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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
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.
Does the lede more accurately represent the reliable sources before or after this edit? Bosstopher ( talk) 12:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
[Explanatory note: When discussing what people do with bitcoins, the lede currently only mentions retail use although gambling and hoarding are far more popular uses. In fact, little more than 2.5% of bitcoin transactions were associated with purchasing items at retailers. A recent MIT Technology Review article explains bitcoin's use-in-retail-sales deficiency succinctly. Fleetham ( talk) 21:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Before. The lede more accurately represents the reliable sources before Bosstophers edit. His edit is
Before - the after is full of grammar errors and does not cite enough sources for an accurate picture, as it sure sounds like it's biased. We can change that section, but I hope it doesn't end up being the text in the linked edit. ʬʬ ( talk) 16:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Before - I agree with the version "before". -- Fox1942 ( talk) 04:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
So my addition of Category:Carding was reverted as 'unrelated'. Well I disagree, I've been writing up Carding and the category I have applied to MoneyGram, E-gold, Liberty Reserve and Western Union, I think it's only fair this share the category. Deku-shrub ( talk) 17:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
they are not created by mining; that's a misconception. By design there are a total of 21,000,000 of them and they are released by mining. The system is designed so that the motivation for participating in the bitcoin network will gradually shift from mining reward to transaction fees, and it appears to be working swimmingly. 204.8.27.140 ( talk) 22:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Now that the RfC has been closed as no concensus, does anyone have suggestions for how to improve the paragraph about retail use of bitcoin as suggested in the closing remarks? Brustopher ( talk) 22:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The "after" camp also makes some good points mainly about using newer sources, and noting that some aspects of Bitcoin are not addressed adequately in the lead. I suggest that a consensual text be found, perhaps in draft form, before using it in the lead.Brustopher ( talk) 09:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
New stub for Bitcoin XT created. Anyone interested please review/fix/expand/enhance/etc. Cheers ✌ -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh great. Now I have to renominate it again for the 3rd time. (GA1 failed, GA2 passed, 6 months later article got delisted) But first, I think there is nothing wrong, but if there is something wrong please do tell me. I mean, I don't see any edit warring going on. BUT, there is a content dispute. Can someone PLEASE tell me what is going on? Yoshi24517 Chat Online 19:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The edit #681621567 replaced the original word "Conversely", with the word "However". Fleetham justified the edit as "Incorrect use of term". In my opinion (it was not me who introduced the word to the text), the word "Conversely" was appropriate and shall be kept. On the other hand, the word "However" (however well-liked by Fleetham) does not look appropriate, not communicating the same information to the reader. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 18:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC) My check in various dictionaries revealed that it is, indeed, possible to use the word "conversely" in such a situation, which makes Fleetham's justification invalid. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 05:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Wuerzele, please take this also as a response to the question in the previous section. The last wording of the paragraph) that was stable for some time looked as follows:
The use of bitcoin by criminals has attracted the attention of financial regulators, legislative bodies, law enforcement, and media. Criminal activities are primarily centered around black markets and theft, though officials in countries such as the United States also recognize that bitcoin can provide legitimate financial services.
While only one source (the WSJ) was used to confirm the last sentence, plenty of other sources were available. I mention this in reaction to "it's contained only in one source", which is rather inaccurate when examined properly. Now, new editors came and added a bunch of countries, which, according to your opinion, introduced some inconsistencies. For example, you noted that some of the countries listed, like the Isle of Man or Jersey, may not be countries. Also, you disliked the fact that the "Officials" word was used. I do not think it is reasonable to mention original research just because the editors added new informations to the existing text, but that may be a subject to discussion, which is what I want to start here. For example, to me, the word "officials" did not cease to be appropriate just because new informations and sources were added to a confirmed (by a respectable quantity of reliable sources) statement. To illustrate why I think that the "officials" word may be appropriate even when other countries are added to the statement, let me mention the case of the United Kingdom. The actual source mentions prime minister David Cameron, but there are other sources mentioning George Osborne, e.g. Yet another issue I am having with the text is the WP:OR text added by Fleetham as the last sentence. Summing up, I revert the paragraph to the status quo, until we find a better and consensual wording in this discussion. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 06:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
File:Altcoins symbols.png | Hello Bitcoin/Archive 27. You are cordially invited to participate in the
Cryptocurrency Task Force (part of WikiProject Numismatics) a project dedicated on improving Wikipedia's coverage and detail regarding all things related to cryptocurrencies. |
-- 1Wiki8........................... ( talk) 09:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi all. The edit #688742022 replaced '$' by 'HK$' in Swanson's estimates. I do not see any support for this in the cited sources. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 03:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
News of this new surge could be added to the sections herein: 'Price and volatility' (and/or) 'Bitcoin obituaries'.
Headline-1: Bitcoin Frenzy Back As Epic Bust Fades
QUOTE: "The bitcoin casino is open again. EU decision to define bitcoin as currency helps spur buying. The price of the digital currency has climbed as much as 50% this week, re-creating ..." -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 15:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.
The edit #687308464 changed the wording of the definition from:
Bitcoin is a payment system...
to
Bitcoin is a digital store of value and payment system...
My objections to the edit are:
There is also a positive aspect to the edit:
As the "Classification" section points out, there are many classifications of bitcoin on which there is no broad consensus. For example, one of the latest attempts in The Economist mentions that bitcoin is the world’s "first decentralised digital currency", but the fact that The Economist put the characterization into quotes somewhat relativizes it. As pointed out in other sources, there are objections against this classification, and many sources state that bitcoin is not money at present for various reasons.
In my opinion, the "common denominator" statement about the second nature of bitcoin, distinct from the payment system, is that it is a digital asset (for example, The Wall Street Journal mentions this). I think that the digital asset characterization is neutral and not objectioned by any of the sources. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 09:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey. I was looking at http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Bitcoin , and I found a link that looked like it was dead. Ref #5 was the one, and it looks like it is working fine. Can somebody tell me what the problem is? Which one is right? Thanks, Yoshi24517 Chat Online 21:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Satoshi Nakamoto Revealed As Australian Craig Stephen Wright
Police and tax investigators have raided the Sydney home of a man that members of the Australian bitcoin community say might be the mastermind behind the controversial cryptocurrency, just hours after reports emerged in the United States suggesting that he may be its secretive creator.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/bitcoin-founder-could-definitely-be-australian-20151209-gljc73.html#ixzz3tu7XOK3M Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook
http://www.smh.com.au/business/bitcoin-founder-could-definitely-be-australian-20151209-gljc73.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.241.237 ( talk) 08:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I want to ask for further examination and explanation on what was so bad with theses two edits: 1 - "See also" , 2 - "Reference" , linking Bitcoin with other cryptocurrencies. Beside ambiguous general policy redirects (and "choose your own reason from the list"), I had gotten no real justification for the nedded removal operation.
Anyhow, the articles in matter are short with in-going links. Are we interested with people finding and reading them? If "Bitcoin" is not worthy linking to them, then what are we left with?! VirtuOZ ( talk) 16:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that the story of Silk Road shutdown, as it is reported in the "history" section, should be better introduced in order to make clear how it is related to the Bitcoin history. I've tried to edit the paragraph myself by both (1) writing that DNMs regularly use bitcoins in their transactions and (2) providing a reference to a document already cited in the Silk Road article which states annually sales figures of that market between 2011 and 2012. Unfortunately my edits are not accepted and Wikipedia only shows a "generic error" that doesn't make me understand what I'm doing wrong. While I need to investigate this issue, could please someone edit the involved section?
Fabio Maria De Francesco ( talk) 17:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I haven't got time to add to the article right now but thought it should be mentioned that extortionists producing ransomware ask for their ranson in bitcoins because they are P2P, not connected to any particular government and supposedly untraceable. How long will it be that real kidnappers start using this system to get their ransoms?
I myself would prefer to trade in genuine currency for so many reasons I can't see why anyone would want to use or support this idea. Euc ( talk) 14:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
"Digital assets are classified as images, multimedia and textual content files." says the article on digital assets. So is bitcoin an image, multimedia or a textual content file? Or maybe a combination of these? -- 2003:71:CF36:C782:10A1:8E38:2108:2AA2 ( talk) 18:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I've just removed the British Housing Bubble from Template:Financial bubbles, because of discussion at Talk:Affordability of housing in the United Kingdom, where I suggested that it's disputed and therefore not NPOV to call it a bubble since many people say that it wasn't one.
I have a similar question about inclusion of Bitcoin on the template, but I know more about housing markets than Bitcoin. Can anyone weigh in on whether Bitcoin should be on the template (and if it should then should we add the template to this article.)-- Jahaza ( talk) 15:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Edit #699960677 justified as "qualify categorical statement which is no longer necessarily true" introduced a change to the lead section. I reverted it to the WP:STATUSQUO due to the following reasons:
Due to the listed reasons I find the revert to the WP:STATUSQUO fully justified. Nevertheless, the original editor chose to revert again in #700113273. The problem is that the immediate revert does not follow the accepted WP:BRD policy, and that it constitutes a WP:EDITWAR. Moreover, its "boosterism/whitewashing" justification is not acceptable. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 08:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
In the edit #702637124 Stesmo deleted the Bitcoin currency data - statistics from the "External links" section for the second time in a row justifying the edit as follows: "Reverting external link that doesn't meet WP:EL." However, per WP:EL, "what can normally be linked", are: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to [...] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics [...])." Since the discussed link is indeed a site containing neutral and accurate statistic material relevant to encyclopedic understanding of the subject, which cannot be integrated to the article due to the amount of detail, I disagree with the deletion. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 08:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
My edit shortening the "Alternative application of the block chain" section name was reverted with the justification: '"of the block chain" is necessary here, because the section is not about "Alternative applications of Bitcoin" (which is implied, if there is no qualifier)'. I disagree:
What are hash-locked transactions? What are Zero-Knowledge Contingent Payments? What are replace-by-fee transactions? What are sidechains? Lightning Network? This could be covered in the article. Or do you think it is not notable? -- Ysangkok ( talk) 22:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The use of bitcoin by criminals has attracted the attention of financial regulators,[34] legislative bodies,[35] law enforcement,[36] and media.[37] Criminal activities are primarily centered around black markets and theft, though officials in countries such as the United States also recognize that bitcoin can provide legitimate financial services.[38] This section is irrelevant - or otherwise put - a similar section would be just as relevant when it comes to currency - in fact, a lot more criminal activity takes place with fiat currency and bitcoin is tame by comparison, being so tracable. 129.205.133.98 ( talk) 12:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Someone should put some quotes from papers by economists describing the fiat system as the same here, for contrast. OR remove this section altogether, unless a similar section is added to money and fiat pages. 129.205.133.98 ( talk) 12:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Wow, 'came to this article to see if "blockchain" has its own (yeah, i could've asked the search box, i know), and made no hits in the whole text until the references sections at the bottom.
Apparently, this has been discussed previously, as visible at
with the last entry the most complete on the subject.
I came to see if "blockchain" has its own page because i was reading articles in the press about "blockchain" being an interesting technology in itself, which could be used for other purposes. From this, my opinion is that it should most often be spelled as "blockchain" in one word. The Block chain (database) article uses both spellings. It seems to me sensible to write in the style of "the blockchain ledger is a block chain system."
-- Jerome Potts ( talk) 14:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Bitcoin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2 May GMT +8 time, Australian entrepreneur, Craig Wright claimed he was the inventor of Bitcoin and worked under the name Satoshi Nakamoto. BBC claims that he provided technical proof to confirm his identity. Therefore, the, "History," section should be updated to depict that Mr Wright was the inventor; however, worked under another name.
Perhaps it can be updated to the following: Bitcoin was invented by Craig Wright, an Australian entrepreneur, who identified himself to the public as Satoshi Nakamoto. Prior to revealing his identity in May 2016, there was speculation around the true identity of Satoshi Nakamoto and the real inventor of Bitcoin. Wright published the invention on 31 October 2008... (continued as normal.)
Kayminmb ( talk) 07:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
This phrase "Bitcoin[note 5][note 6] is a digital asset" reads awkwardly. I suggest removing the notes and embedding some of the text in the sections to make a smoother reading. I thought I'd get a sense of what others think before editing. T1259 ( talk) 07:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
News continues to break relating to Craig Steven Wright's claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto. I suggest we keep this page as Wright claiming to be Nakamoto, until at least the dust settles. I changed the wiki entry to reflect his claim.
The Economist "Craig Steven Wright claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto. Is he?". Economist. 2 May 2016. Retrieved 2 May 2016. http://www.economist.com/news/briefings/21698061-craig-steven-wright-claims-be-satoshi-nakamoto-bitcoin
BBC "Craig Wright revealed as Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto". BBC. 2 May 2016. Retrieved 2 May 2016 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36168863
This might develop later into a whole section entitled controversy, so until that happens suggest keeping it as "claims to be the creator" rather than "is the founder."
Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Well it looks like the dust has settled and Wright retracts his offer to provide proof. Can we revert back now? 97.84.91.70 ( talk) 18:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
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.
Should the "Ponzi scheme dispute" section be deleted? Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 22:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
There are serious problems with WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE in the section:
There is an original definition below, defining a Ponzi scheme as: "1) something to do with money that 2) is bad and 3) will fall apart eventually". I think that this definition should be treated per WP:RUMOUR, stating that speculations and rumour are not an appropriate encyclopedic content. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 09:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Bitcoin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
49.150.75.82 ( talk) 08:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
The consensus at the above 'RfC: Should the "Ponzi scheme dispute" section be deleted?' led to the consensus that the section should be edited to:
The series of edits, [3] through [4] made by Aoidh:
To not create an edit war, I revert my edits to the state reflecting the consensus after the RfC close. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 05:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Eric Posner: "Bitcoin is a Ponzi Scheme"- Aoidh ( talk) 17:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
@ BU Rob13: - For the reasons I gave previously, do you have any objection to removing the Huffington Post and PC World? My issues with those are they're filler, not something that creates a balance but something that was literally added as a tit-for-tat. Jeffrey Tucker for example, lends a great deal of weight since his background shows that he knows what he's talking about. Posner is a widely cited legal scholar and is a Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School. His opinion in the matter carries weight. The opinion blog hosted on Huffington Post? The qualifications of that author is that, in their own words, they are " passionate about finance". Of all the works to cite, citing that one does not show balance. The article has Posner, the heads of banking systems, and Nouriel Roubini, whose qualifications in this field are too many to list quickly here citing concerns about Bitcoin being/possibly/resembling a ponzi scheme, and then to refute those the article quotes a "passionate" blog writer refuting their concerns. That's not a balanced article, and in my opinion including those Huffington Post and PC World quotes hurts that balance, rather than work towards helping it. - Aoidh ( talk) 01:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I've made a test edit as seen here in an attempt to fix the concerns with the section. It's not too long, which helps with the concerns in the RfC, it's balanced as it doesn't give too much weight to a minority opinion, but (my favorite part), it also isn't bogged down in a sea of quotes. It's not perfect, and I'm not happy with Posner being the only one quoted, but I didn't want to include him on either "side" so I left his alone, since it helps with the flow of the section as "X has concerns, here's a quote from Y saying it's not, and here's reports from Z supporting the idea that X isn't quite right" That way it's not just a random collection of quotes with no flow, but is also short and to the point without giving undue weight to a particular viewpoint. - Aoidh ( talk) 05:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Suggestion for a new information to the end of the wallets section, just before Reference implementation starts: Purchasing physical cryptocurrency usually requires trust to the manufacturer. Self-made physical cryptocurrency requires trust to the machines which are used to create the private key.
Physical Bitcoin coin manufacturer Denarium was first to introduce a multisignature physical Bitcoin coins (2015). The multisignature technology makes possible to create trustless physical cryptocurrency. Thus, the manufacturer is not able to access funds under false pretenses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihqtzup ( talk • contribs) 06:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I see the sourcing on this article is not good. Sourcing to primary sources is not a good idea when done extensively. The PDF about the origin of bitcoin from 'coin desk' is not a good source. Also recently an editor removed information on the actual inventor of bitcoin in favor apparently of the old outdated information from 'coin desk' magazine. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 06:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I just see this to bitcoin wikipedia page
"Craig Steven Wright has claimed to be the creator of bitcoin. Wright, named himself as the creator of bitcoin in a BBC news interview. Wright apparently proved his claim by using 'signature' bitcoins associated with its inventor. Wright said 'his admission is an effort to end speculation about the identity of the originator of the currency.' In December 2015, Wired and Gizmodo, magazines also named Wright as likely to be bitcoin's creator.[88]"
this is completely false and lure to misunderstanding. Wright was never prove that he is Satoshi. He never sign any transaction that prove that and there is strong evidence that he is a hoaxer. He only joke two devs with false evidence and is well real known now. Wired and Gizmodo in the end they say that they do mistake about this. Please remove this entry from the wikipedia page of bitcoin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chek2fire ( talk • contribs) 11:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
edit: i see that someone correct the page. Imo we must completely remove Craig Wright from bitcoin article. He has nothing to do with bitcoin history. Maybe they deserve to be in Satoshi Nakamoto page as the person that failed to claim to be Satoshi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chek2fire ( talk • contribs) 14:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
^ Agreed. Anyone can come out and claim to be the creator. But the only way for them to prove it is to move those original coins. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
73.150.169.96 (
talk)
20:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I propose to delete the "Other uses" section. Reasons:
The reasons for deleting seem compelling. You did not address the reasons.
The section does not describe any use of bitcoin, listing only experiments and pilot studies. Experiments and pilot studies presented as "uses" violate the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" principle. The experiments by UBS are only "using bitcoin blockchain", and there is no indication in the cited sources that the UBS plans to use bitcoins. The notability and reliability of the cited sources is questionable. As it stands the limited consensus is to delete that info. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 06:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Note If you check the history, you will find out that the UBS experiment was consensually deleted in the past for the reasons listed here and this is the second attempt to put it to the article. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 04:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
How about removing the long section about China accepting and then rejecting bitcoin or boiling it down to a couple of sentences. Useless historic information, article bloat. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 06:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Khan Academy is way to iffy a source for the article [7] there are multiple people and groups calling it not reliable for a good education. Removed from article. There has to be more legitimate sourcing available. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 07:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Its not a good thing to include in the article at all as any kind of 'See also' or to be used as a citation to prove or reinforce anything [8] Earl King Jr. ( talk) 09:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
A recent edit by Ladislav Mecir [9]. Using some Bitcoin presentation meet up seminar and a Bitcoin Forum, yes an ordinary forum is not appropriate. A false edit summary to call this some educational piece also. It is not. Its a promo piece of a seminar and a forum. I removed that once and returning it seems really out of sync. with encyclopedia information Earl King Jr. ( talk) 05:54, 12 July 2016 (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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
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.
Does the lede more accurately represent the reliable sources before or after this edit? Bosstopher ( talk) 12:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
[Explanatory note: When discussing what people do with bitcoins, the lede currently only mentions retail use although gambling and hoarding are far more popular uses. In fact, little more than 2.5% of bitcoin transactions were associated with purchasing items at retailers. A recent MIT Technology Review article explains bitcoin's use-in-retail-sales deficiency succinctly. Fleetham ( talk) 21:58, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Before. The lede more accurately represents the reliable sources before Bosstophers edit. His edit is
Before - the after is full of grammar errors and does not cite enough sources for an accurate picture, as it sure sounds like it's biased. We can change that section, but I hope it doesn't end up being the text in the linked edit. ʬʬ ( talk) 16:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Before - I agree with the version "before". -- Fox1942 ( talk) 04:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
So my addition of Category:Carding was reverted as 'unrelated'. Well I disagree, I've been writing up Carding and the category I have applied to MoneyGram, E-gold, Liberty Reserve and Western Union, I think it's only fair this share the category. Deku-shrub ( talk) 17:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
they are not created by mining; that's a misconception. By design there are a total of 21,000,000 of them and they are released by mining. The system is designed so that the motivation for participating in the bitcoin network will gradually shift from mining reward to transaction fees, and it appears to be working swimmingly. 204.8.27.140 ( talk) 22:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Now that the RfC has been closed as no concensus, does anyone have suggestions for how to improve the paragraph about retail use of bitcoin as suggested in the closing remarks? Brustopher ( talk) 22:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
The "after" camp also makes some good points mainly about using newer sources, and noting that some aspects of Bitcoin are not addressed adequately in the lead. I suggest that a consensual text be found, perhaps in draft form, before using it in the lead.Brustopher ( talk) 09:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
New stub for Bitcoin XT created. Anyone interested please review/fix/expand/enhance/etc. Cheers ✌ -- Eclipsed (talk) (email) 08:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Oh great. Now I have to renominate it again for the 3rd time. (GA1 failed, GA2 passed, 6 months later article got delisted) But first, I think there is nothing wrong, but if there is something wrong please do tell me. I mean, I don't see any edit warring going on. BUT, there is a content dispute. Can someone PLEASE tell me what is going on? Yoshi24517 Chat Online 19:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The edit #681621567 replaced the original word "Conversely", with the word "However". Fleetham justified the edit as "Incorrect use of term". In my opinion (it was not me who introduced the word to the text), the word "Conversely" was appropriate and shall be kept. On the other hand, the word "However" (however well-liked by Fleetham) does not look appropriate, not communicating the same information to the reader. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 18:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC) My check in various dictionaries revealed that it is, indeed, possible to use the word "conversely" in such a situation, which makes Fleetham's justification invalid. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 05:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Wuerzele, please take this also as a response to the question in the previous section. The last wording of the paragraph) that was stable for some time looked as follows:
The use of bitcoin by criminals has attracted the attention of financial regulators, legislative bodies, law enforcement, and media. Criminal activities are primarily centered around black markets and theft, though officials in countries such as the United States also recognize that bitcoin can provide legitimate financial services.
While only one source (the WSJ) was used to confirm the last sentence, plenty of other sources were available. I mention this in reaction to "it's contained only in one source", which is rather inaccurate when examined properly. Now, new editors came and added a bunch of countries, which, according to your opinion, introduced some inconsistencies. For example, you noted that some of the countries listed, like the Isle of Man or Jersey, may not be countries. Also, you disliked the fact that the "Officials" word was used. I do not think it is reasonable to mention original research just because the editors added new informations to the existing text, but that may be a subject to discussion, which is what I want to start here. For example, to me, the word "officials" did not cease to be appropriate just because new informations and sources were added to a confirmed (by a respectable quantity of reliable sources) statement. To illustrate why I think that the "officials" word may be appropriate even when other countries are added to the statement, let me mention the case of the United Kingdom. The actual source mentions prime minister David Cameron, but there are other sources mentioning George Osborne, e.g. Yet another issue I am having with the text is the WP:OR text added by Fleetham as the last sentence. Summing up, I revert the paragraph to the status quo, until we find a better and consensual wording in this discussion. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 06:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
File:Altcoins symbols.png | Hello Bitcoin/Archive 27. You are cordially invited to participate in the
Cryptocurrency Task Force (part of WikiProject Numismatics) a project dedicated on improving Wikipedia's coverage and detail regarding all things related to cryptocurrencies. |
-- 1Wiki8........................... ( talk) 09:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi all. The edit #688742022 replaced '$' by 'HK$' in Swanson's estimates. I do not see any support for this in the cited sources. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 03:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
News of this new surge could be added to the sections herein: 'Price and volatility' (and/or) 'Bitcoin obituaries'.
Headline-1: Bitcoin Frenzy Back As Epic Bust Fades
QUOTE: "The bitcoin casino is open again. EU decision to define bitcoin as currency helps spur buying. The price of the digital currency has climbed as much as 50% this week, re-creating ..." -- Charles Edwin Shipp ( talk) 15:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.
The edit #687308464 changed the wording of the definition from:
Bitcoin is a payment system...
to
Bitcoin is a digital store of value and payment system...
My objections to the edit are:
There is also a positive aspect to the edit:
As the "Classification" section points out, there are many classifications of bitcoin on which there is no broad consensus. For example, one of the latest attempts in The Economist mentions that bitcoin is the world’s "first decentralised digital currency", but the fact that The Economist put the characterization into quotes somewhat relativizes it. As pointed out in other sources, there are objections against this classification, and many sources state that bitcoin is not money at present for various reasons.
In my opinion, the "common denominator" statement about the second nature of bitcoin, distinct from the payment system, is that it is a digital asset (for example, The Wall Street Journal mentions this). I think that the digital asset characterization is neutral and not objectioned by any of the sources. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 09:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Hey. I was looking at http://dispenser.homenet.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Bitcoin , and I found a link that looked like it was dead. Ref #5 was the one, and it looks like it is working fine. Can somebody tell me what the problem is? Which one is right? Thanks, Yoshi24517 Chat Online 21:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Satoshi Nakamoto Revealed As Australian Craig Stephen Wright
Police and tax investigators have raided the Sydney home of a man that members of the Australian bitcoin community say might be the mastermind behind the controversial cryptocurrency, just hours after reports emerged in the United States suggesting that he may be its secretive creator.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/bitcoin-founder-could-definitely-be-australian-20151209-gljc73.html#ixzz3tu7XOK3M Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook
http://www.smh.com.au/business/bitcoin-founder-could-definitely-be-australian-20151209-gljc73.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.33.241.237 ( talk) 08:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I want to ask for further examination and explanation on what was so bad with theses two edits: 1 - "See also" , 2 - "Reference" , linking Bitcoin with other cryptocurrencies. Beside ambiguous general policy redirects (and "choose your own reason from the list"), I had gotten no real justification for the nedded removal operation.
Anyhow, the articles in matter are short with in-going links. Are we interested with people finding and reading them? If "Bitcoin" is not worthy linking to them, then what are we left with?! VirtuOZ ( talk) 16:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I think that the story of Silk Road shutdown, as it is reported in the "history" section, should be better introduced in order to make clear how it is related to the Bitcoin history. I've tried to edit the paragraph myself by both (1) writing that DNMs regularly use bitcoins in their transactions and (2) providing a reference to a document already cited in the Silk Road article which states annually sales figures of that market between 2011 and 2012. Unfortunately my edits are not accepted and Wikipedia only shows a "generic error" that doesn't make me understand what I'm doing wrong. While I need to investigate this issue, could please someone edit the involved section?
Fabio Maria De Francesco ( talk) 17:30, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I haven't got time to add to the article right now but thought it should be mentioned that extortionists producing ransomware ask for their ranson in bitcoins because they are P2P, not connected to any particular government and supposedly untraceable. How long will it be that real kidnappers start using this system to get their ransoms?
I myself would prefer to trade in genuine currency for so many reasons I can't see why anyone would want to use or support this idea. Euc ( talk) 14:20, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
"Digital assets are classified as images, multimedia and textual content files." says the article on digital assets. So is bitcoin an image, multimedia or a textual content file? Or maybe a combination of these? -- 2003:71:CF36:C782:10A1:8E38:2108:2AA2 ( talk) 18:56, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
I've just removed the British Housing Bubble from Template:Financial bubbles, because of discussion at Talk:Affordability of housing in the United Kingdom, where I suggested that it's disputed and therefore not NPOV to call it a bubble since many people say that it wasn't one.
I have a similar question about inclusion of Bitcoin on the template, but I know more about housing markets than Bitcoin. Can anyone weigh in on whether Bitcoin should be on the template (and if it should then should we add the template to this article.)-- Jahaza ( talk) 15:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Edit #699960677 justified as "qualify categorical statement which is no longer necessarily true" introduced a change to the lead section. I reverted it to the WP:STATUSQUO due to the following reasons:
Due to the listed reasons I find the revert to the WP:STATUSQUO fully justified. Nevertheless, the original editor chose to revert again in #700113273. The problem is that the immediate revert does not follow the accepted WP:BRD policy, and that it constitutes a WP:EDITWAR. Moreover, its "boosterism/whitewashing" justification is not acceptable. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 08:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
In the edit #702637124 Stesmo deleted the Bitcoin currency data - statistics from the "External links" section for the second time in a row justifying the edit as follows: "Reverting external link that doesn't meet WP:EL." However, per WP:EL, "what can normally be linked", are: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to [...] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics [...])." Since the discussed link is indeed a site containing neutral and accurate statistic material relevant to encyclopedic understanding of the subject, which cannot be integrated to the article due to the amount of detail, I disagree with the deletion. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 08:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
My edit shortening the "Alternative application of the block chain" section name was reverted with the justification: '"of the block chain" is necessary here, because the section is not about "Alternative applications of Bitcoin" (which is implied, if there is no qualifier)'. I disagree:
What are hash-locked transactions? What are Zero-Knowledge Contingent Payments? What are replace-by-fee transactions? What are sidechains? Lightning Network? This could be covered in the article. Or do you think it is not notable? -- Ysangkok ( talk) 22:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The use of bitcoin by criminals has attracted the attention of financial regulators,[34] legislative bodies,[35] law enforcement,[36] and media.[37] Criminal activities are primarily centered around black markets and theft, though officials in countries such as the United States also recognize that bitcoin can provide legitimate financial services.[38] This section is irrelevant - or otherwise put - a similar section would be just as relevant when it comes to currency - in fact, a lot more criminal activity takes place with fiat currency and bitcoin is tame by comparison, being so tracable. 129.205.133.98 ( talk) 12:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Someone should put some quotes from papers by economists describing the fiat system as the same here, for contrast. OR remove this section altogether, unless a similar section is added to money and fiat pages. 129.205.133.98 ( talk) 12:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Wow, 'came to this article to see if "blockchain" has its own (yeah, i could've asked the search box, i know), and made no hits in the whole text until the references sections at the bottom.
Apparently, this has been discussed previously, as visible at
with the last entry the most complete on the subject.
I came to see if "blockchain" has its own page because i was reading articles in the press about "blockchain" being an interesting technology in itself, which could be used for other purposes. From this, my opinion is that it should most often be spelled as "blockchain" in one word. The Block chain (database) article uses both spellings. It seems to me sensible to write in the style of "the blockchain ledger is a block chain system."
-- Jerome Potts ( talk) 14:30, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Bitcoin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2 May GMT +8 time, Australian entrepreneur, Craig Wright claimed he was the inventor of Bitcoin and worked under the name Satoshi Nakamoto. BBC claims that he provided technical proof to confirm his identity. Therefore, the, "History," section should be updated to depict that Mr Wright was the inventor; however, worked under another name.
Perhaps it can be updated to the following: Bitcoin was invented by Craig Wright, an Australian entrepreneur, who identified himself to the public as Satoshi Nakamoto. Prior to revealing his identity in May 2016, there was speculation around the true identity of Satoshi Nakamoto and the real inventor of Bitcoin. Wright published the invention on 31 October 2008... (continued as normal.)
Kayminmb ( talk) 07:26, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
This phrase "Bitcoin[note 5][note 6] is a digital asset" reads awkwardly. I suggest removing the notes and embedding some of the text in the sections to make a smoother reading. I thought I'd get a sense of what others think before editing. T1259 ( talk) 07:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
News continues to break relating to Craig Steven Wright's claiming to be Satoshi Nakamoto. I suggest we keep this page as Wright claiming to be Nakamoto, until at least the dust settles. I changed the wiki entry to reflect his claim.
The Economist "Craig Steven Wright claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto. Is he?". Economist. 2 May 2016. Retrieved 2 May 2016. http://www.economist.com/news/briefings/21698061-craig-steven-wright-claims-be-satoshi-nakamoto-bitcoin
BBC "Craig Wright revealed as Bitcoin creator Satoshi Nakamoto". BBC. 2 May 2016. Retrieved 2 May 2016 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-36168863
This might develop later into a whole section entitled controversy, so until that happens suggest keeping it as "claims to be the creator" rather than "is the founder."
Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Well it looks like the dust has settled and Wright retracts his offer to provide proof. Can we revert back now? 97.84.91.70 ( talk) 18:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
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.
Should the "Ponzi scheme dispute" section be deleted? Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 22:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
There are serious problems with WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE in the section:
There is an original definition below, defining a Ponzi scheme as: "1) something to do with money that 2) is bad and 3) will fall apart eventually". I think that this definition should be treated per WP:RUMOUR, stating that speculations and rumour are not an appropriate encyclopedic content. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 09:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Bitcoin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
49.150.75.82 ( talk) 08:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
The consensus at the above 'RfC: Should the "Ponzi scheme dispute" section be deleted?' led to the consensus that the section should be edited to:
The series of edits, [3] through [4] made by Aoidh:
To not create an edit war, I revert my edits to the state reflecting the consensus after the RfC close. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 05:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Eric Posner: "Bitcoin is a Ponzi Scheme"- Aoidh ( talk) 17:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
@ BU Rob13: - For the reasons I gave previously, do you have any objection to removing the Huffington Post and PC World? My issues with those are they're filler, not something that creates a balance but something that was literally added as a tit-for-tat. Jeffrey Tucker for example, lends a great deal of weight since his background shows that he knows what he's talking about. Posner is a widely cited legal scholar and is a Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago Law School. His opinion in the matter carries weight. The opinion blog hosted on Huffington Post? The qualifications of that author is that, in their own words, they are " passionate about finance". Of all the works to cite, citing that one does not show balance. The article has Posner, the heads of banking systems, and Nouriel Roubini, whose qualifications in this field are too many to list quickly here citing concerns about Bitcoin being/possibly/resembling a ponzi scheme, and then to refute those the article quotes a "passionate" blog writer refuting their concerns. That's not a balanced article, and in my opinion including those Huffington Post and PC World quotes hurts that balance, rather than work towards helping it. - Aoidh ( talk) 01:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I've made a test edit as seen here in an attempt to fix the concerns with the section. It's not too long, which helps with the concerns in the RfC, it's balanced as it doesn't give too much weight to a minority opinion, but (my favorite part), it also isn't bogged down in a sea of quotes. It's not perfect, and I'm not happy with Posner being the only one quoted, but I didn't want to include him on either "side" so I left his alone, since it helps with the flow of the section as "X has concerns, here's a quote from Y saying it's not, and here's reports from Z supporting the idea that X isn't quite right" That way it's not just a random collection of quotes with no flow, but is also short and to the point without giving undue weight to a particular viewpoint. - Aoidh ( talk) 05:01, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Suggestion for a new information to the end of the wallets section, just before Reference implementation starts: Purchasing physical cryptocurrency usually requires trust to the manufacturer. Self-made physical cryptocurrency requires trust to the machines which are used to create the private key.
Physical Bitcoin coin manufacturer Denarium was first to introduce a multisignature physical Bitcoin coins (2015). The multisignature technology makes possible to create trustless physical cryptocurrency. Thus, the manufacturer is not able to access funds under false pretenses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihqtzup ( talk • contribs) 06:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
I see the sourcing on this article is not good. Sourcing to primary sources is not a good idea when done extensively. The PDF about the origin of bitcoin from 'coin desk' is not a good source. Also recently an editor removed information on the actual inventor of bitcoin in favor apparently of the old outdated information from 'coin desk' magazine. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 06:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I just see this to bitcoin wikipedia page
"Craig Steven Wright has claimed to be the creator of bitcoin. Wright, named himself as the creator of bitcoin in a BBC news interview. Wright apparently proved his claim by using 'signature' bitcoins associated with its inventor. Wright said 'his admission is an effort to end speculation about the identity of the originator of the currency.' In December 2015, Wired and Gizmodo, magazines also named Wright as likely to be bitcoin's creator.[88]"
this is completely false and lure to misunderstanding. Wright was never prove that he is Satoshi. He never sign any transaction that prove that and there is strong evidence that he is a hoaxer. He only joke two devs with false evidence and is well real known now. Wired and Gizmodo in the end they say that they do mistake about this. Please remove this entry from the wikipedia page of bitcoin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chek2fire ( talk • contribs) 11:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
edit: i see that someone correct the page. Imo we must completely remove Craig Wright from bitcoin article. He has nothing to do with bitcoin history. Maybe they deserve to be in Satoshi Nakamoto page as the person that failed to claim to be Satoshi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chek2fire ( talk • contribs) 14:55, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
^ Agreed. Anyone can come out and claim to be the creator. But the only way for them to prove it is to move those original coins. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
73.150.169.96 (
talk)
20:44, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I propose to delete the "Other uses" section. Reasons:
The reasons for deleting seem compelling. You did not address the reasons.
The section does not describe any use of bitcoin, listing only experiments and pilot studies. Experiments and pilot studies presented as "uses" violate the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" principle. The experiments by UBS are only "using bitcoin blockchain", and there is no indication in the cited sources that the UBS plans to use bitcoins. The notability and reliability of the cited sources is questionable. As it stands the limited consensus is to delete that info. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 06:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Note If you check the history, you will find out that the UBS experiment was consensually deleted in the past for the reasons listed here and this is the second attempt to put it to the article. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 04:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
How about removing the long section about China accepting and then rejecting bitcoin or boiling it down to a couple of sentences. Useless historic information, article bloat. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 06:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Khan Academy is way to iffy a source for the article [7] there are multiple people and groups calling it not reliable for a good education. Removed from article. There has to be more legitimate sourcing available. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 07:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Its not a good thing to include in the article at all as any kind of 'See also' or to be used as a citation to prove or reinforce anything [8] Earl King Jr. ( talk) 09:49, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
A recent edit by Ladislav Mecir [9]. Using some Bitcoin presentation meet up seminar and a Bitcoin Forum, yes an ordinary forum is not appropriate. A false edit summary to call this some educational piece also. It is not. Its a promo piece of a seminar and a forum. I removed that once and returning it seems really out of sync. with encyclopedia information Earl King Jr. ( talk) 05:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)