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 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
Why is "Bitcoin" lowercase? Because there are two or three versions/forks? Thanks. Michael Ten ( talk) 21:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Currently a lot of the design section is useless. It just talks about random topics in bitcoin, like the blockchain and how transactions are encoded in Forth or a similar language without actually telling the reader how it works. So I have made some edits in my sandbox copy of the article to the design section only in order to unify the content. Any thoughts on this? Esquivalience ( talk) 03:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I mentioned Bitcoin Gold under Decentralisation. Maybe there should be a general section about forks. 111.193.164.123 ( talk) 04:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
References
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fworkneh.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This update justified as "grammar" replaces the wording:
On 1 August 2017 bitcoin split into two derivative digital currencies, the classic bitcoin (BTC) and the Bitcoin Cash (BCH). [1]
directly supported by the cited source, by the formulation:
On 1 August 2017 bitcoin split into two derivative digital currencies, the classic bitcoin (BTC) and a hard fork, Bitcoin Cash (BCH). [1]
This is not a grammar correction, in fact, and it just unnecessarily introduces new jargon to the sentence. I propose to revert the edit to WP:STATUSQUO, effectively removing the unexplained and unnecessary jargon. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 11:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Having checked the source [1], I also found that it used the term hard fork, but not in the sense the changed formulation does. The hard fork term in the source was used to refer to the split into two separate chains, the sense you can also find in Investopedia [2], and that in the cited source the hard fork term did not refer to any particular subchain that resulted from the split. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 06:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
To achieve a consensus, I propose a new wording. I suppose this wording to both reflect the available sources, and to explain the Bitcoin Cash hard fork notion:
On 1 August 2017 bitcoin split into two derivative digital currencies, the classic bitcoin (BTC) and the Bitcoin Cash (BCH). The split is called a Bitcoin Cash hard fork. [1]
Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 05:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
References
With regards to SegWit, I have done so. Your basis for wanting the link removed is that there are competing sites. Name one, that is also community run and not for profit. 101.174.96.40 ( talk) 08:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
While this edit is justified as "Articles are supposed to have an external links section", that is far from the truth as the Acra (fortress) featured article demonstrates. Bitcoin does not have any "official website", which might be a reasonable external link candidate. Currently, the only external link present in the section is a link to the bitcoin.org website. Per the article contents, there are other competing project sites. To be neutral, it would be necessary to either create a list of the competing sites (that is discouraged by WP:ELNO, however) or to not list bitcoin.org as the only site in the section. In such case, the section would be empty and could be removed, which would return the contents to the WP:STATUSQUO. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 06:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I came here as an uninvolved editor after reading the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. The assertion that including bitcoin.org as an external link violates NPOV is abjectly absurd. Toddst1 ( talk) 00:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The term "satoshis"is used twice, but never defined. Jmatxx ( talk) 23:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Likewise, the term "network alert key" is not explained. Jmatxx ( talk) 00:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Keene and Manchester NH’s Bitcoin Vending Machines 64.175.41.99 ( talk) 01:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Bitcoin does not have any volatility. Only the exchange rate to other things such as USD can have volatility. This section needs to be revised. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 10:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
The section on Bitcoin fees erroneously states that fees are optional: try finding an exchange that does not charge for buying or selling your Bitcoins. Does not exist. In fact, it is often stated that one of the main advantages of Bitcoins and crypto currencies in general is that there are no third parties (banks) involved and transactions are free. This is wrong: Using traditional money you may or may not pay a fee for bank transfers, but you pay no fee when using cash. Using Bitcoin, yes you can transact directly between 2 parties but you are still tied to an exchange to check, where you ALWAYS pay a fee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.56.227 ( talk) 03:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
This edit [4] justified as "encyclopedic lang, and accuracy - this is not controversial" changed the formulation "have been leery of" directly supported by the source to "are aware of" formulation. I think that the biased treatment of the source is not neutral, and that it actually is controversial. That is why I reverted the text to WP:STATUSQUO. After finding out that the nonneutral treatment of the source was found controversial, the user started an edit war reverting the text to his own preferred variant again with this edit [5] using "encyclopedic style" as a justification this time. In reaction to that, I mark the controversial text using a template, propose to revert the text to WP:STATUSQUO again, and warn Cpaaoi that edit warring is not needed here. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 09:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Remove: "Plans were announced to include a bitcoin futures option on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange in 2017.[109]"
As far as aware, this is still in the future; as of 4 Dec, Bloomberg says we are still waiting ( https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-04/the-next-big-short-hedge-funds-prepare-to-trade-against-bitcoin)
Note that *unflattering* material (UK/EU restrictions due to come in over the next few weeks) has recently been deleted under WP:CRYSTAL, but *flattering* predictions such as this have been restored following deletion and left intact. Oh dear, oh dear. WP:NOTADVERTISING Cpaaoi ( talk) 19:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
UK Treasury announces imminent restrictions. Should be mentioned, like predictions of CME directly above. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/03/bitcoin-crackdown-amid-fears-money-laundering-tax-dodging/ Cpaaoi ( talk) 16:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
We need to agree on the best way to introduce and explain Bitcoin Cash. The current version is the worst possible version: it takes up two paragraphs, it is confusing, and the sources contradict each other. I think we should a) explain the motivation for the fork, b) explain how the fork copied the ledger and past transactions, and c) detail the differences between Bitcoin Cash and bitcoin (“larger blocksize” is probably enough). It is unusual to specifically name a source (“Forbes says X”) and having two paragraphs does nothing but confuse the reader. I also think that the TechCrunch source is more reliable in this case. Forbes claims that bitcoin “split”, but the original blockchain was unaffected by the fork. It is more correct to say a copy of bitcoin was created with different consensus rules. Referring to bitcoin as “classic bitcoin” and the “core blockchain” would confuse readers who only know about the incumbent bitcoin. Giving Bitcoin Cash the same weight as bitcoin by implying the two are both “derivatives” is, IMO, non-neutral and undue considering that Bitcoin Cash has a far smaller and less used blockchain with less total PoW. I would suggest something like this:
On 1 August 2017, Bitcoin Cash was created by copying bitcoin’s blockchain after a community disagreement about scaling bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash limits the blocksize to 8 megabytes, allowing for more transactions and cheaper processing fees.
Thoughts? Laurencedeclan ( talk) 20:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I hope this explains why the treatment of the available sources you propose above is nonneutral and not acceptable per WP:NPOV. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 22:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
In terms of word count, the two paragraphs about Bitcoin Cash take up 22% of the word count of the history section. The history section doesn’t even mention Mt. Gox or Silk Road’s use of bitcoin, both very important historical events, presumably because the article is too long, but we can dedicate a fifth of the entire section to a single fork with debatable notability? Laurencedeclan ( talk) 08:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I am not disputing that it should be included in the article. Anyway, we are going off-topic now. I have quoted four sources above (one of which is Forbes) that refer to Bitcoin Cash as a "hard fork". This is clearly a majority of sources that do not refer to it as a split as that single Forbes source does. Does you have any objection to the following?
On 1 August 2017, Bitcoin Cash was created as a hard fork of bitcoin.
Better wording is welcome. Laurencedeclan ( talk) 23:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
on the current 17/12/06 sentence with the 51st ref/cit, there is a sentence that 'backups might have prevented this'. If I could edit (semi-protected), I would change the 'might' to 'would'. I think that would be more educationally correct in an important enough way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:48F8:9004:B2F:6627:37FF:FE53:4705 ( talk) 20:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
The article claims that paying a transaction fee is optional. Since v0.9.0 Bitcoin Core apparently requires a minimum fee to propagate transactions, presumably as an anti-spam measure ( https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide#transaction-fees-and-change; https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/release-notes/release-notes-0.9.0.md). Laurencedeclan ( talk) 21:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
As of Bitcoin Core 0.9, a minimum fee (currently 1,000 satoshis) has been required to broadcast a transaction across the network.
Here is a source for bitcoin requiring a fee: [9] It says: "To get your fortune, use Electrum's Send function and paste the website's Bitcoin address into the Pay to field. In the Amount field, specify 0.1 mBTC (if your units are set to BTC, enter 0.0001; change the default units by choosing Tools4Preferences4Base Unit). Bitcoin transactions also require a fee."
Bitcoin for the Befuddled Paperback – November 23, 2014 Product details Paperback: 256 pages Publisher: No Starch Press; 1 edition (November 23, 2014) Language: English ISBN-10: 1593275730 ISBN-13: 978-1593275730 By Conrad Barski, Chris Wilmer
- Here [10] is a second source that says that fees are not required, but advisable. It says "It is possible for a miner to accept any valid transaction without a fee. However, the majority that require a fee can delay or ignore transactions that bypass the fee structure."
Learning Bitcoin Paperback – October 30, 2015 by Richard Caetano (Author) Paperback: 236 pages Publisher: Packt Publishing - ebooks Account (October 30, 2015) Language: English ISBN-10: 1785287303 ISBN-13: 978-1785287305
I take back what I said above where I implied it is obvious that bitcoin requires a fee, as apparently it does not, and my ignorance is in fact contradicted by the sources (I love it when that happens). Maybe we need to be more careful about how we treat this topic, as it seems that indeed a fee is not technically required by the system, but is in practice generally necessary. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 20:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
There were a couple of reverts (specifically https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bitcoin&oldid=797124270) relating to moving some ponzi scheme content to the history page. I support and agree with @ Ladislav Mecir:'s delete to move off the page to reduce the article length. My logic is that the content does not really have widespread coverage to generate sufficient notability on this type of page that has huge coverage and thus generates a lot of content vying for coverage. Its like if the consul of estonia said Madonna was a bad singer, it also wouldn't end up staying on the Madonna page. @ Aoidh: and @ AHMED SHETA: and feel free to comment.
Sources:
This whole section is really left with one notable person calling it a Ponzi. A very weak section indeed. Maybe a feeble attempt at some sort of NPOV, like a critism section, but it is a week section indeed and deserves to be blanked.
Those are my thoughts... Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 05:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I added some more content to the section, two good recent news events with notable people calling it a fraud, worthy to add it to the section. I am not taking a position on the deleting of the sub-page or adding it, just adding some content, as the section is sparse. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 23:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Currently, the lead doesn't mention any criticism. Since there are concerns as adequately covered in the article proper, the lead should reflect this with at least a sentence or two for balance. Sincerely, —E: 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:CCFA:802A:8BDD:BA79 ( talk) 22:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
According to Blockchain.com and StackExchange, they state the the usage of Bitcoin is typically associated with Bitcoin the protocol and payment network. bitcoin is is usually associated specifically with bitcoin as the currency.
Yes, while there are no concrete and definite rules to the capitalization of Bitcoin, what should we follow? The differentiation of Bitcoin for the protocol and payment method and bitcoin in reference to the currency or follow WSJ, AP, and other sources stating to use 'bitcoin'? Aviartm ( talk) 18:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Working on the basis that recent well-sourced clarifications on the energy consumption and pollution of bitcoin will be immediately redacted by this page's regular inhabitants, I'll save time by here proposing in advance to keep them - no doubt in preparation for opening an RfC about it. Cpaaoi ( talk) 22:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
i know nothing about BC I read recently that the BC network, or system, has a hard global limit of 7 transactions per second if this is true, it is a serious issue and should be explicitly called out in language non techies can get thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:4701:BE80:30A6:67AF:AB5A:1BAB ( talk) 22:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Bitcoin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
103.199.121.223 ( talk) 15:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I propose we use the cryptocurrency infobox template once it has been sufficiently developed. The currency infobox is hardly sufficient to describe something closer to software than a traditional currency. The new one should be better at handling redundancies shared across most cryptocurrencies, such as hashing algorithm, consensus method, and block time/reward. This also reduces obvious properties of most cryptocurrencies that are not necessarily shared by physical counterparts, such as a decentralized structure and global access. — Kjerish ( talk) 22:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
See Template:Infobox cryptocurrency/testcases
Hi all. Laurencedeclan used an external link to refer to the white paper. Per Wikipedia policies, it is preferable to use a citation template instead of an external link, since:
This article is full of techy terms that make it impossible to understand for the average reader. In particular the system of blocks and verification of blocks should be explained in plain English. Wwallacee ( talk) 23:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Bitcoin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: The network verifies the signature using the public key. [1]: ch. 5
To: The network verifies the signature using the
public key.
[1]: ch. 5 The signature algorithm is the secp256k1 variant of ECDSA. Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
Nettijoe96 (
talk)
03:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Ladislav Mecir. I have a link to the source code as a ref. I don't know how to format this correctly because this is my first time editing wikipedia. Are you able to see it?
References
This
edit request to
Bitcoin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, I would like to add relevant information on this page on the legal subject. Thank you. Tambisagar ( talk) 04:31, 22 January 2018 (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 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
Why is "Bitcoin" lowercase? Because there are two or three versions/forks? Thanks. Michael Ten ( talk) 21:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Currently a lot of the design section is useless. It just talks about random topics in bitcoin, like the blockchain and how transactions are encoded in Forth or a similar language without actually telling the reader how it works. So I have made some edits in my sandbox copy of the article to the design section only in order to unify the content. Any thoughts on this? Esquivalience ( talk) 03:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
I mentioned Bitcoin Gold under Decentralisation. Maybe there should be a general section about forks. 111.193.164.123 ( talk) 04:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
References
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Fworkneh.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This update justified as "grammar" replaces the wording:
On 1 August 2017 bitcoin split into two derivative digital currencies, the classic bitcoin (BTC) and the Bitcoin Cash (BCH). [1]
directly supported by the cited source, by the formulation:
On 1 August 2017 bitcoin split into two derivative digital currencies, the classic bitcoin (BTC) and a hard fork, Bitcoin Cash (BCH). [1]
This is not a grammar correction, in fact, and it just unnecessarily introduces new jargon to the sentence. I propose to revert the edit to WP:STATUSQUO, effectively removing the unexplained and unnecessary jargon. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 11:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
Having checked the source [1], I also found that it used the term hard fork, but not in the sense the changed formulation does. The hard fork term in the source was used to refer to the split into two separate chains, the sense you can also find in Investopedia [2], and that in the cited source the hard fork term did not refer to any particular subchain that resulted from the split. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 06:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
To achieve a consensus, I propose a new wording. I suppose this wording to both reflect the available sources, and to explain the Bitcoin Cash hard fork notion:
On 1 August 2017 bitcoin split into two derivative digital currencies, the classic bitcoin (BTC) and the Bitcoin Cash (BCH). The split is called a Bitcoin Cash hard fork. [1]
Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 05:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
References
With regards to SegWit, I have done so. Your basis for wanting the link removed is that there are competing sites. Name one, that is also community run and not for profit. 101.174.96.40 ( talk) 08:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
While this edit is justified as "Articles are supposed to have an external links section", that is far from the truth as the Acra (fortress) featured article demonstrates. Bitcoin does not have any "official website", which might be a reasonable external link candidate. Currently, the only external link present in the section is a link to the bitcoin.org website. Per the article contents, there are other competing project sites. To be neutral, it would be necessary to either create a list of the competing sites (that is discouraged by WP:ELNO, however) or to not list bitcoin.org as the only site in the section. In such case, the section would be empty and could be removed, which would return the contents to the WP:STATUSQUO. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 06:02, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
I came here as an uninvolved editor after reading the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. The assertion that including bitcoin.org as an external link violates NPOV is abjectly absurd. Toddst1 ( talk) 00:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
The term "satoshis"is used twice, but never defined. Jmatxx ( talk) 23:43, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Likewise, the term "network alert key" is not explained. Jmatxx ( talk) 00:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Keene and Manchester NH’s Bitcoin Vending Machines 64.175.41.99 ( talk) 01:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Bitcoin does not have any volatility. Only the exchange rate to other things such as USD can have volatility. This section needs to be revised. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 10:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
The section on Bitcoin fees erroneously states that fees are optional: try finding an exchange that does not charge for buying or selling your Bitcoins. Does not exist. In fact, it is often stated that one of the main advantages of Bitcoins and crypto currencies in general is that there are no third parties (banks) involved and transactions are free. This is wrong: Using traditional money you may or may not pay a fee for bank transfers, but you pay no fee when using cash. Using Bitcoin, yes you can transact directly between 2 parties but you are still tied to an exchange to check, where you ALWAYS pay a fee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.56.227 ( talk) 03:09, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
This edit [4] justified as "encyclopedic lang, and accuracy - this is not controversial" changed the formulation "have been leery of" directly supported by the source to "are aware of" formulation. I think that the biased treatment of the source is not neutral, and that it actually is controversial. That is why I reverted the text to WP:STATUSQUO. After finding out that the nonneutral treatment of the source was found controversial, the user started an edit war reverting the text to his own preferred variant again with this edit [5] using "encyclopedic style" as a justification this time. In reaction to that, I mark the controversial text using a template, propose to revert the text to WP:STATUSQUO again, and warn Cpaaoi that edit warring is not needed here. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 09:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Remove: "Plans were announced to include a bitcoin futures option on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange in 2017.[109]"
As far as aware, this is still in the future; as of 4 Dec, Bloomberg says we are still waiting ( https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-04/the-next-big-short-hedge-funds-prepare-to-trade-against-bitcoin)
Note that *unflattering* material (UK/EU restrictions due to come in over the next few weeks) has recently been deleted under WP:CRYSTAL, but *flattering* predictions such as this have been restored following deletion and left intact. Oh dear, oh dear. WP:NOTADVERTISING Cpaaoi ( talk) 19:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
UK Treasury announces imminent restrictions. Should be mentioned, like predictions of CME directly above. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/12/03/bitcoin-crackdown-amid-fears-money-laundering-tax-dodging/ Cpaaoi ( talk) 16:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
We need to agree on the best way to introduce and explain Bitcoin Cash. The current version is the worst possible version: it takes up two paragraphs, it is confusing, and the sources contradict each other. I think we should a) explain the motivation for the fork, b) explain how the fork copied the ledger and past transactions, and c) detail the differences between Bitcoin Cash and bitcoin (“larger blocksize” is probably enough). It is unusual to specifically name a source (“Forbes says X”) and having two paragraphs does nothing but confuse the reader. I also think that the TechCrunch source is more reliable in this case. Forbes claims that bitcoin “split”, but the original blockchain was unaffected by the fork. It is more correct to say a copy of bitcoin was created with different consensus rules. Referring to bitcoin as “classic bitcoin” and the “core blockchain” would confuse readers who only know about the incumbent bitcoin. Giving Bitcoin Cash the same weight as bitcoin by implying the two are both “derivatives” is, IMO, non-neutral and undue considering that Bitcoin Cash has a far smaller and less used blockchain with less total PoW. I would suggest something like this:
On 1 August 2017, Bitcoin Cash was created by copying bitcoin’s blockchain after a community disagreement about scaling bitcoin. Bitcoin Cash limits the blocksize to 8 megabytes, allowing for more transactions and cheaper processing fees.
Thoughts? Laurencedeclan ( talk) 20:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I hope this explains why the treatment of the available sources you propose above is nonneutral and not acceptable per WP:NPOV. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 22:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
In terms of word count, the two paragraphs about Bitcoin Cash take up 22% of the word count of the history section. The history section doesn’t even mention Mt. Gox or Silk Road’s use of bitcoin, both very important historical events, presumably because the article is too long, but we can dedicate a fifth of the entire section to a single fork with debatable notability? Laurencedeclan ( talk) 08:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I am not disputing that it should be included in the article. Anyway, we are going off-topic now. I have quoted four sources above (one of which is Forbes) that refer to Bitcoin Cash as a "hard fork". This is clearly a majority of sources that do not refer to it as a split as that single Forbes source does. Does you have any objection to the following?
On 1 August 2017, Bitcoin Cash was created as a hard fork of bitcoin.
Better wording is welcome. Laurencedeclan ( talk) 23:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
on the current 17/12/06 sentence with the 51st ref/cit, there is a sentence that 'backups might have prevented this'. If I could edit (semi-protected), I would change the 'might' to 'would'. I think that would be more educationally correct in an important enough way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:48F8:9004:B2F:6627:37FF:FE53:4705 ( talk) 20:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
The article claims that paying a transaction fee is optional. Since v0.9.0 Bitcoin Core apparently requires a minimum fee to propagate transactions, presumably as an anti-spam measure ( https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide#transaction-fees-and-change; https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/release-notes/release-notes-0.9.0.md). Laurencedeclan ( talk) 21:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
As of Bitcoin Core 0.9, a minimum fee (currently 1,000 satoshis) has been required to broadcast a transaction across the network.
Here is a source for bitcoin requiring a fee: [9] It says: "To get your fortune, use Electrum's Send function and paste the website's Bitcoin address into the Pay to field. In the Amount field, specify 0.1 mBTC (if your units are set to BTC, enter 0.0001; change the default units by choosing Tools4Preferences4Base Unit). Bitcoin transactions also require a fee."
Bitcoin for the Befuddled Paperback – November 23, 2014 Product details Paperback: 256 pages Publisher: No Starch Press; 1 edition (November 23, 2014) Language: English ISBN-10: 1593275730 ISBN-13: 978-1593275730 By Conrad Barski, Chris Wilmer
- Here [10] is a second source that says that fees are not required, but advisable. It says "It is possible for a miner to accept any valid transaction without a fee. However, the majority that require a fee can delay or ignore transactions that bypass the fee structure."
Learning Bitcoin Paperback – October 30, 2015 by Richard Caetano (Author) Paperback: 236 pages Publisher: Packt Publishing - ebooks Account (October 30, 2015) Language: English ISBN-10: 1785287303 ISBN-13: 978-1785287305
I take back what I said above where I implied it is obvious that bitcoin requires a fee, as apparently it does not, and my ignorance is in fact contradicted by the sources (I love it when that happens). Maybe we need to be more careful about how we treat this topic, as it seems that indeed a fee is not technically required by the system, but is in practice generally necessary. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 20:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
There were a couple of reverts (specifically https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bitcoin&oldid=797124270) relating to moving some ponzi scheme content to the history page. I support and agree with @ Ladislav Mecir:'s delete to move off the page to reduce the article length. My logic is that the content does not really have widespread coverage to generate sufficient notability on this type of page that has huge coverage and thus generates a lot of content vying for coverage. Its like if the consul of estonia said Madonna was a bad singer, it also wouldn't end up staying on the Madonna page. @ Aoidh: and @ AHMED SHETA: and feel free to comment.
Sources:
This whole section is really left with one notable person calling it a Ponzi. A very weak section indeed. Maybe a feeble attempt at some sort of NPOV, like a critism section, but it is a week section indeed and deserves to be blanked.
Those are my thoughts... Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 05:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I added some more content to the section, two good recent news events with notable people calling it a fraud, worthy to add it to the section. I am not taking a position on the deleting of the sub-page or adding it, just adding some content, as the section is sparse. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 23:58, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Currently, the lead doesn't mention any criticism. Since there are concerns as adequately covered in the article proper, the lead should reflect this with at least a sentence or two for balance. Sincerely, —E: 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:CCFA:802A:8BDD:BA79 ( talk) 22:39, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
According to Blockchain.com and StackExchange, they state the the usage of Bitcoin is typically associated with Bitcoin the protocol and payment network. bitcoin is is usually associated specifically with bitcoin as the currency.
Yes, while there are no concrete and definite rules to the capitalization of Bitcoin, what should we follow? The differentiation of Bitcoin for the protocol and payment method and bitcoin in reference to the currency or follow WSJ, AP, and other sources stating to use 'bitcoin'? Aviartm ( talk) 18:48, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Working on the basis that recent well-sourced clarifications on the energy consumption and pollution of bitcoin will be immediately redacted by this page's regular inhabitants, I'll save time by here proposing in advance to keep them - no doubt in preparation for opening an RfC about it. Cpaaoi ( talk) 22:22, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
i know nothing about BC I read recently that the BC network, or system, has a hard global limit of 7 transactions per second if this is true, it is a serious issue and should be explicitly called out in language non techies can get thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:4701:BE80:30A6:67AF:AB5A:1BAB ( talk) 22:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Bitcoin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
103.199.121.223 ( talk) 15:39, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
I propose we use the cryptocurrency infobox template once it has been sufficiently developed. The currency infobox is hardly sufficient to describe something closer to software than a traditional currency. The new one should be better at handling redundancies shared across most cryptocurrencies, such as hashing algorithm, consensus method, and block time/reward. This also reduces obvious properties of most cryptocurrencies that are not necessarily shared by physical counterparts, such as a decentralized structure and global access. — Kjerish ( talk) 22:58, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
See Template:Infobox cryptocurrency/testcases
Hi all. Laurencedeclan used an external link to refer to the white paper. Per Wikipedia policies, it is preferable to use a citation template instead of an external link, since:
This article is full of techy terms that make it impossible to understand for the average reader. In particular the system of blocks and verification of blocks should be explained in plain English. Wwallacee ( talk) 23:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Bitcoin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change: The network verifies the signature using the public key. [1]: ch. 5
To: The network verifies the signature using the
public key.
[1]: ch. 5 The signature algorithm is the secp256k1 variant of ECDSA. Cite error: A <ref>
tag is missing the closing </ref>
(see the
help page).
Nettijoe96 (
talk)
03:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Ladislav Mecir. I have a link to the source code as a ref. I don't know how to format this correctly because this is my first time editing wikipedia. Are you able to see it?
References
This
edit request to
Bitcoin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello, I would like to add relevant information on this page on the legal subject. Thank you. Tambisagar ( talk) 04:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)