![]() | 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 30 | ← | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | → | Archive 40 |
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The latest release of the Bitcoin Core software is no longer 0.17.1, it is now 0.18.0 which was released on 2 May 2019. [1] Please, change the latest release and it's date in the info box to 0.18.0 / 2 May 2019.
-- Victorsueca ( talk) 10:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Bitcoin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the Financial Institutions section:
In 2018 JP Morgan indicated its interest and investments in blockchain technology and in 2019 the bank launched its own cryptocurrencyhttps://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/15/investing/jpmorgan-bitcoin-crypto-jamie-dimon/index.html. The JPM Coin, as it is called, is a stablecoin that is aiming to compete with Bitcoin. The launch marked a new area in cryptocurrency, as the largest U.S. bank now is now running its own cryptocurrency https://www.technologyreview.com/f/612961/jpmorgan-is-launching-its-own-cryptocurrency-but-its-very-different-from-bitcoin/. This was following several negative statements from the banks CEO Jamie Dimon about Bitcoin. Satoshibundaberg ( talk) 08:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Please add person name Craig Wright say he is Satoshi Nakamoto and try register copyright for original Bitcoin whitepaper.
Source from TechDirt (2019.05.24)
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190521/18063742256/copyright-office-weighs-after-wannabe-satoshi-craig-wright-registers-copyright-original-bitcoin-paper.shtml?threaded=false#c34
and Yahoo
https://news.yahoo.com/self-proclaimed-satoshi-craig-wright-140200611.html?soc_src=hl-viewer&soc_trk=tw
I can't edit this page because it is locked. Trinhhoa ( talk) 08:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
The current disambiguation header reads:
{{Hatnote|"₿" redirects here. It is not to be confused with "฿" for Thai baht.
It should say:
"₿" redirects here. It is not to be confused with "฿" for Thai baht.
Can someone fix the "hatnote" portion? 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:49C:17A9:EF40:3B0D ( talk) 07:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
include "The Trust Machine" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKwqNgG-Sv4) to list of films — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:4E18:4B03:204D:C20C:37DF:42A4 ( talk) 13:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Bitcoin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
UK Tax In the UK, individuals are liable to pay Income Tax and National Insurance contributions when they receive crytpoassets and Capital Gains Tax when they dispose of them. [1] There are a number of instances in which cryptoassets can be taxable including selling, exchanging, and giving away. Recent websites and apps have become available for individuals to generate their own tax returns for crypotassets. <link redacted> Hannahbitcoin ( talk) 13:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
The article has an entire subection devoted to characterizations of Bitcoin as a speculative bubble by a bunch of noted economists. Is there a good reason not to state this in the lead section? The lead exists to "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". This seems like both an important point and a prominent controversy to me. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 01:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Some noted economists, including several Nobel laureates, have criticized it as purely speculativeto:
Some noted economists, including several Nobel laureates, have characterized it as a speculative bubble(criticized already appears in the first sentence of the third paragraph). Is there a reason this would be an inappropriate summary of the relevant contents? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 07:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
In fact, the Bitcoin-as-bubble section could be greatly expanded, given that Cryptocurrency bubble contains more detailed criticism of Bitcoin than the Bitcoin article itself. As it currently exists, it's a WP:POVFORK for information that belongs here. I would suggest basically swapping the Bitcoin-as-bubble content between the two articles. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 14:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
There must be manyopinions about Bitcoin indeed; what of it? We're citing noted economists, central bankers, academics, and so on, not random bloggers or celebrities. In what way is that
excessive weight? WP:NPOV doesn't mean arbitrarily segregating facts and opinions in separate articles. Would you favor editing The English Patient (film) to only cover
the thing that isThe English Patient, i.e. the film project, rather than reception of the film, opinions of film critics, awards, etc.?If there are WP:SIZE concerns, I see a lot of text that could be condensed and/or spun off. Why not work to trim the "History" section (a lot of which is WP:RAWDATA about price fluctuations), or "Legal status, tax and regulation", or create a spinoff article at Bitcoin mining, for instance? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 02:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I might reduce a bit, assuming this content has already been moved over to Economics of Bitcoin, but in case it hasn't will put it here below
Bitcoin, along with other cryptocurrencies, has been described as an economic bubble by at least eight Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences laureates, including Robert Shiller, [1] Joseph Stiglitz, [2] and Richard Thaler. [3] [4] Noted Keynesian economist Paul Krugman has described bitcoin as "a bubble wrapped in techno-mysticism inside a cocoon of libertarian ideology", [5] professor Nouriel Roubini of New York University has called bitcoin the "mother of all bubbles", [6] and University of Chicago economist James Heckman has compared it to the 17th-century tulip mania. [4] Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has also described bitcoin as a "bubble"; [7] the investors Warren Buffett and George Soros have respectively characterized it as a "mirage" [8] and a "bubble"; [9] while the business executives Jack Ma and Jamie Dimon have called it a "bubble" [10] and a "fraud", [11] respectively. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 03:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
References
It doesn't serve any socially useful function.
@ Ladislav Mecir: how/where do you suggest to handle this [2]? In Bitcoin article or at Economics of Bitcoin. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 18:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Bitcoin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are frequent helpful charts from Blockchain.info throughout the article for liquidity, mining, etc; however, they end at 2017. Can these be updated to extend to the current day? Also, I think there could be more coverage of the exchange and trading ecosystems. You could cover data providers and trading tools like Cryptowat.ch in a section. 2405:9800:B910:30E1:1DEC:5FB2:51AF:C94A ( talk) 03:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".— xaosflux Talk 13:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to non-copyrighted plots or data to update the current ones (from 2-3 years ago)? Saturnalia0 ( talk) 03:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I can update the plots. The plots currently end in 2016. In 2017, there were two bitcoin splits. As far as the handling of these events in plots is concerned, the splits were analogical to stock splits. For stock splits or dividends, the Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) recommends to use split-adjusted prices in plots. See also this description of adjustments made to prices in cases such as cash dividends, stock dividends, stock splits, reverse stock splits, spinoffs, mergers, acquisitions or buybacks. Another option (not recommended by CRSP) is to disregard the splits in plots. Is there a consensus to use split-adjusted prices in plots? Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 08:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
According to the above discussion, it appears best to have more plots: a plot displaying just the raw prices unadjusted for splits, and a separate plot displaying logarithmic returns versus volatility. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 14:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Nice source from Fortune covering bitcoin mining [3] Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 19:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Another nice source [4] from Vanity Fair about a bitcoin equipment theft and related mining in Iceland. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 08:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Closely related to Bitcoin's energy consumption are the resulting carbon emissions, which cause increased concerns about Bitcoin’s environmental impact. [1] [2] The difficulty of translating the energy consumption into carbon emissions lies in the decentralized nature of Bitcoin impeding the localization of miners to examine the electricity mix used. The results of recent studies analyzing Bitcoin's carbon footprint vary. [3] [4] [5] [6] A study published in Nature Climate Change in 2018 claims that Bitcoin “could alone produce enough CO2 emissions to push warming above 2 °C within less than three decades.” [5] However, this analysis is subject to strong criticism as the underlying scenarios are considered as inadequate, leading to overestimations. [7] [8] [9] According to a recent study, published in Joule in 2019, Bitcoin's energy consumption amounts to almost 46 TWh resulting in a carbon footprint of 23 MtCO2 which is comparable to the level of emissions of countries as Jordan and Sri Lanka or Kansas City. [6] These estimates are supported by the International Energy Agency. [10] FirstMover ( talk) 09:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
References
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2020 and 4 April 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Hennock,l.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
In the article, there is a claim
During their time as bitcoin developers, Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn warned that bubbles may occur. [1] [2]
This claim is a forecast expressing possibility and uncertainty about the future development - "bubbles may occur", that is already obsolete (the persons cited have not been bitcoin developers for about 5 years). For these reasons, and per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL it should be removed. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 10:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
References
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2020 and 4 April 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Hennock,l.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Vanity fair has said here [5]:
Bitcoin would enable more than two billion people who lacked access to banks to send and receive payment; it would offer stability to citizens of countries with chaotic currencies; it would eliminate all banking fees.
Ladislav Mecir & David Gerard (and others), Shall we use some of this in wikivoice in this article? Or in quotes? Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
...please put double square brackets around ‘ bitcoin network’ in the first para so that readers can more easily find it?
Many thanks! ElectricFeet ElectricFeet ( talk) 00:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Ladislav Mecir you quickly reverted my add of Lightning Network to the article here [6]. I was wondering why this article has no mention of the Lightning Network in the article, have you previously removed it as well? Please explain your removal of the content here. Thanks Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 14:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I found some warnings that the users can lose their bitcoins because it is not for regular use yet
Perhaps there are more layer 2 alternatives than just the Lightning Network
If we want to mention that the Lightning Network is a notable scaling solution, we should make sure the notability is established by some sources
![]() | This
edit request to
Bitcoin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Just a small capitalization edit: please change "(over 150 GB As of January 2018)" in the first bullet in Wallets to "(over 150 GB as of January 2018)" Thank you! Fcs ( talk) 21:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
While this transform is, in theory, computationally impossible,here may be defects in the algorithm which makes a brut force attacks possible by a means which is not now known. Also, there may be backdoors. It is not technically accurate as stated without the edit. -- Bill Huston (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Ladislav Mecir: added some content today from a forbes staff writer source. Please have a look. If you could also find something about the price crash to the $3000 range in March it would be great to add that too. Maybe more examination of the correlation would be great. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Jtbobwaysf: Here is a stack of links from reliable sources, with changing views about causality with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic.
https://finance.yahoo.com/chart/BTC-USD?p=BTC-USD (the March 2020 drop was to $5,000 , not $3,000 , but maybe you mean $3,236 in December 2018 ? Btw, I have no financial interest in cryptocurrency) TGCP ( talk) 12:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The forks section confuses Bitcoin Core software forks (Bitcoin XT & Bitcoin Unlimited, though note that Bitcoin XT is no longer an active project), with other, non-fork Bitcoin full nodes (Pairity Bitcoin), with hard forks. It is super unclear from reading it that they are different things (one being different software, same Bitcoin, the other being different software, different token/coin). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Matt ( talk • contribs) 21:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Bitcoin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change 133 reference: "To heighten financial privacy, a new bitcoin address can be generated for each transaction.[133]" link is broken, and I found very reliable and comprehensive source of information, bitcoin adresses are well explained there: https://tokeneo.com/cryptocurrencies/bitcoin/ Patryk85 ( talk) 12:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Bitcoin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In section "Legal status, tax and regulation" the countries with total ban are 9 and not 8, Vietnam is missing. At page 4 of the source document https://www.loc.gov/law/help/cryptocurrency/cryptocurrency-world-survey.pdf you can see there is Vietnam included on the map as absolute ban, and the table with the country names is cut, but if you look very closely you can still read a piece of "V" and "t" letters of "Vietnam". 78.12.48.141 ( talk) 15:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
The article currently references a 2017 study by the University of Cambridge estimating the number of cryptocurrency wallets ( Bitcoin#cite_note-CU2017-23).
Shall we replace the figure with the more recent Szmigiera M., Number of blockchain wallet users globally 2016-2019, Statista, 2020 - source - which is more than 6 times higher?
Mikispag ( talk) 15:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Bitcoin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
[1] Cryptoze ( talk) 02:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
References
User:Ladislav_Mecir reverted my change to the halving date and I thank him for the thorough check. However, the reason indicates that there is no source, although there is a link [5] as well as the other page bitaps.com that both fluctuate back and forth between May 11 and May 12. I would like to ask to kindly reconsider this revert or indicate what is missing to justify this more accurate statement. Thank you in advance! Concisepleonasm ( talk) 00:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I posted this at AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin (disambiguation) in case anyone wants to comment. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 05:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Bitcoin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please revert this edit from User:Jakesyl. On his github account you can see his affiliation with the block explorer he edited into the info box. Mkwia ( talk) 13:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Couple of related AfDs today Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bitcoin_Core#Bitcoin_Core and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin Improvement Proposal. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 11:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Bitcoin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Replace 'using the name' in the first sentence, with 'using the pseudonym'. This is more accurate. ʎɐɹɹnɯ ( talk) 10:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I have seen a lot of reverts recently related to the Base58 topic. What is this and why is it controversial? Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 12:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
List of bitcoin wallets. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 24#List of bitcoin wallets until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Ysangkok (
talk)
14:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion on this at at Talk:List of programming languages#DAML. Please reply there. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The following sentences in the lead need citations: Critics noted its use in illegal transactions, the large amount of electricity used by miners, price volatility, and thefts from exchanges. Some economists, including several Nobel laureates, have characterized it as a speculative bubble. Mkwia ( talk) 16:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Potential sources:
As you all probably are aware, Bitcoin has once again hit an all-time high at $22,190. Should the article be edited to reflect this? Or should we wait to see if this is actually going to be the all-time high or whether it will go higher? NateNate60 ( talk) 04:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Under Criticism: - First paragraph refers to a *2018* report listing several criticisms including lack of price stability. - Second paragraph says “The Economist describes these criticisms as unfair, predominantly because the shady image may compel users to overlook the capabilities of the blockchain technology, but also due to the fact that the volatility of bitcoin is changing in time.[219]” - However, the referenced *10/31/15* article doesn’t describe those criticisms as unfair / inaccurate. It just says blockchain technology shouldn’t be ignored. AND for price stability it says “The value of a bitcoin has been pretty stable, at around $250, for most of this year.” That has clearly not been the case since 2015. - The entire second paragraph should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GFTAnalyst ( talk • contribs) 11:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
None of the items listed here are critical opinions. Someone who knows more about Bitcoin than me should update. Stanlygoodspeed ( talk) 13:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree that, technically speaking, critical opinions can be positive or negative. I also agree with the need to be neutral and to include positive opinions. Rather than being grammatically inaccurate, I just think that the Criticism section is unclear and reads poorly. Example: "Here are four criticisms of Person A: 1) he is mean, 2) he smells bad, 3) he hates dogs, and 4) he's a great guy".
But, given that the section is correct as is, I won't push too hard for a change if it's not a popular position. Stanlygoodspeed ( talk) 16:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
As a speculative bubble
Bitcoin, along with other cryptocurrencies, has been described as an economic bubble by at least eight Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences laureates, including Robert Shiller (2014), [1] Joseph Stiglitz (2017), [2] and Richard Thaler (2018). [3] [4] Noted Keynesian economist Paul Krugman has described bitcoin in 2018 as "a bubble wrapped in techno-mysticism inside a cocoon of libertarian ideology", [5] professor Nouriel Roubini of New York University has called bitcoin the "mother of all bubbles" (2018), [6] and University of Chicago economist James Heckman (2018) has compared it to the 17th-century tulip mania. [4]
Alan Greenspan (2013) and George Soros (2018) both referred to it as a "bubble". [7] [8] In 2014 Warren Buffett called bitcoin a "mirage". [9]
Bob ( talk) 11:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
It appears that there is a consensus that the temporal context for every "bitcoin is a bubble" statement should be provided in the article text. I support it too. Interpreting the statement in the context provided by the Economic bubble article, we should probably understand it as a historical (original) wording of the statement that "bitcoin market price is in a bubble". Interpreted that way, what the statement says is that when the statement was formulated by the respective expert, the bitcoin price appeared to him/her as implausible. I think that this also provides guidance as to whether we should provide the temporal context in the date, month, year form: I think that we should, since the price of bitcoin is rather volatile and mentioning just the month would not provide the necessary time/price context. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 14:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Also, interpreting the claims that way, two experts saying "bitcoin is a bubble" at two different times actually make two different claims, which should not be interpreted as equivalent. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 14:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
References
It doesn't serve any socially useful function.
The capitalization of Bitcoin seems inconsistent, both in this article and in the article on cryptocurrency in general. When referring to the Bitcoin service itself, then "Bitcoin" should be capitalized. When referring to *a* bitcoin (i.e. the unit of currency), then "bitcoin" should be lower-case. It looks like Bitcoin (the service) is being written in lower-case on the basis that the logo is stylized in lower case. In general (but this is English so there are probably exceptions) I think that when referring to the service as a proper noun we should capitalize it as such. I don't think that the logo being stylized in lower case is a good reason to override the usual rules because doing so doesn't add anything of value to the discussion; in my opinion it mostly just adds ambiguity, and the inconsistency just looks sloppy to me.
I would have edited the article myself and just been done with it, but it looks like the article is edit-restricted, so can't do that, which is fine. I think someone with access should do it, though. That is my suggestion.
Senjoro Nie ( talk) 03:32, 30 December 2020 (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 30 | ← | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | → | Archive 40 |
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The latest release of the Bitcoin Core software is no longer 0.17.1, it is now 0.18.0 which was released on 2 May 2019. [1] Please, change the latest release and it's date in the info box to 0.18.0 / 2 May 2019.
-- Victorsueca ( talk) 10:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
Bitcoin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the Financial Institutions section:
In 2018 JP Morgan indicated its interest and investments in blockchain technology and in 2019 the bank launched its own cryptocurrencyhttps://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/15/investing/jpmorgan-bitcoin-crypto-jamie-dimon/index.html. The JPM Coin, as it is called, is a stablecoin that is aiming to compete with Bitcoin. The launch marked a new area in cryptocurrency, as the largest U.S. bank now is now running its own cryptocurrency https://www.technologyreview.com/f/612961/jpmorgan-is-launching-its-own-cryptocurrency-but-its-very-different-from-bitcoin/. This was following several negative statements from the banks CEO Jamie Dimon about Bitcoin. Satoshibundaberg ( talk) 08:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Please add person name Craig Wright say he is Satoshi Nakamoto and try register copyright for original Bitcoin whitepaper.
Source from TechDirt (2019.05.24)
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20190521/18063742256/copyright-office-weighs-after-wannabe-satoshi-craig-wright-registers-copyright-original-bitcoin-paper.shtml?threaded=false#c34
and Yahoo
https://news.yahoo.com/self-proclaimed-satoshi-craig-wright-140200611.html?soc_src=hl-viewer&soc_trk=tw
I can't edit this page because it is locked. Trinhhoa ( talk) 08:20, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
The current disambiguation header reads:
{{Hatnote|"₿" redirects here. It is not to be confused with "฿" for Thai baht.
It should say:
"₿" redirects here. It is not to be confused with "฿" for Thai baht.
Can someone fix the "hatnote" portion? 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:49C:17A9:EF40:3B0D ( talk) 07:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
include "The Trust Machine" ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKwqNgG-Sv4) to list of films — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1970:4E18:4B03:204D:C20C:37DF:42A4 ( talk) 13:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Bitcoin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
UK Tax In the UK, individuals are liable to pay Income Tax and National Insurance contributions when they receive crytpoassets and Capital Gains Tax when they dispose of them. [1] There are a number of instances in which cryptoassets can be taxable including selling, exchanging, and giving away. Recent websites and apps have become available for individuals to generate their own tax returns for crypotassets. <link redacted> Hannahbitcoin ( talk) 13:53, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
The article has an entire subection devoted to characterizations of Bitcoin as a speculative bubble by a bunch of noted economists. Is there a good reason not to state this in the lead section? The lead exists to "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". This seems like both an important point and a prominent controversy to me. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 01:05, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Some noted economists, including several Nobel laureates, have criticized it as purely speculativeto:
Some noted economists, including several Nobel laureates, have characterized it as a speculative bubble(criticized already appears in the first sentence of the third paragraph). Is there a reason this would be an inappropriate summary of the relevant contents? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 07:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
In fact, the Bitcoin-as-bubble section could be greatly expanded, given that Cryptocurrency bubble contains more detailed criticism of Bitcoin than the Bitcoin article itself. As it currently exists, it's a WP:POVFORK for information that belongs here. I would suggest basically swapping the Bitcoin-as-bubble content between the two articles. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 14:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
There must be manyopinions about Bitcoin indeed; what of it? We're citing noted economists, central bankers, academics, and so on, not random bloggers or celebrities. In what way is that
excessive weight? WP:NPOV doesn't mean arbitrarily segregating facts and opinions in separate articles. Would you favor editing The English Patient (film) to only cover
the thing that isThe English Patient, i.e. the film project, rather than reception of the film, opinions of film critics, awards, etc.?If there are WP:SIZE concerns, I see a lot of text that could be condensed and/or spun off. Why not work to trim the "History" section (a lot of which is WP:RAWDATA about price fluctuations), or "Legal status, tax and regulation", or create a spinoff article at Bitcoin mining, for instance? — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 02:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
I might reduce a bit, assuming this content has already been moved over to Economics of Bitcoin, but in case it hasn't will put it here below
Bitcoin, along with other cryptocurrencies, has been described as an economic bubble by at least eight Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences laureates, including Robert Shiller, [1] Joseph Stiglitz, [2] and Richard Thaler. [3] [4] Noted Keynesian economist Paul Krugman has described bitcoin as "a bubble wrapped in techno-mysticism inside a cocoon of libertarian ideology", [5] professor Nouriel Roubini of New York University has called bitcoin the "mother of all bubbles", [6] and University of Chicago economist James Heckman has compared it to the 17th-century tulip mania. [4] Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has also described bitcoin as a "bubble"; [7] the investors Warren Buffett and George Soros have respectively characterized it as a "mirage" [8] and a "bubble"; [9] while the business executives Jack Ma and Jamie Dimon have called it a "bubble" [10] and a "fraud", [11] respectively. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 03:09, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
References
It doesn't serve any socially useful function.
@ Ladislav Mecir: how/where do you suggest to handle this [2]? In Bitcoin article or at Economics of Bitcoin. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 18:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Bitcoin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There are frequent helpful charts from Blockchain.info throughout the article for liquidity, mining, etc; however, they end at 2017. Can these be updated to extend to the current day? Also, I think there could be more coverage of the exchange and trading ecosystems. You could cover data providers and trading tools like Cryptowat.ch in a section. 2405:9800:B910:30E1:1DEC:5FB2:51AF:C94A ( talk) 03:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".— xaosflux Talk 13:08, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Does anyone have access to non-copyrighted plots or data to update the current ones (from 2-3 years ago)? Saturnalia0 ( talk) 03:39, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
I can update the plots. The plots currently end in 2016. In 2017, there were two bitcoin splits. As far as the handling of these events in plots is concerned, the splits were analogical to stock splits. For stock splits or dividends, the Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) recommends to use split-adjusted prices in plots. See also this description of adjustments made to prices in cases such as cash dividends, stock dividends, stock splits, reverse stock splits, spinoffs, mergers, acquisitions or buybacks. Another option (not recommended by CRSP) is to disregard the splits in plots. Is there a consensus to use split-adjusted prices in plots? Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 08:05, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
According to the above discussion, it appears best to have more plots: a plot displaying just the raw prices unadjusted for splits, and a separate plot displaying logarithmic returns versus volatility. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 14:07, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Nice source from Fortune covering bitcoin mining [3] Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 19:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Another nice source [4] from Vanity Fair about a bitcoin equipment theft and related mining in Iceland. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 08:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Closely related to Bitcoin's energy consumption are the resulting carbon emissions, which cause increased concerns about Bitcoin’s environmental impact. [1] [2] The difficulty of translating the energy consumption into carbon emissions lies in the decentralized nature of Bitcoin impeding the localization of miners to examine the electricity mix used. The results of recent studies analyzing Bitcoin's carbon footprint vary. [3] [4] [5] [6] A study published in Nature Climate Change in 2018 claims that Bitcoin “could alone produce enough CO2 emissions to push warming above 2 °C within less than three decades.” [5] However, this analysis is subject to strong criticism as the underlying scenarios are considered as inadequate, leading to overestimations. [7] [8] [9] According to a recent study, published in Joule in 2019, Bitcoin's energy consumption amounts to almost 46 TWh resulting in a carbon footprint of 23 MtCO2 which is comparable to the level of emissions of countries as Jordan and Sri Lanka or Kansas City. [6] These estimates are supported by the International Energy Agency. [10] FirstMover ( talk) 09:04, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
References
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2020 and 4 April 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Hennock,l.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
In the article, there is a claim
During their time as bitcoin developers, Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn warned that bubbles may occur. [1] [2]
This claim is a forecast expressing possibility and uncertainty about the future development - "bubbles may occur", that is already obsolete (the persons cited have not been bitcoin developers for about 5 years). For these reasons, and per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL it should be removed. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 10:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
References
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2020 and 4 April 2020. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Hennock,l.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 18:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Vanity fair has said here [5]:
Bitcoin would enable more than two billion people who lacked access to banks to send and receive payment; it would offer stability to citizens of countries with chaotic currencies; it would eliminate all banking fees.
Ladislav Mecir & David Gerard (and others), Shall we use some of this in wikivoice in this article? Or in quotes? Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
...please put double square brackets around ‘ bitcoin network’ in the first para so that readers can more easily find it?
Many thanks! ElectricFeet ElectricFeet ( talk) 00:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Ladislav Mecir you quickly reverted my add of Lightning Network to the article here [6]. I was wondering why this article has no mention of the Lightning Network in the article, have you previously removed it as well? Please explain your removal of the content here. Thanks Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 14:10, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I found some warnings that the users can lose their bitcoins because it is not for regular use yet
Perhaps there are more layer 2 alternatives than just the Lightning Network
If we want to mention that the Lightning Network is a notable scaling solution, we should make sure the notability is established by some sources
![]() | This
edit request to
Bitcoin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Just a small capitalization edit: please change "(over 150 GB As of January 2018)" in the first bullet in Wallets to "(over 150 GB as of January 2018)" Thank you! Fcs ( talk) 21:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
While this transform is, in theory, computationally impossible,here may be defects in the algorithm which makes a brut force attacks possible by a means which is not now known. Also, there may be backdoors. It is not technically accurate as stated without the edit. -- Bill Huston (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Ladislav Mecir: added some content today from a forbes staff writer source. Please have a look. If you could also find something about the price crash to the $3000 range in March it would be great to add that too. Maybe more examination of the correlation would be great. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 09:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
@ Jtbobwaysf: Here is a stack of links from reliable sources, with changing views about causality with the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic.
https://finance.yahoo.com/chart/BTC-USD?p=BTC-USD (the March 2020 drop was to $5,000 , not $3,000 , but maybe you mean $3,236 in December 2018 ? Btw, I have no financial interest in cryptocurrency) TGCP ( talk) 12:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
The forks section confuses Bitcoin Core software forks (Bitcoin XT & Bitcoin Unlimited, though note that Bitcoin XT is no longer an active project), with other, non-fork Bitcoin full nodes (Pairity Bitcoin), with hard forks. It is super unclear from reading it that they are different things (one being different software, same Bitcoin, the other being different software, different token/coin). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blue Matt ( talk • contribs) 21:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Bitcoin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change 133 reference: "To heighten financial privacy, a new bitcoin address can be generated for each transaction.[133]" link is broken, and I found very reliable and comprehensive source of information, bitcoin adresses are well explained there: https://tokeneo.com/cryptocurrencies/bitcoin/ Patryk85 ( talk) 12:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Bitcoin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In section "Legal status, tax and regulation" the countries with total ban are 9 and not 8, Vietnam is missing. At page 4 of the source document https://www.loc.gov/law/help/cryptocurrency/cryptocurrency-world-survey.pdf you can see there is Vietnam included on the map as absolute ban, and the table with the country names is cut, but if you look very closely you can still read a piece of "V" and "t" letters of "Vietnam". 78.12.48.141 ( talk) 15:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
The article currently references a 2017 study by the University of Cambridge estimating the number of cryptocurrency wallets ( Bitcoin#cite_note-CU2017-23).
Shall we replace the figure with the more recent Szmigiera M., Number of blockchain wallet users globally 2016-2019, Statista, 2020 - source - which is more than 6 times higher?
Mikispag ( talk) 15:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Bitcoin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
[1] Cryptoze ( talk) 02:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
References
User:Ladislav_Mecir reverted my change to the halving date and I thank him for the thorough check. However, the reason indicates that there is no source, although there is a link [5] as well as the other page bitaps.com that both fluctuate back and forth between May 11 and May 12. I would like to ask to kindly reconsider this revert or indicate what is missing to justify this more accurate statement. Thank you in advance! Concisepleonasm ( talk) 00:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I posted this at AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin (disambiguation) in case anyone wants to comment. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 05:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Bitcoin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please revert this edit from User:Jakesyl. On his github account you can see his affiliation with the block explorer he edited into the info box. Mkwia ( talk) 13:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Couple of related AfDs today Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bitcoin_Core#Bitcoin_Core and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bitcoin Improvement Proposal. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 11:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
Bitcoin has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Replace 'using the name' in the first sentence, with 'using the pseudonym'. This is more accurate. ʎɐɹɹnɯ ( talk) 10:32, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
I have seen a lot of reverts recently related to the Base58 topic. What is this and why is it controversial? Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 12:40, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
List of bitcoin wallets. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 24#List of bitcoin wallets until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Ysangkok (
talk)
14:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
There is a discussion on this at at Talk:List of programming languages#DAML. Please reply there. Thanks! -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The following sentences in the lead need citations: Critics noted its use in illegal transactions, the large amount of electricity used by miners, price volatility, and thefts from exchanges. Some economists, including several Nobel laureates, have characterized it as a speculative bubble. Mkwia ( talk) 16:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Potential sources:
As you all probably are aware, Bitcoin has once again hit an all-time high at $22,190. Should the article be edited to reflect this? Or should we wait to see if this is actually going to be the all-time high or whether it will go higher? NateNate60 ( talk) 04:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Under Criticism: - First paragraph refers to a *2018* report listing several criticisms including lack of price stability. - Second paragraph says “The Economist describes these criticisms as unfair, predominantly because the shady image may compel users to overlook the capabilities of the blockchain technology, but also due to the fact that the volatility of bitcoin is changing in time.[219]” - However, the referenced *10/31/15* article doesn’t describe those criticisms as unfair / inaccurate. It just says blockchain technology shouldn’t be ignored. AND for price stability it says “The value of a bitcoin has been pretty stable, at around $250, for most of this year.” That has clearly not been the case since 2015. - The entire second paragraph should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GFTAnalyst ( talk • contribs) 11:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
None of the items listed here are critical opinions. Someone who knows more about Bitcoin than me should update. Stanlygoodspeed ( talk) 13:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree that, technically speaking, critical opinions can be positive or negative. I also agree with the need to be neutral and to include positive opinions. Rather than being grammatically inaccurate, I just think that the Criticism section is unclear and reads poorly. Example: "Here are four criticisms of Person A: 1) he is mean, 2) he smells bad, 3) he hates dogs, and 4) he's a great guy".
But, given that the section is correct as is, I won't push too hard for a change if it's not a popular position. Stanlygoodspeed ( talk) 16:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
As a speculative bubble
Bitcoin, along with other cryptocurrencies, has been described as an economic bubble by at least eight Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences laureates, including Robert Shiller (2014), [1] Joseph Stiglitz (2017), [2] and Richard Thaler (2018). [3] [4] Noted Keynesian economist Paul Krugman has described bitcoin in 2018 as "a bubble wrapped in techno-mysticism inside a cocoon of libertarian ideology", [5] professor Nouriel Roubini of New York University has called bitcoin the "mother of all bubbles" (2018), [6] and University of Chicago economist James Heckman (2018) has compared it to the 17th-century tulip mania. [4]
Alan Greenspan (2013) and George Soros (2018) both referred to it as a "bubble". [7] [8] In 2014 Warren Buffett called bitcoin a "mirage". [9]
Bob ( talk) 11:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
It appears that there is a consensus that the temporal context for every "bitcoin is a bubble" statement should be provided in the article text. I support it too. Interpreting the statement in the context provided by the Economic bubble article, we should probably understand it as a historical (original) wording of the statement that "bitcoin market price is in a bubble". Interpreted that way, what the statement says is that when the statement was formulated by the respective expert, the bitcoin price appeared to him/her as implausible. I think that this also provides guidance as to whether we should provide the temporal context in the date, month, year form: I think that we should, since the price of bitcoin is rather volatile and mentioning just the month would not provide the necessary time/price context. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 14:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Also, interpreting the claims that way, two experts saying "bitcoin is a bubble" at two different times actually make two different claims, which should not be interpreted as equivalent. Ladislav Mecir ( talk) 14:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
References
It doesn't serve any socially useful function.
The capitalization of Bitcoin seems inconsistent, both in this article and in the article on cryptocurrency in general. When referring to the Bitcoin service itself, then "Bitcoin" should be capitalized. When referring to *a* bitcoin (i.e. the unit of currency), then "bitcoin" should be lower-case. It looks like Bitcoin (the service) is being written in lower-case on the basis that the logo is stylized in lower case. In general (but this is English so there are probably exceptions) I think that when referring to the service as a proper noun we should capitalize it as such. I don't think that the logo being stylized in lower case is a good reason to override the usual rules because doing so doesn't add anything of value to the discussion; in my opinion it mostly just adds ambiguity, and the inconsistency just looks sloppy to me.
I would have edited the article myself and just been done with it, but it looks like the article is edit-restricted, so can't do that, which is fine. I think someone with access should do it, though. That is my suggestion.
Senjoro Nie ( talk) 03:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)