distribution than bitcoin is to paying for it. 96.38.120.194 ( talk) 20:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: I see a synthesis of unconstructive personal attacks, child porn and ISIS. This is not compatible with Wikipedia policies. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 21:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: I am undecided on if something of this length is over-prominent, but this text is heavily imbalanced and like what Ladislav said, not compatible with Wikipedia policies. ☃ Unicodesnowman ( talk) 13:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The following content is now redundant due to its inclustion in the Block chain spam section: "Bitcoin's ties to child porn extend to the block chain itself, which contains hyperlinks to child porn websites.[295]" 96.38.120.194 ( talk) 21:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Unsure if the best way to start the "Bitcoins as an investment" section is with the quote, "One way to invest in bitcoins is to buy and hold them as a long-term investment." Various bodies have warned against individuals investing in bitcoin, and Bloomberg named it to a list of worst investments in 2014. I'm not suggesting that the well-sourced quote be removed, but I am curious as to how prominent other editors feel it should be. Fleetham ( talk) 22:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point. The 'status quo' wording is not encouraging investment in bitcoin, it is not advising people to invest, it is stating that people invest in bitcoin. What is the issue? ☃ Unicodesnowman ( talk) 23:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I tend to disagree on a logical basis: the term "long term" - in principle - encourages investment in that you need to be invested, generally, at least for more than a year. If you were not to encourage people to invest long term, you normally would say: ok, trade in and out on the short term, so you are not actually "invested" long term. The term "long term" definitely encourages people to invest in bitcoin. "To buy and hold them as a long term investment" certainly encourages people to invest in bitcoin. "To trade in them on a short term basis" would be seen as encouraging people not to invest but to speculate. I think that is the general view about the meaning of these terms. Kraainem ( talk) 23:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
It is not just "stating that people invest in bitcoin" as you claim. It says: "One way to invest in bitcoin" is to ..... and when the term "long term" is used, then it is clearly encouraging investment. Kraainem ( talk) 23:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Why is the Legal status and regulation section being expanded, when it has its own article? AlbinoFerret 05:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the easiest thing to do is simply change the name of the article from "legality of Bitcoin by country" to "legality and regulation of Bitcoin by country". The idea that the article shouldn't be split because fewer people will read it seem silly; those who want to read about will do so. Why is the aim to expose the info to the largest possible audience especially when most will not likely want to read it anyway? Fleetham ( talk) 21:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
How does WP decide on the badness of a source? Re: Russians own bitcoin in Russia.
Business Wire sounds quite unbiased to me. It aims to be a "wire service" regarding business in general. The same is apparently true ģwith the consultant mentioned.
What does WP policy state about when a source is unreliable?
What I am getting at is that it is not true to create the impression in the article that bitcoins are formally and legally banned in Russia and that not one single bitcoin sits on a computer hard drive somewhere in Russia. Kraainem ( talk) 10:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
It is almost common sense that bitcoin would not be missing in a big economy like Russia, especially taking various other generally accepted aspects of the Russian way of doing things - including business - into account. Kraainem ( talk) 10:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion. Administrators may take this into account and decide not to BLOCK in such cases—for example if the user is not a habitual edit warrior and is genuinely trying to rectify their own mistake." Kraainem ( talk) 16:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
An article in the "Fungibility" section was marked as "unreliable source" by an editor. I disagree with such a classification, actually, I am sure that the publication is reliable, and the insertion of the template was an error. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 10:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm building this section off of a previous topic here, because it's a bit different and moar general. The lede of this article says "Bitcoin is an online payment system invented by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008 and introduced as open-source software in 2009."
Especially seeing as it's the lede of an extremely popular article about a subject that can be very confusing, we want it to be as accurate as possible. I bring up two points:
I propose:
Thoughts? This is a pretty significant change, being the lede and infobox, so we should discuss this before making any changes. Thanks, - Newyorkadam ( talk) 01:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Ponzi scheme dispute section currently contains this:
(Oppose) "In the opinion of Eric Posner, a law professor at the University of Chicago "A real Ponzi scheme takes fraud; bitcoin, by contrast, seems more like a collective delusion."
I would like to change it to this:
(Support) "Eric Posner, a law professor at the University of Chicago, differentiated bitcoin from a ponzi scheme by stating that, "A real Ponzi scheme takes fraud"."
Rationale for change: This law professor's opinion that bitcoin as a whole is a "collective delusion" is irrelevant and extremely distracting to the section topic which is listing views on whether bitcoin is or is not a ponzi scheme. 96.38.120.194 ( talk) 05:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a bizarre synthesis of information about bitcoin, child porn, and ISIS, and certainly isn't a reason to have a special section for child porn. The wikipedia article about the internet itself doesn't even have a section on child porn. 96.38.120.194 ( talk) 20:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Items that are not covered in this article:
1. The decrease in the total market value of bitcoin as a result of the persistent bear market in the bitcoin price since Dec 2013. A semi-log graph would be the best solution.
2. The major development of the block chain being the star of Bitcoin´s innovation. There are many major developments in this regard that are currently not reflected in the article.
3. The many other free peer-to-peer payment platforms eroding the relevance of bitcoin but not of Bitcoin (the block chain or public ledger). Examples that I am not really familiar with: Apple Pay, peer-to-peer payments in Facebook, etc. Kraainem (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
To avoid an edit war, can someone please explain what 'exclusively' is supposed to mean here? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
This article is about Bitcoin. It's not about other block chain systems. So, Kraaniem, I don't see what your concern is. The text wasn't saying anything about other block chains. Moreover, we don't have any reliable source citations to make claims about other block chains, as to whether they do or do not contain anything, so we shouldn't be trying to comment on them. This article is about Bitcoin and let's stick to that topic.
Bondegezou (
talk)
22:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
You are 100% against pointing out to readers of WP that the Bitcoin block chain is the only block chain that promotes child pornography directly with links: that is disgusting! What is wrong with highlighting that the Bitcoin block chain appears to be the only block chain directly promoting child pornography from its origins? What is so wrong with that? [serious personal attack removed Ivanvector ( talk) 13:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)] Kraainem (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC) It is completely unacceptable to make such comments about other editors, Kraainem. I have reported the matter at
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kraainem_and_Bitcoin.
Bondegezou (
talk)
23:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
|
Kraainem, could you please link to specific transactions that contain these links so that I can invalidate your claim by duplicating them in other blockchains to resolve this dispute once and for all? Mrcatzilla ( talk) 02:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
"Officials in countries such as the United States also recognized that bitcoin can provide legitimate financial services to customers." What does that even mean? Bitcoin does not have customers. Bitcoin cannot provide "financial services". A transaction ledger does not "provide" anything, it merely exists. Can we rephrase this somehow? Mrcatzilla ( talk) 02:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
This has been touched on before in the above discussion, but there is nothing in the article text. We have RS coverage that there are hyperlinks to porn and to child porn in the ledger: e.g. http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/02/technology/security/bitcoin-porn/ (best article for content with clear explanation) , http://www.dailydot.com/business/bitcoin-child-porn-transaction-code/ , https://medium.com/message/when-anyone-can-end-up-being-a-child-pornographer-38438a95f2a0 , "The Digital Currency Challenge: Shaping Online Payment Systems Through U.S. Financial Regulations" by Philip Mullan (Palgrave Macmillan, 31 Jan 2014). This is a topic which has attracted considerable debate and a fair share of sensationalism and misunderstanding, so it would be useful to have some Wikipedia coverage of it. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:19, 7 March 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 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | → | Archive 30 |
@ Wuerzele: You recently reverted an edit stating that "the word harm is not neutral- copy edit is not WP:NPOV." However, my edit actually removed that word. Did you make a mistake here? I think edit is wholly innocuous, but perhaps you have a different opinion? Fleetham ( talk) 03:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The following section is entirely based off of one report called GUIDANCE FOR A RISK-BASED APPROACH PREPAID CARDS, MOBILE PAYMENTS AND INTERNET-BASED PAYMENT SERVICES and based on a search of the document could find no use of the terms "bitcoin" or "cryto" anywhere in the document, which is 47 pages long. Its unclear to me if the guidance would apply to bitcoin itself, or merely financial services companies that might interact with bitcoin. And if its the latter, its confusing in the way its presented at the least, and potentially not worth having a section devoted to it.
G7
The 2013 the G7's Financial Action Task Force warned, "Internet-based payment services that allow third party funding from anonymous sources may face an increased risk of [money laundering/terrorist financing]" concluding that this may "pose challenges to countries in [anti-money laundering/counter terrorist financing] regulation and supervision".[243] 96.38.120.194 ( talk) 05:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
In this edit diff claims were added that do not appear in the source. I have added a tag to the claims and will wait to see if 96.38.120.194 can produce the lines in source the claims come from or can source them before removing the edit. AlbinoFerret 23:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
One source is to a university, and passes verification, but bitcoinmagazine.com does not have an editorial statement that I can find and on the terms of use it says
"You acknowledge that such information and materials may contain inaccuracies or errors"
so it is likely an unreliable source. AlbinoFerret 04:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
@ Ladislav Mecir: You recently removed a quotation from an academic source stating, "citation obviously distorted." Care to explain? Do you mean the source itself is "distorted?" Fleetham ( talk) 22:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm
"Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) are foreign organizations that are designated by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended. FTO designations play a critical role in our fight against terrorism and are an effective means of curtailing support for terrorist activities and pressuring groups to get out of the terrorism business."
Look down the list and you will find:
"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (formerly al-Qa'ida in Iraq)"
I will indicate this in the article.
Kraainem ( talk) 15:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I am seeking support for the inclusion of "Islamic State financing" as properly referenced.
The following was removed from the article:
"===Islamic State financing==="
"Organizations such as Islamic State may use bitcoins to move money according to Jennifer Shasky Calvery. She is the head of the US Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network [1] which is charged with fighting money laundering and terrorist finance."
See the argument in favor of the removal as well as the arguments in favor of it remaining in the article above in Talk Page.
It is clear that it deals with speculation. It is also clear that it has been correctly treated and referenced as speculation in terms of WP:CBALL. The WP:CBAll objection was raised by AlbinoFerret. He was the editor who brought up the WP:CBALL objection and he is the editor who refuses to accept the rebuttal of his WP:CBALL argument.
Please show your support for the subsection remaining in the article by stating so in this section. Thank you.
Kraainem ( talk) 18:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
The sentence: "Non-drug transactions were thought to be far less than the number involved in the purchase of drugs,[268] and roughly one half of all transactions made using bitcoin c. 2013 were bets placed at a single online gambling website, Satoshi Dice.[269]" looks self-contradicting. If the second part is true, then the betting transactions were not far less than the drug transactions, am I missing something? Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 11:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
This section seems to need some work. Firstly, there is a quote contained within the section detailing a random law professor's opinion that despite not being a ponzi, bitcoin is a collective delusion. His opinion on this topic is not relevant to an encyclopedia and the "collective delusion" statement is irrelevant and creates unnecessary NPOV issues.
I removed the quote earlier but someone replaced it since it "was well sourced". The fact that this person has an opinion piece published by slate does not make his opinions on bitcoin relevant, let alone appropriate for an encycopedia. 98.65.203.162 ( talk) 16:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted the edits of 96.38.120.194 because the source was a self published source and not reliable per WP:SELFPUBLISH. http://moneyandstate.com is a blog, per the front page "This blog is about the human struggle for the separation of money and state, and about Bitcoin as the instrument by which it will happen." . AlbinoFerret 14:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
He's not just an investor in bitcoin, he has founded and worked in seveal companies in various parts of the bitcoin ecosystem and is a frequently a featured speaker at various industry conferences. His wiki page states "On March 8, 2013, he was interviewed on noted financial commentator Peter Schiff's podcast by Tom Woods about Bitcoin as an alternative currency."
"Tom Woods Interviews a Bitcoin Expert". His views are a great representation of the ponzi scheme counterargument among those that work in the field. The quote in question is even republished here (
http://www.cryptosnews.com/?p=1196) and you can change the source to that if you think its better than from the author himself.
98.65.203.162 (
talk)
18:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
How is an expert's own blog not a reliable source of what an expert says in that blog? 96.38.120.194 ( talk) 21:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Context matters folks... Erik Voorhees does not have to be an expert in this context. If we were quoting him in the Ponzi scheme article, I would agree that mentioning what he says would be inappropriate. However, this article isn't about ponzi schemes... it's about Bitcoin... and as someone directly involved in Bitcoin, Voorhees's opinion is relevant - precisely because he is directly involved. It's like quoting Bill Gates in an article about Microsoft. Voorhees is a founder of Bitcoin, reacting to comments about Bitcoin. His reaction to the accusations is directly relevant to the article. It does not matter whether his response is factually accurate or not... because in this context, we are not presenting his response as fact. Blueboar ( talk) 13:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Fleetham has added new sections for Child Pornography (which could be contained in Black Markets) and Terrorist Financing (which could be contained in Money Laundering). This only seems to especially highlight the most negative aspects of Black Markets and Money laundering. 96.38.120.194 ( talk) 00:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Fleetham is right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraainem ( talk • contribs) 12:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
This sweeping edit on the embattled section 'Criminal activity' ("adds CN and BS tags, copy edit, removes excess info on guns sold on black markets") made 9 changes. In his previous edit Fleetham reverted an editor with the words "discuss on talk page first" , but doesnt model that behavior. I am reverting this edit, since there are just too many controversial changes - formatting is worse, turing active to passive voice is undesirable per WP:MOS, sloppy editing introducing mistakes is undesirable("tens of thousands of can produce results" -?-) and unexplained removal of sourced information x 2 is not ok.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 01:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
That's just one of the changes. ☃ Unicodesnowman ( talk) 03:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Fleetham's recent edit, [2] introduces inconsensual changes again. This is an edit war, where Fleetham already reverted at least two editors stating that his changes to the Bitcoin#Malware section are not consensual. No editor here agrees that the introductions of grammatical errors and inconsensual formatting are "copy edits". Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 12:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Does this reference contribute much of anything to the article? It seems more relevant to crowfunding as a whole than to bitcoin, since they could have used a number of pseudo-anonymous payment methods. Its not unique because of bitcoin, its unique because its crowdfunded. 96.38.120.194 ( talk) 19:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Bitcoin use in Child Pornography justifies a subsection as follows:
"According to the Internet Watch Foundation, a U.K. based charity, bitcoin can be used to purchase child porn at almost 200 websites, some of which accept bitcoins exclusively. [2] The latter include a deep web crowdfunding website established to "make commercial grade child porn". [3] Bitcoin's ties to child porn extend to the block chain itself, which contains hyperlinks to child porn websites. [4] Bitcoin isn't the sole way to purchase child pornography online, as Troels Oertling, head of the cybercrime unit at Europol, states, "bitcoin isn’t the only digital currency used in the child porn business... Ukash and Paysafecard... have been used to pay for such material." [2]"
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
Kraainem ( talk) 20:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: This is a bizarre synthesis of information about bitcoin, child porn, and ISIS, and certainly isn't a reason to have a special section for child porn. The wikipedia article about the internet itself doesn't even have a section on child porn, and the internet is much more unique in its function to porn distribution than bitcoin is to paying for it. 96.38.120.194 ( talk) 20:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: I see a synthesis of unconstructive personal attacks, child porn and ISIS. This is not compatible with Wikipedia policies. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 21:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Oppose: I am undecided on if something of this length is over-prominent, but this text is heavily imbalanced and like what Ladislav said, not compatible with Wikipedia policies. ☃ Unicodesnowman ( talk) 13:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The following content is now redundant due to its inclustion in the Block chain spam section: "Bitcoin's ties to child porn extend to the block chain itself, which contains hyperlinks to child porn websites.[295]" 96.38.120.194 ( talk) 21:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Unsure if the best way to start the "Bitcoins as an investment" section is with the quote, "One way to invest in bitcoins is to buy and hold them as a long-term investment." Various bodies have warned against individuals investing in bitcoin, and Bloomberg named it to a list of worst investments in 2014. I'm not suggesting that the well-sourced quote be removed, but I am curious as to how prominent other editors feel it should be. Fleetham ( talk) 22:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point. The 'status quo' wording is not encouraging investment in bitcoin, it is not advising people to invest, it is stating that people invest in bitcoin. What is the issue? ☃ Unicodesnowman ( talk) 23:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I tend to disagree on a logical basis: the term "long term" - in principle - encourages investment in that you need to be invested, generally, at least for more than a year. If you were not to encourage people to invest long term, you normally would say: ok, trade in and out on the short term, so you are not actually "invested" long term. The term "long term" definitely encourages people to invest in bitcoin. "To buy and hold them as a long term investment" certainly encourages people to invest in bitcoin. "To trade in them on a short term basis" would be seen as encouraging people not to invest but to speculate. I think that is the general view about the meaning of these terms. Kraainem ( talk) 23:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
It is not just "stating that people invest in bitcoin" as you claim. It says: "One way to invest in bitcoin" is to ..... and when the term "long term" is used, then it is clearly encouraging investment. Kraainem ( talk) 23:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Why is the Legal status and regulation section being expanded, when it has its own article? AlbinoFerret 05:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the easiest thing to do is simply change the name of the article from "legality of Bitcoin by country" to "legality and regulation of Bitcoin by country". The idea that the article shouldn't be split because fewer people will read it seem silly; those who want to read about will do so. Why is the aim to expose the info to the largest possible audience especially when most will not likely want to read it anyway? Fleetham ( talk) 21:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
How does WP decide on the badness of a source? Re: Russians own bitcoin in Russia.
Business Wire sounds quite unbiased to me. It aims to be a "wire service" regarding business in general. The same is apparently true ģwith the consultant mentioned.
What does WP policy state about when a source is unreliable?
What I am getting at is that it is not true to create the impression in the article that bitcoins are formally and legally banned in Russia and that not one single bitcoin sits on a computer hard drive somewhere in Russia. Kraainem ( talk) 10:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
It is almost common sense that bitcoin would not be missing in a big economy like Russia, especially taking various other generally accepted aspects of the Russian way of doing things - including business - into account. Kraainem ( talk) 10:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion. Administrators may take this into account and decide not to BLOCK in such cases—for example if the user is not a habitual edit warrior and is genuinely trying to rectify their own mistake." Kraainem ( talk) 16:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
An article in the "Fungibility" section was marked as "unreliable source" by an editor. I disagree with such a classification, actually, I am sure that the publication is reliable, and the insertion of the template was an error. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 10:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm building this section off of a previous topic here, because it's a bit different and moar general. The lede of this article says "Bitcoin is an online payment system invented by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008 and introduced as open-source software in 2009."
Especially seeing as it's the lede of an extremely popular article about a subject that can be very confusing, we want it to be as accurate as possible. I bring up two points:
I propose:
Thoughts? This is a pretty significant change, being the lede and infobox, so we should discuss this before making any changes. Thanks, - Newyorkadam ( talk) 01:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Ponzi scheme dispute section currently contains this:
(Oppose) "In the opinion of Eric Posner, a law professor at the University of Chicago "A real Ponzi scheme takes fraud; bitcoin, by contrast, seems more like a collective delusion."
I would like to change it to this:
(Support) "Eric Posner, a law professor at the University of Chicago, differentiated bitcoin from a ponzi scheme by stating that, "A real Ponzi scheme takes fraud"."
Rationale for change: This law professor's opinion that bitcoin as a whole is a "collective delusion" is irrelevant and extremely distracting to the section topic which is listing views on whether bitcoin is or is not a ponzi scheme. 96.38.120.194 ( talk) 05:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a bizarre synthesis of information about bitcoin, child porn, and ISIS, and certainly isn't a reason to have a special section for child porn. The wikipedia article about the internet itself doesn't even have a section on child porn. 96.38.120.194 ( talk) 20:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Items that are not covered in this article:
1. The decrease in the total market value of bitcoin as a result of the persistent bear market in the bitcoin price since Dec 2013. A semi-log graph would be the best solution.
2. The major development of the block chain being the star of Bitcoin´s innovation. There are many major developments in this regard that are currently not reflected in the article.
3. The many other free peer-to-peer payment platforms eroding the relevance of bitcoin but not of Bitcoin (the block chain or public ledger). Examples that I am not really familiar with: Apple Pay, peer-to-peer payments in Facebook, etc. Kraainem (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
To avoid an edit war, can someone please explain what 'exclusively' is supposed to mean here? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
This article is about Bitcoin. It's not about other block chain systems. So, Kraaniem, I don't see what your concern is. The text wasn't saying anything about other block chains. Moreover, we don't have any reliable source citations to make claims about other block chains, as to whether they do or do not contain anything, so we shouldn't be trying to comment on them. This article is about Bitcoin and let's stick to that topic.
Bondegezou (
talk)
22:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
You are 100% against pointing out to readers of WP that the Bitcoin block chain is the only block chain that promotes child pornography directly with links: that is disgusting! What is wrong with highlighting that the Bitcoin block chain appears to be the only block chain directly promoting child pornography from its origins? What is so wrong with that? [serious personal attack removed Ivanvector ( talk) 13:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)] Kraainem (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC) It is completely unacceptable to make such comments about other editors, Kraainem. I have reported the matter at
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kraainem_and_Bitcoin.
Bondegezou (
talk)
23:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
|
Kraainem, could you please link to specific transactions that contain these links so that I can invalidate your claim by duplicating them in other blockchains to resolve this dispute once and for all? Mrcatzilla ( talk) 02:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
"Officials in countries such as the United States also recognized that bitcoin can provide legitimate financial services to customers." What does that even mean? Bitcoin does not have customers. Bitcoin cannot provide "financial services". A transaction ledger does not "provide" anything, it merely exists. Can we rephrase this somehow? Mrcatzilla ( talk) 02:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
This has been touched on before in the above discussion, but there is nothing in the article text. We have RS coverage that there are hyperlinks to porn and to child porn in the ledger: e.g. http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/02/technology/security/bitcoin-porn/ (best article for content with clear explanation) , http://www.dailydot.com/business/bitcoin-child-porn-transaction-code/ , https://medium.com/message/when-anyone-can-end-up-being-a-child-pornographer-38438a95f2a0 , "The Digital Currency Challenge: Shaping Online Payment Systems Through U.S. Financial Regulations" by Philip Mullan (Palgrave Macmillan, 31 Jan 2014). This is a topic which has attracted considerable debate and a fair share of sensationalism and misunderstanding, so it would be useful to have some Wikipedia coverage of it. Bondegezou ( talk) 10:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)