![]() | 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 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
The first sentence in the "Classification" section is:
Bitcoin is a digital asset [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] designed by its inventor, Satoshi Nakamoto, to work as a currency. [7] [8]
References
The question is whether there is a consensus to remove the cross link to the digital asset article. As far as I am concerned, there is no such consensus, and the cross link should remain in the text, since it can aid understanding of the digital asset term. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 06:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
{{ help me}}
Satoshi Nakamoto wanted to be a Currency; but it does not match the classification of a currency. It's like building an encased bicycle and calling it a car; and then wanting it to be a car. One can clearly see that it's not a currency. The Webster Merriam definition would be valid is bitcoin was first defined as a Commodity, otherwise even that definition is invalid. Theochino ( talk) 18:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Bitcoin is not money but a commodity; and it took me two years to come up with the simple answer to what bitcoin is: Bitcoin is the first Virtual Commodity ever created.
Money has been virtualized more than 200 years ago with the first check; and that is what cause the confusion. With Bitcoin, a Commodity has the same exchange speed as money. Money is created by a state/person that can protect it; Commodity exist regardless of what the state/person says. It's just there; and that is why it is not money. [1] [2] [3]
When I discovered what bitcoin was, I asked a friend of mine, an internationally recognized expert on public debt finance, and to give me his opinion on bitcoin, and then on money. He sent me his paper on "The Functions of Money and Other Issues." [4]
At the meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, at the meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Blockchain Technologies, [5] I pushed for the correct classification of what Bitcoin is, a Commodity.
Carla Reyes, the Moderator said: "I think the question of how to categorize the thing that it is is a good one. I'm from the United States and that's where I am most engrossed in how a government is trying to categorize this thing. It has been called virtual currency, not cryptocurrency. It has called property by the IRS. It has been called stored value by the states. Called a commodity by the CFDS but they would agree with you but it has been called a security by the securities exchange commission. So yes, categorizing what this thing is is difficult and I think though to focus on distributed ledger technology, DLT is where we might get the most bang for the governance discussion whether than focusing on the currency commodity itself." [6]
By mentioning that the classification of what it is using the lack of standard by each Regulatory Agency seems to be the general approach, albeit the wrong approach. The approach need to be the scientific method, and historically, what define (and to this day) money is that it can be created and destroyed by the power of a single entity (Central Bank, Authority, etc ...) A commodity exist regardless of what the power to be want.
Theochino ( talk) 03:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
References
"Buyable in-game assets" are Currency since they are created by the game maker, the game maker is what control it. Second life are not commodities because they are also controlled by the game maker; Second Life is actually a Commodity Like behavior but it is not.
What differentiate a Commodity and a Currency is Control by a central entity that Creates and Destroy the Currency (French Franc, Euro, Hawaii Dollars) ....
It's not because everyone want it to be a Currency that it is ... the mistake comes that Virtualization of Currency took place two hundred years ago when the first check was written against currency. The check became an instrument representing the currency (but was not the currency.)
bitcoin (small B) doesn't represent anything ... bitcoin is here for itself. It's value is derived by the needs and wants of it's user (own wikipage definition) and therefore it's a commodity; it share the exchange speed of a currency but "speed" is not what makes the definition of a currency; control does.
Theochino ( talk) 16:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
bitcoin is not a Commodity money either. It can become a commodity money if a central bank declares it legal tender, but noone has done that yet.
Theochino ( talk) 16:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
References
Merriam-Webster says "something (as coins, treasury notes, and banknotes) that is in circulation as a medium of exchange."[4] [5]
Our definition of "currency" includes the meaning "something (as coins, treasury notes, and banknotes) that is in circulation as a medium of exchange." The individual definitions of "coin," "treasury note," and "banknote" all indicate the involvement of some form of central authority.Theochino ( talk) 21:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
References
Ladislav Mecir Asking for a neutral look at the properties of Bitcoin is not COI. Otherwise everything would be COI. What is your interest as saying it's a currency (vs) a commodity ? Let's discuss the mathematical and scientific economical properties and our different beliefs. Can you show me using the scientific method that I am wrong ? Calling COI is a character defamation. Theochino ( talk) 17:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
The check that Theochino asks for here has been performed above with these results:
These findings are sufficient to refuse to add the requested POV-check tag again. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 20:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A consensus could not be reached. |
![]() | The
neutrality of this article is
disputed. |
This is a very good article but it is unclear on the monetary status of bitcoin. Two questions are unanswered:
1. Who controls money supply? The article does not explicitly spell out how the supply of bitcoin is restricted, but there is an indirect description in the form of the "Mining" section. It says that bitcoin is, essentially, created through the virtual equivalent of gold mining. But who owns the bitcoin-supply algorithm? Can anyone create their own algorithm and thereby new supply? This question is not answered in the article.
2. Does bitcoin have intrinsic value? For a commodity to become money, it cannot have any intrinsic value. A pack of cigarettes is not money because it has value of its own. Money can only be a carrier of value. I glean from this article that bitcoin has no intrinsic value, but there is room for clarification here in order to further explain the monetary status of bitcoin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.189.99 ( talk) 15:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
According to the various Wikipedia pages defining Fiat Money, Medium of Exchange, Digital Currency, Commodity; bitcoin fit the commodity profile and not the currency profile. All the source cited have Political Agendas to get bitcoin accepted as a Currency and not as a Medium of Exchange.
As you can see, everything under Commodity end up with a astonishing "yes" and everything under Fiat, Currency and Money has a "no"
See table below.
Wiki Name | Definition | Apply to Bitcoin |
Fiat Money | Fiat money is a currency established as money by government regulation or law. | No |
Medium of Exchange | Value common assets | Yes |
Medium of Exchange | Common and accessible | Yes |
Medium of Exchange | Constant utility | Yes |
Medium of Exchange | Low cost of preservation | Debatable |
Medium of Exchange | Transportability | Yes |
Medium of Exchange | Divisibility | Yes |
Medium of Exchange | Recognisability | Debatable / but working on it, Yes |
Medium of Exchange | Resistance to counterfeiting | Yes |
private currency | is a currency issued by a private organization | No |
Digital currency | Both virtual currencies and cryptocurrencies are types of digital currencies, but the converse is incorrect. | Wrong Statement |
Digital currency | A virtual currency has been defined in 2012 by the European Central Bank as "a type of unregulated, digital money, which is issued and usually controlled by its developers, and used and accepted among the members of a specific virtual community". | Is bitcoin controlled by its developers ? No |
Commodity | commodity is a marketable item produced to satisfy wants or needs. | yes |
Commodity | Often the item is fungible. | yes |
Commodity | Economic commodities comprise goods and services. | yes |
Commodity currency | A commodity currency is a name given to currencies of countries which depend heavily on the export of certain raw materials for income. | No |
Hard currency | the associated country's political and fiscal condition and outlook, and the policy posture of the issuing central bank. | no |
Commodity | The inventory of commodities, with low inventories typically leading to more volatile future prices and increasing the risk of a "stockout" (inventory exhaustion) | yes |
Commodity | In classical political economy and especially in Karl Marx's critique of political economy, a commodity is an object or a good or service ("product" or "activity"[9]) produced by human labour | Debatable Here the labor is done by computers (Karl Max v2 ?) - Galactica & Terminator ? |
Commodity | On a commodity exchange, it is the underlying standard stated in the contract that defines the commodity, not any quality inherent in a specific producer's product. | yes |
Theochino ( talk) 17:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
The entry in question is :
'''Bitcoin''' is the first virtual [[commodity]] (commonly referred by the misnomer [[cryptocurrency]]) and a [[payment system]]{{r|primer|p=3}}
(vs)
'''Bitcoin''' is a [[cryptocurrency]] and a [[payment system]]{{r|primer|p=3}}
Theochino ( talk) 17:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
References
So if it is not money, and ready the definition of currency "in the most specific use of the word refers to money in any form when in actual use or circulation" then it's a commodity. Theochino ( talk) 18:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Ladislav Mecir: removed the POV tag after this discussion went nowhere. @ Theochino: you re-added the POV tag today. Let's finish this discussion here and remove the tag unless we find a specific problem. Theochino, your WP:OR isn't enough. If you have WP:RS to show bitcoin is an asset, please by all means add the content to the article. There are certinaly differing discriptions of the how bitcion is classified, including the Florida case. All of those classifications that are supported by WP:RS shall be provided equal weight under WP:NPOV. But this tag is not necessary as a tool to force a discussion of it, and I support Ladislav's removal of it. Theo, please just add the content and if someone deletes it, we can again have a discussion here on the talk page, that's what the talk page is for. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 17:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Please follow the guidelines you clearly spell out ... that you are following the "latter" style of always lowercasing.
76.178.161.118 ( talk) 18:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The first sentence in the "Ponzi scheme concerns" section is:
Various journalists, [1] [2] economists, [3] [4] and the central bank of Estonia [5] have voiced concerns that bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme. [6]
The problem with the citation [6] is that:
Due to the above reasons, the citation [6] shall be deleted as superfluous, irrelevant and dubious. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 08:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp=
ignored (|name-list-style=
suggested) (
help)
Hi, I have got several objections against the section being present in this article:
I believe that these points justify the deletion of the section. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 11:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2961405
Here's a paper on bitcoin.
Benjamin ( talk) 09:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
They could easily identify the scammers and ransomeware attackers but refuse to do so. It should be declared illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.132.21.52 ( talk) 17:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
After reading thru the article I wonder what on earth are you talking about. BTW there is an obtuse word string of 5 words, which should be a sentence that at least could be made grammatical (like 'twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre & gimbol"): "suspended withdrawals citing technical issues.[51]" How do withdrawals do citing? People do citing. That word string starts no where & ends no where. ( PeacePeace ( talk) 17:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC))
I was wondering why Bitcoin.org is not linked in the infobox? Ethereum links to Ethereum.org. It is the original Domain. It was registered even before the White paper was published. -- 2A02:908:5C8:F240:B1A1:4BEA:2EB:B2FB ( talk) 16:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
As currently written, the Blockchain subsection of the article says:
Propose to change the locution to:
or
Rationale: needs an adjective to describe the specific sort of blockchain that is being referred to here. It simply is not the case that there is only one blockchain, and that blockchains records bitcoin transactions. There are many blockchains (data structures of a particular type) up and running today. The article prose should be explicit about the type of blockchain.
Has the size of this talk page ever reached crazy long proportions? Not for as long as I've seen it. It's always been incredibly light for a Wikipedia talk page. Please knock off this incessant archiving. All you're doing is stifling conversation. Tgm1024 ( talk) 20:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The talk page is archived automatically, I think, and the speed at which it is archived can be adjusted. I would support archiving less often. Benjamin ( talk) 13:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
This was first added here, and then added back here with some sources put in, so it appears as it does below:
Bitcoin combines three ideas that had been widely discussed (and implemented) in computer science, but never combined into a payment system. The core ideas of a chain of blocks, with each block cryptographically signing the previous, is based on the Merkle tree [1]. The bitcoin network itself operates as a Distributed hash table [2] Bitcoin mining is a Proof-of-work system, similar to the Hashcash anti-spam system. [3] The key insight ofBitcoin insight was to combine these three concepts to form a self-sustaining, independent, decentralized payment system. [4] Unlike other digital cash systems, such as DigiCash, Bitcoin sacrifices anonymity: all of the parties of every Bitcoin transaction is publicly known and recorded on the public ledger. But Bitcoin identities are not names, they are public keys: what is unknown is the which Bitcoin public keys are held by which humans or corporations. As such, Bitcoin provides pseudonymity, rather than true anonymity.
References
This is not summarizing reliable sources. The sources are somewhat iffy, and the core claim about combining three things remains unsourced. Jytdog ( talk) 02:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello Bitcoin people. An article was created today on IOTA (Distributed Ledger Technology). The topic has proved to be controversial, and the article itself is already protected three days. It looks like a reasonable discussion has begun at Talk:IOTA (Distributed Ledger Technology). People who are regular contributors to Bitcoin might have some knowledge in this area and might be able to contribute to the IOTA discussion. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 16:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Ladislav Mecir: I noticed you deleted a section created by @ Benbest:. Certainly scability is a major debate right now and has been for more than a year, and deserves some sort of treatment in the article. Maybe we can discuss that here. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 22:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I have copied all the content back off the other sub-page, as there was almost nothing extra and per @ Ladislav Mecir:'s comment over at the Talk:Bitcoin_scalability_problem that he also didn't think the sub-page warranted a separate page. I think we can just allow this section to grow until its large enough to warrant a sub-page. But I think moving the majority of the content about scaling (and what generates most of the press, other than the bitcoin price) should be on the main page, not some sub-page. Now I have left duplicate content on the sub-page Bitcoin_scalability_problem, so can someone advise what is the procedure for deleting this sub-page? Is it AfD? Or just an admin delete? @ David Gerard:, care to comment on this delete process? I think it is uncontroversial Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 14:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The bitcoin scalability problem is a consequence of the fact that blocks in the blockchain are limited to one megabyte in size. [1] Bitcoin blocks carry the transactions on the bitcoin network since the last block has been created. [2]: ch. 2 The one megabyte limit has created problems for bitcoin transaction processing, such as increasing transaction fees and delayed processing of transactions that cannot be fit into a block. [3]
References
Comment — Wiki editing standards are pretty clear. If it is material to the topic, and sourced/cited, then such info definitely belongs in this article. If the article is quite large, as this article is getting to be but is not over the standard guideline on article size, then the information would be summarized here before having detail moved to another article.
The scaling debate is quite clearly a major debate in the community, has been for nearly two years now, and is very well sourced by many tens of news articles about it, since 2015. Clearly the scaling debate—what it is; when it got started; why it is an issue; what proposed solutions are for scaling the bitcoin protocol; who is and what groups are supporting various approaches; summaries of the pros/cons of various solutions—is all plainly a part of what ought to be covered in the article.
We should be trying to improve the article to convey information; moving that information about this major issue to some other article without covering it here should not even be a realistic debate. It needs to be covered in this article, whether summarized or in detail, while if there is too much detail on this protracted issue, that detail might well be also covered in one of the other detailed articles on the bitcoing protocol and its history. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 23:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I think you are making a mistake to have a big debate in this section on the Talk page. Better: clear proposal; other editors weigh in with their rationale; ask for a non-involved closer to close the debate. Just let it ride; it is obvious that there are many other issues you two might disagree about. Just let those ride; or take them elsewhere. Leave this section with just the question of "Is the scalability debate history, at least at a summary level, appropriate to be covered in this article." My two cents. N2e ( talk) 17:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Bitcoin Magazine now has a full editorial policy section on its "About" page; https://bitcoinmagazine.com/about/ Hope it will work as a RS now. Thanks. Acharkin ( talk) 22:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC) acharkin 18:11,11 July 2017 (EST)
In my opinion, the article should have a (short) section on a very important aspect of Bitcoin, namely, its inherent value or lack thereof. It seems to me to be one of the most important aspects of Bitcoin especially where recent reports about how the value of Bitcoin has dramatically increased will cause many to think of it as a speculative way to get rich quick.
Early money was gold and silver coins. Then there was paper money "backed by gold". Then "fiat" money backed by the stability of a nation's government and the strength of its economy and by responsible management of the money supply. While Bitcoin would seem to get high grades on the last item, regarding the 1st two items, it would seem to have no intrinsic value whatsoever. Bitcoin is a new type of fiat money, one might call it "unbacked fiat" money. This deserves a separate section and explicit sentences. There may be sentences here and there that imply something about intrinsic value, but the point in easily missed. Even in the Economics of Bitcoin article, sections 5, 6 and 7 don't explicitly address this fundamental point.
Bitcoin's blockchain technology offers many advantages, but intrinsic value, or lack thereof, is a real and relevant aspect. (Note: I'm neither long nor short Bitcoin.) HarvPhys ( talk) 15:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
The issue of intrinsic value is clearly a most important issue, quite possible the 2nd most important after the topic of blockchain. If the editors wish to leave it out, fine. I will just note that if a section on intrinsic value is added, one can add the above note about "the Intrinsic theory of value, which has been replaced by the Subjective theory of value in modern econom[ics]" - one can note that cryptocurrencies take a significant step toward subjective value and away from intrinsic value. Regarding "how the value of Bitcoin has dramatically increased will cause many to think of it as a speculative way to get rich quick", the media has been headlining both the former and latter points recently. If I had added that line to the article, I would have been required to give supporting references, however, I was just noting for the editors a serious omission in the article for their consideration. The dramatic ups and downs of Bitcoin (and Ethereum) are due to lack of intrinsic value and further it's being "unbacked" by acknowledged government (I'll leave it to you to come up with a more erudite term than "unbacked"). Some references to the above comments are http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/12/bitcoin-falls-to-near-one-month-low-amid-bubble-concern-scaling-debate.html and http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/11/ethereum-price-crash-continues-bitcoin-moves-higher-cryptocurrency.html and https://secure.wealthdaily.com/127648?device=c&gclid=CK7pzr7vg9UCFYSKswodn1EF3Q and http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/07/strategist-tom-lee-weighs-sees-bitcoin-going-as-high-as-55000.html and http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/11/bitcoin-regulation-btcc-ceo-bobby-lee-says-rules-needed-for-new-asset-class.html and http://subscribe.outsiderclub.com/125206?device=c&gclid=CPOahcXyg9UCFUxLDQodOyQIaQ. This is all that needs to be said on the point I raise about the editors should explicitly address the point about intrinsic value and will comment no more, but instead leave it in the hands of the very capable editors of this article. HarvPhys ( talk) 14:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
ponzi scheme — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.67.74 ( talk) 22:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
No — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:82:203:3348:7C4A:CAAB:F3E7:B3A7 ( talk) 21:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_bitcoin_wallets @ Huon: you nominated Comparison_of_bitcoin_wallets for AfD and I guess you forgot to place a message on this main page for comments. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 04:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bitcoin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I propose a significant pruning of the intro section, it is terribly bloated.
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Length
Article length | Lead length |
---|---|
Fewer than 15,000 characters | One or two paragraphs |
15,000–30,000 characters | Two or three paragraphs |
More than 30,000 characters | Three or four paragraphs |
Looking for feedback on where we are at on this article. I count 5 paragraphs, and the first paragraph is so long it could easily be counted as 2-3 paragraphs in itself. Let's move this content down into the article so it can be readable for readers who arrive on the page for the first time.
Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 08:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency and a digital payment system [1]: 3 invented by an unknown programmer, or a group of programmers, under the name Satoshi Nakamoto. [2] It was released as open-source software in 2009. [3]
The system is peer-to-peer, and transactions take place between users directly, without an intermediary. [1]: 4 These transactions are verified by network nodes and recorded in a public distributed ledger called the blockchain. Since the system works without a central repository or single administrator, bitcoin is called the first decentralized digital currency. [1] [4]
Besides being obtained by "mining", bitcoins can be exchanged for other currencies, [5] products, and services (legal or illegal ones). [6] [7]
As of February 2015, over 100,000 merchants and vendors accept bitcoin as payment. [8] According to a research produced by Cambridge University in 2017, there are 2.9 to 5.8 million unique users actively using a cryptocurrency wallet, most of them using bitcoin. [9]
References
primer
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).100tmerchants
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I don't expect every Wikipedia article necessarily to be comprehensible to me, as every topic has its own language, subtleties, etc. It is nice though if the lead can be accessible to an average intelligent reader, or at least the first sentence of it. Could the first sentence be something like "Bitcoin is a non-national on-line currency released in 2009"? I understand that any of these words other than "Bitcoin" could be deficient - my point is not the words, but the sentence.
After reading and re-reading the part on transactions, it's still very unclear what it should say:
"Transactions are defined using a Forth-like scripting language.[7]:ch. 5 A valid transaction must have one or more inputs.[34] Every input must be an unspent output of a previous transaction. The transaction must carry the digital signature of every input owner. The use of multiple inputs corresponds to the use of multiple coins in a cash transaction. A transaction can also have multiple outputs, allowing one to make multiple payments in one go. A transaction output can be specified as an arbitrary multiple of satoshi. As in a cash transaction, the sum of inputs (coins used to pay) can exceed the intended sum of payments. In such a case, an additional output is used, returning the change back to the payer.[34] Any input satoshis not accounted for in the transaction outputs become the transaction fee.[34]"
I wish I could offer suggestions for improvement, but as a layman in this field, I'm not the right person to do that. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Thiemehennis (
talk •
contribs) 12:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps a section that covers more non-traditional firms evolving into the space? There is a lot of activity surrounding the ICO's and specifically, 10 legal firms joined up in the last few months, Aug 2017. This is probably on the wrong talk space, but may should be on numerous. Forgive me if offended.
-- Wikipietime ( talk) 14:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
This new bitcoin cash deserves some treatment on this page. Where to add it? I don't think "not to be confused with" at the top of the page is suitable.
Suggestions:
Comments? Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 18:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Remove the template, there are many other terms that are not listed here. -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 16:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
It is mentioned twice. Once in the scalability section, and then once in the following history section. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 16:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I do not think it makes sense to single out Bitcoin Cash at the start as something "confused with bitcoin":
I added a wikilink to Bitcoin Cash at the end of the intro. It is important enough to mention in the header. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 05:14, 24 August 2017 (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 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | → | Archive 35 |
The first sentence in the "Classification" section is:
Bitcoin is a digital asset [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] designed by its inventor, Satoshi Nakamoto, to work as a currency. [7] [8]
References
The question is whether there is a consensus to remove the cross link to the digital asset article. As far as I am concerned, there is no such consensus, and the cross link should remain in the text, since it can aid understanding of the digital asset term. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 06:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
{{ help me}}
Satoshi Nakamoto wanted to be a Currency; but it does not match the classification of a currency. It's like building an encased bicycle and calling it a car; and then wanting it to be a car. One can clearly see that it's not a currency. The Webster Merriam definition would be valid is bitcoin was first defined as a Commodity, otherwise even that definition is invalid. Theochino ( talk) 18:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
Bitcoin is not money but a commodity; and it took me two years to come up with the simple answer to what bitcoin is: Bitcoin is the first Virtual Commodity ever created.
Money has been virtualized more than 200 years ago with the first check; and that is what cause the confusion. With Bitcoin, a Commodity has the same exchange speed as money. Money is created by a state/person that can protect it; Commodity exist regardless of what the state/person says. It's just there; and that is why it is not money. [1] [2] [3]
When I discovered what bitcoin was, I asked a friend of mine, an internationally recognized expert on public debt finance, and to give me his opinion on bitcoin, and then on money. He sent me his paper on "The Functions of Money and Other Issues." [4]
At the meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, at the meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Blockchain Technologies, [5] I pushed for the correct classification of what Bitcoin is, a Commodity.
Carla Reyes, the Moderator said: "I think the question of how to categorize the thing that it is is a good one. I'm from the United States and that's where I am most engrossed in how a government is trying to categorize this thing. It has been called virtual currency, not cryptocurrency. It has called property by the IRS. It has been called stored value by the states. Called a commodity by the CFDS but they would agree with you but it has been called a security by the securities exchange commission. So yes, categorizing what this thing is is difficult and I think though to focus on distributed ledger technology, DLT is where we might get the most bang for the governance discussion whether than focusing on the currency commodity itself." [6]
By mentioning that the classification of what it is using the lack of standard by each Regulatory Agency seems to be the general approach, albeit the wrong approach. The approach need to be the scientific method, and historically, what define (and to this day) money is that it can be created and destroyed by the power of a single entity (Central Bank, Authority, etc ...) A commodity exist regardless of what the power to be want.
Theochino ( talk) 03:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
References
"Buyable in-game assets" are Currency since they are created by the game maker, the game maker is what control it. Second life are not commodities because they are also controlled by the game maker; Second Life is actually a Commodity Like behavior but it is not.
What differentiate a Commodity and a Currency is Control by a central entity that Creates and Destroy the Currency (French Franc, Euro, Hawaii Dollars) ....
It's not because everyone want it to be a Currency that it is ... the mistake comes that Virtualization of Currency took place two hundred years ago when the first check was written against currency. The check became an instrument representing the currency (but was not the currency.)
bitcoin (small B) doesn't represent anything ... bitcoin is here for itself. It's value is derived by the needs and wants of it's user (own wikipage definition) and therefore it's a commodity; it share the exchange speed of a currency but "speed" is not what makes the definition of a currency; control does.
Theochino ( talk) 16:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
bitcoin is not a Commodity money either. It can become a commodity money if a central bank declares it legal tender, but noone has done that yet.
Theochino ( talk) 16:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
References
Merriam-Webster says "something (as coins, treasury notes, and banknotes) that is in circulation as a medium of exchange."[4] [5]
Our definition of "currency" includes the meaning "something (as coins, treasury notes, and banknotes) that is in circulation as a medium of exchange." The individual definitions of "coin," "treasury note," and "banknote" all indicate the involvement of some form of central authority.Theochino ( talk) 21:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
References
Ladislav Mecir Asking for a neutral look at the properties of Bitcoin is not COI. Otherwise everything would be COI. What is your interest as saying it's a currency (vs) a commodity ? Let's discuss the mathematical and scientific economical properties and our different beliefs. Can you show me using the scientific method that I am wrong ? Calling COI is a character defamation. Theochino ( talk) 17:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
The check that Theochino asks for here has been performed above with these results:
These findings are sufficient to refuse to add the requested POV-check tag again. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 20:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A consensus could not be reached. |
![]() | The
neutrality of this article is
disputed. |
This is a very good article but it is unclear on the monetary status of bitcoin. Two questions are unanswered:
1. Who controls money supply? The article does not explicitly spell out how the supply of bitcoin is restricted, but there is an indirect description in the form of the "Mining" section. It says that bitcoin is, essentially, created through the virtual equivalent of gold mining. But who owns the bitcoin-supply algorithm? Can anyone create their own algorithm and thereby new supply? This question is not answered in the article.
2. Does bitcoin have intrinsic value? For a commodity to become money, it cannot have any intrinsic value. A pack of cigarettes is not money because it has value of its own. Money can only be a carrier of value. I glean from this article that bitcoin has no intrinsic value, but there is room for clarification here in order to further explain the monetary status of bitcoin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.189.99 ( talk) 15:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
According to the various Wikipedia pages defining Fiat Money, Medium of Exchange, Digital Currency, Commodity; bitcoin fit the commodity profile and not the currency profile. All the source cited have Political Agendas to get bitcoin accepted as a Currency and not as a Medium of Exchange.
As you can see, everything under Commodity end up with a astonishing "yes" and everything under Fiat, Currency and Money has a "no"
See table below.
Wiki Name | Definition | Apply to Bitcoin |
Fiat Money | Fiat money is a currency established as money by government regulation or law. | No |
Medium of Exchange | Value common assets | Yes |
Medium of Exchange | Common and accessible | Yes |
Medium of Exchange | Constant utility | Yes |
Medium of Exchange | Low cost of preservation | Debatable |
Medium of Exchange | Transportability | Yes |
Medium of Exchange | Divisibility | Yes |
Medium of Exchange | Recognisability | Debatable / but working on it, Yes |
Medium of Exchange | Resistance to counterfeiting | Yes |
private currency | is a currency issued by a private organization | No |
Digital currency | Both virtual currencies and cryptocurrencies are types of digital currencies, but the converse is incorrect. | Wrong Statement |
Digital currency | A virtual currency has been defined in 2012 by the European Central Bank as "a type of unregulated, digital money, which is issued and usually controlled by its developers, and used and accepted among the members of a specific virtual community". | Is bitcoin controlled by its developers ? No |
Commodity | commodity is a marketable item produced to satisfy wants or needs. | yes |
Commodity | Often the item is fungible. | yes |
Commodity | Economic commodities comprise goods and services. | yes |
Commodity currency | A commodity currency is a name given to currencies of countries which depend heavily on the export of certain raw materials for income. | No |
Hard currency | the associated country's political and fiscal condition and outlook, and the policy posture of the issuing central bank. | no |
Commodity | The inventory of commodities, with low inventories typically leading to more volatile future prices and increasing the risk of a "stockout" (inventory exhaustion) | yes |
Commodity | In classical political economy and especially in Karl Marx's critique of political economy, a commodity is an object or a good or service ("product" or "activity"[9]) produced by human labour | Debatable Here the labor is done by computers (Karl Max v2 ?) - Galactica & Terminator ? |
Commodity | On a commodity exchange, it is the underlying standard stated in the contract that defines the commodity, not any quality inherent in a specific producer's product. | yes |
Theochino ( talk) 17:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
The entry in question is :
'''Bitcoin''' is the first virtual [[commodity]] (commonly referred by the misnomer [[cryptocurrency]]) and a [[payment system]]{{r|primer|p=3}}
(vs)
'''Bitcoin''' is a [[cryptocurrency]] and a [[payment system]]{{r|primer|p=3}}
Theochino ( talk) 17:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
References
So if it is not money, and ready the definition of currency "in the most specific use of the word refers to money in any form when in actual use or circulation" then it's a commodity. Theochino ( talk) 18:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Ladislav Mecir: removed the POV tag after this discussion went nowhere. @ Theochino: you re-added the POV tag today. Let's finish this discussion here and remove the tag unless we find a specific problem. Theochino, your WP:OR isn't enough. If you have WP:RS to show bitcoin is an asset, please by all means add the content to the article. There are certinaly differing discriptions of the how bitcion is classified, including the Florida case. All of those classifications that are supported by WP:RS shall be provided equal weight under WP:NPOV. But this tag is not necessary as a tool to force a discussion of it, and I support Ladislav's removal of it. Theo, please just add the content and if someone deletes it, we can again have a discussion here on the talk page, that's what the talk page is for. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 17:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Please follow the guidelines you clearly spell out ... that you are following the "latter" style of always lowercasing.
76.178.161.118 ( talk) 18:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
The first sentence in the "Ponzi scheme concerns" section is:
Various journalists, [1] [2] economists, [3] [4] and the central bank of Estonia [5] have voiced concerns that bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme. [6]
The problem with the citation [6] is that:
Due to the above reasons, the citation [6] shall be deleted as superfluous, irrelevant and dubious. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 08:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |lastauthoramp=
ignored (|name-list-style=
suggested) (
help)
Hi, I have got several objections against the section being present in this article:
I believe that these points justify the deletion of the section. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 11:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2961405
Here's a paper on bitcoin.
Benjamin ( talk) 09:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
They could easily identify the scammers and ransomeware attackers but refuse to do so. It should be declared illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.132.21.52 ( talk) 17:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
After reading thru the article I wonder what on earth are you talking about. BTW there is an obtuse word string of 5 words, which should be a sentence that at least could be made grammatical (like 'twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre & gimbol"): "suspended withdrawals citing technical issues.[51]" How do withdrawals do citing? People do citing. That word string starts no where & ends no where. ( PeacePeace ( talk) 17:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC))
I was wondering why Bitcoin.org is not linked in the infobox? Ethereum links to Ethereum.org. It is the original Domain. It was registered even before the White paper was published. -- 2A02:908:5C8:F240:B1A1:4BEA:2EB:B2FB ( talk) 16:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
As currently written, the Blockchain subsection of the article says:
Propose to change the locution to:
or
Rationale: needs an adjective to describe the specific sort of blockchain that is being referred to here. It simply is not the case that there is only one blockchain, and that blockchains records bitcoin transactions. There are many blockchains (data structures of a particular type) up and running today. The article prose should be explicit about the type of blockchain.
Has the size of this talk page ever reached crazy long proportions? Not for as long as I've seen it. It's always been incredibly light for a Wikipedia talk page. Please knock off this incessant archiving. All you're doing is stifling conversation. Tgm1024 ( talk) 20:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
The talk page is archived automatically, I think, and the speed at which it is archived can be adjusted. I would support archiving less often. Benjamin ( talk) 13:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
This was first added here, and then added back here with some sources put in, so it appears as it does below:
Bitcoin combines three ideas that had been widely discussed (and implemented) in computer science, but never combined into a payment system. The core ideas of a chain of blocks, with each block cryptographically signing the previous, is based on the Merkle tree [1]. The bitcoin network itself operates as a Distributed hash table [2] Bitcoin mining is a Proof-of-work system, similar to the Hashcash anti-spam system. [3] The key insight ofBitcoin insight was to combine these three concepts to form a self-sustaining, independent, decentralized payment system. [4] Unlike other digital cash systems, such as DigiCash, Bitcoin sacrifices anonymity: all of the parties of every Bitcoin transaction is publicly known and recorded on the public ledger. But Bitcoin identities are not names, they are public keys: what is unknown is the which Bitcoin public keys are held by which humans or corporations. As such, Bitcoin provides pseudonymity, rather than true anonymity.
References
This is not summarizing reliable sources. The sources are somewhat iffy, and the core claim about combining three things remains unsourced. Jytdog ( talk) 02:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
References
Hello Bitcoin people. An article was created today on IOTA (Distributed Ledger Technology). The topic has proved to be controversial, and the article itself is already protected three days. It looks like a reasonable discussion has begun at Talk:IOTA (Distributed Ledger Technology). People who are regular contributors to Bitcoin might have some knowledge in this area and might be able to contribute to the IOTA discussion. Thanks, EdJohnston ( talk) 16:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
@ Ladislav Mecir: I noticed you deleted a section created by @ Benbest:. Certainly scability is a major debate right now and has been for more than a year, and deserves some sort of treatment in the article. Maybe we can discuss that here. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 22:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I have copied all the content back off the other sub-page, as there was almost nothing extra and per @ Ladislav Mecir:'s comment over at the Talk:Bitcoin_scalability_problem that he also didn't think the sub-page warranted a separate page. I think we can just allow this section to grow until its large enough to warrant a sub-page. But I think moving the majority of the content about scaling (and what generates most of the press, other than the bitcoin price) should be on the main page, not some sub-page. Now I have left duplicate content on the sub-page Bitcoin_scalability_problem, so can someone advise what is the procedure for deleting this sub-page? Is it AfD? Or just an admin delete? @ David Gerard:, care to comment on this delete process? I think it is uncontroversial Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 14:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
The bitcoin scalability problem is a consequence of the fact that blocks in the blockchain are limited to one megabyte in size. [1] Bitcoin blocks carry the transactions on the bitcoin network since the last block has been created. [2]: ch. 2 The one megabyte limit has created problems for bitcoin transaction processing, such as increasing transaction fees and delayed processing of transactions that cannot be fit into a block. [3]
References
Comment — Wiki editing standards are pretty clear. If it is material to the topic, and sourced/cited, then such info definitely belongs in this article. If the article is quite large, as this article is getting to be but is not over the standard guideline on article size, then the information would be summarized here before having detail moved to another article.
The scaling debate is quite clearly a major debate in the community, has been for nearly two years now, and is very well sourced by many tens of news articles about it, since 2015. Clearly the scaling debate—what it is; when it got started; why it is an issue; what proposed solutions are for scaling the bitcoin protocol; who is and what groups are supporting various approaches; summaries of the pros/cons of various solutions—is all plainly a part of what ought to be covered in the article.
We should be trying to improve the article to convey information; moving that information about this major issue to some other article without covering it here should not even be a realistic debate. It needs to be covered in this article, whether summarized or in detail, while if there is too much detail on this protracted issue, that detail might well be also covered in one of the other detailed articles on the bitcoing protocol and its history. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 23:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I think you are making a mistake to have a big debate in this section on the Talk page. Better: clear proposal; other editors weigh in with their rationale; ask for a non-involved closer to close the debate. Just let it ride; it is obvious that there are many other issues you two might disagree about. Just let those ride; or take them elsewhere. Leave this section with just the question of "Is the scalability debate history, at least at a summary level, appropriate to be covered in this article." My two cents. N2e ( talk) 17:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Bitcoin Magazine now has a full editorial policy section on its "About" page; https://bitcoinmagazine.com/about/ Hope it will work as a RS now. Thanks. Acharkin ( talk) 22:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC) acharkin 18:11,11 July 2017 (EST)
In my opinion, the article should have a (short) section on a very important aspect of Bitcoin, namely, its inherent value or lack thereof. It seems to me to be one of the most important aspects of Bitcoin especially where recent reports about how the value of Bitcoin has dramatically increased will cause many to think of it as a speculative way to get rich quick.
Early money was gold and silver coins. Then there was paper money "backed by gold". Then "fiat" money backed by the stability of a nation's government and the strength of its economy and by responsible management of the money supply. While Bitcoin would seem to get high grades on the last item, regarding the 1st two items, it would seem to have no intrinsic value whatsoever. Bitcoin is a new type of fiat money, one might call it "unbacked fiat" money. This deserves a separate section and explicit sentences. There may be sentences here and there that imply something about intrinsic value, but the point in easily missed. Even in the Economics of Bitcoin article, sections 5, 6 and 7 don't explicitly address this fundamental point.
Bitcoin's blockchain technology offers many advantages, but intrinsic value, or lack thereof, is a real and relevant aspect. (Note: I'm neither long nor short Bitcoin.) HarvPhys ( talk) 15:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
The issue of intrinsic value is clearly a most important issue, quite possible the 2nd most important after the topic of blockchain. If the editors wish to leave it out, fine. I will just note that if a section on intrinsic value is added, one can add the above note about "the Intrinsic theory of value, which has been replaced by the Subjective theory of value in modern econom[ics]" - one can note that cryptocurrencies take a significant step toward subjective value and away from intrinsic value. Regarding "how the value of Bitcoin has dramatically increased will cause many to think of it as a speculative way to get rich quick", the media has been headlining both the former and latter points recently. If I had added that line to the article, I would have been required to give supporting references, however, I was just noting for the editors a serious omission in the article for their consideration. The dramatic ups and downs of Bitcoin (and Ethereum) are due to lack of intrinsic value and further it's being "unbacked" by acknowledged government (I'll leave it to you to come up with a more erudite term than "unbacked"). Some references to the above comments are http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/12/bitcoin-falls-to-near-one-month-low-amid-bubble-concern-scaling-debate.html and http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/11/ethereum-price-crash-continues-bitcoin-moves-higher-cryptocurrency.html and https://secure.wealthdaily.com/127648?device=c&gclid=CK7pzr7vg9UCFYSKswodn1EF3Q and http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/07/strategist-tom-lee-weighs-sees-bitcoin-going-as-high-as-55000.html and http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/11/bitcoin-regulation-btcc-ceo-bobby-lee-says-rules-needed-for-new-asset-class.html and http://subscribe.outsiderclub.com/125206?device=c&gclid=CPOahcXyg9UCFUxLDQodOyQIaQ. This is all that needs to be said on the point I raise about the editors should explicitly address the point about intrinsic value and will comment no more, but instead leave it in the hands of the very capable editors of this article. HarvPhys ( talk) 14:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
ponzi scheme — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.67.74 ( talk) 22:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
No — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:82:203:3348:7C4A:CAAB:F3E7:B3A7 ( talk) 21:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_bitcoin_wallets @ Huon: you nominated Comparison_of_bitcoin_wallets for AfD and I guess you forgot to place a message on this main page for comments. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 04:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bitcoin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 04:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
I propose a significant pruning of the intro section, it is terribly bloated.
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Length
Article length | Lead length |
---|---|
Fewer than 15,000 characters | One or two paragraphs |
15,000–30,000 characters | Two or three paragraphs |
More than 30,000 characters | Three or four paragraphs |
Looking for feedback on where we are at on this article. I count 5 paragraphs, and the first paragraph is so long it could easily be counted as 2-3 paragraphs in itself. Let's move this content down into the article so it can be readable for readers who arrive on the page for the first time.
Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 08:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency and a digital payment system [1]: 3 invented by an unknown programmer, or a group of programmers, under the name Satoshi Nakamoto. [2] It was released as open-source software in 2009. [3]
The system is peer-to-peer, and transactions take place between users directly, without an intermediary. [1]: 4 These transactions are verified by network nodes and recorded in a public distributed ledger called the blockchain. Since the system works without a central repository or single administrator, bitcoin is called the first decentralized digital currency. [1] [4]
Besides being obtained by "mining", bitcoins can be exchanged for other currencies, [5] products, and services (legal or illegal ones). [6] [7]
As of February 2015, over 100,000 merchants and vendors accept bitcoin as payment. [8] According to a research produced by Cambridge University in 2017, there are 2.9 to 5.8 million unique users actively using a cryptocurrency wallet, most of them using bitcoin. [9]
References
primer
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).100tmerchants
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I don't expect every Wikipedia article necessarily to be comprehensible to me, as every topic has its own language, subtleties, etc. It is nice though if the lead can be accessible to an average intelligent reader, or at least the first sentence of it. Could the first sentence be something like "Bitcoin is a non-national on-line currency released in 2009"? I understand that any of these words other than "Bitcoin" could be deficient - my point is not the words, but the sentence.
After reading and re-reading the part on transactions, it's still very unclear what it should say:
"Transactions are defined using a Forth-like scripting language.[7]:ch. 5 A valid transaction must have one or more inputs.[34] Every input must be an unspent output of a previous transaction. The transaction must carry the digital signature of every input owner. The use of multiple inputs corresponds to the use of multiple coins in a cash transaction. A transaction can also have multiple outputs, allowing one to make multiple payments in one go. A transaction output can be specified as an arbitrary multiple of satoshi. As in a cash transaction, the sum of inputs (coins used to pay) can exceed the intended sum of payments. In such a case, an additional output is used, returning the change back to the payer.[34] Any input satoshis not accounted for in the transaction outputs become the transaction fee.[34]"
I wish I could offer suggestions for improvement, but as a layman in this field, I'm not the right person to do that. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Thiemehennis (
talk •
contribs) 12:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps a section that covers more non-traditional firms evolving into the space? There is a lot of activity surrounding the ICO's and specifically, 10 legal firms joined up in the last few months, Aug 2017. This is probably on the wrong talk space, but may should be on numerous. Forgive me if offended.
-- Wikipietime ( talk) 14:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
This new bitcoin cash deserves some treatment on this page. Where to add it? I don't think "not to be confused with" at the top of the page is suitable.
Suggestions:
Comments? Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 18:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Remove the template, there are many other terms that are not listed here. -- Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 16:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
It is mentioned twice. Once in the scalability section, and then once in the following history section. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 16:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I do not think it makes sense to single out Bitcoin Cash at the start as something "confused with bitcoin":
I added a wikilink to Bitcoin Cash at the end of the intro. It is important enough to mention in the header. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 05:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)