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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Substantially duplicative content: The article content of digital currency seems to be more-or-less a slightly smaller duplicate of cryptocurrency. Even if digital currency turned out to be a separate subject, its current article content is still a large bulk of duplication that should be in either one article or the other. ( Ripple (payment protocol) is mentioned, but it also appears in the cryptocurrency article and is also covered separately in electronic money instead.) Closeapple ( talk) 01:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Do-Not suggest systemic changes such as this without doing alot of research, In this case you clearly have not done that.
Digital currencies are a very large, very important and very different thing to cryptocurrencies, they in no way necessary overlap and there is absolutely no reason to merge their two wiki pages, nor will there EVER be a good reason to delete the digital currency page.
Digital currencies include anything from the 'gold' in world of warcraft to american dollars and are defined simply as "any form of currency system implemented digitally". Cryptocurrencys on the other-hand are cryptographic messaging systems which use irreversibility in mathematics to implement a distributed verifiable (usually digital) currency... Just because something is a Digital currency certainly does not mean it is a Cryptocurrency.
Any similarity which exists between them in your head is meaningless and trivial, they are not to be merged.
And finally; @Closeapple your response is so wrong that i actually feel sick, bitcoin is the NAME of an advanced and specific cryptocurrency it's not the term we use to refer to all coins which are implemented using binary digits, it's certainly not a misnomer ! and at Wikipedia; ridiculously ideas like that are best left inside your head.
Electronic money is another thing again, please just don't post about crypto-anything until you fully understand Public-key_cryptography because you'll just embarrass yourself.
Finally; i intend to remove the 'merge suggestion' within a week unless someone comes up with a reason for merging the pages which is both logically valid and technically grounded.
27 February 2014 (UTC) comment added by 180.216.42.3 ( talk)
Apparently my merger request has been misinterpreted. To be clear: My proposal was to remove the more-or-less duplicate content from Digital currency because it was already in, and about, Cryptocurrency. It is not a request to terminate the Cryptocurrency article.
The Digital currency article, if it remains, needs to be about digital currency in general, not just a repeat of the cryptocurrency subtopic. Almost every source reference in the Digital currency article says "Bitcoin" in the title. That's a bad sign. -- Closeapple ( talk) 17:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
No content merger is required !, if there is problems with the digital currency article; then just go fix it, leave this page alone!... there is absolutely no logical connection between Crypto and Digital currencys, they should not be merged to any extent.
If CloseApple is having a problem with the digital currency article, i suggest CloseApple goes and fixs it... and i strongly suggest he leaves the Cryptocurrency article ( a highly complex programming subject about which he clearly knows nothing ) alone.
( obviously the merge has not been deleted yet as discussion continues; however there is an overwhelming 'Nay' rough consensus emerging so unless relevant new information is brought to the discussion i intend to remove the merger request in 3 days (17/3/2014).
I know that no-one has directly suggested Bitcoins are a bad or limited example, however to be clear All Cyptocurrencies are DIRECTLY based upon the group sourced protocol Bitcoin, which is also by far the most well documented CC-protocol; and the fundamental crypto-scripting feature of Bitcoin is what every other coin builds it's unique features upon ( including highly complex coins - like the decentralized DNS namecoin )
203.59.228.97 ( talk) 04:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if this isn't the correct course of action - this is my first activity contributing to Wikipedia.
I'd like to dispute the claim of Bitcoin being the first cryptocurrency. It's widely cited the Bitcoin shares similarities in terms of features to David Chaum's eCash [1], or DigiCash. That was a currency that made heavy use of cryptography and blind signatures to provide anonymous transactions, outlined as early as the end of the 80's and implemented over the 90's. However, it had a centralised issuer, but still allowed an offline mode. I would class this as at least partially distributed.
I don't doubt Bitcoin is the first fully distributed cryptocurrency.
I believe anything providing information or history of cryptocurrencies should mention the work of David Chaum.
Thanks
Again, apologies if this is the wrong approach.
ItsDom ( talk) 12:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
The very first use of the underlying cryptographic messaging system was by the British military, the first use of that system as a form of currency was bitcoin.
Do your research on how Bitcoins protocol actually works and you'll never feel the need to contest this fact again. 27 February 2014 (UTC) comment added by 180.216.42.3 ( talk)
Recent disagreement has arisen regarding the use of the term digital in the definition of the term cryptocurrency. This talk section has been created for us to discuss our perspectives and argue our points before re-adding the term so as to avoid public misconception and to minimize redundant and potentially incorrect article page edits.
My perspective is that Cryptocurrency, like it's parent fields cryptography and currency, has no innate connection and can exist entirely separate to digital signal processing.
Basic cryptography ( which is the key component of Cryptocurrency ) has existed far longer than the word digital, the concepts invoked by cryptography make complete and useful sense even within noisy or analogous implementations.
I believe the cause of this misnomer arose because of the avid connection between popular cryptocurrencies like bitcoin and popular modern electronic computing devices; which are by no means the only possible type of computing devices.
Cryptocurrency specifications can provably be implemented entirely within the minds of a group of humans, Cryptocurrencies are certainly not based upon digital currencies and i am yet to find or hear any argument which could prove that Cryptocurrencys cannot exist without digital-signal-processing which is all that is meant by the term digital.
Feel free to discuss, but please do-not include the term digital into the main article without providing strong supporting evidence that it needs to be there. encyclopedias are supposed to be minimal and concise, they are not the place for unintelligent hearsay.
Thank you, 180.216.52.21 ( talk) 02:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
NOTE ON NEW CURRENCY ADDITIONS: If a cryptocurrency is not notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia, do not include it in this article's table. If it has a recently created article and you're not sure it's notable (see WP:GNG).
Dreamcoin | DRM | — | 2014 | Carsen Klock | Yes | ~0.2 | 8.41% | ~1.85 | X11 [1] | Yes | Yes | |
Pelecoin | PLC | — | 2014 | — | Yes | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
Nrjcoin | NRC | ₦ | 2014 | Makoto Harada | Yes | — | 50.55% | ~101.10 of ~200 | scrypt [2] | Yes | No | |
Groestlcoin | GRS | — | 2014 [3] | gruve_p (pseudonym) | Yes | ~0.2 | 44.76% | ~47 of 105 | Groestl | Yes | Yes |
Jonpatterns ( talk) 09:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you.-- FeralOink ( talk) 13:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
table is too wide on 14" monitor, maybe vertical text images would be beneficial? See, Help:Table#Vertically_oriented_column_headers. Jonpatterns ( talk) 10:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
A sourced definition of cryptocurrency has always been lacking on this page, and should be its own subsection. It would allow distinction from other similar terms ( digital currency, virtual currency).-- Wuerzele ( talk) 05:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I've been trying to add a coin to the list of cryptocurrencies, which although may not be well known (the point of this coin is far more stealth than Bitcoin offers) it is well known within it's circles having more users of the coin and a higher market cap than the majority of the coins on that list. I was going to revert it's removal until I read the criteria that it must have a wikipedia page. How can whether or not something has a wikipedia article be determined as an object of note? I realise you're wikipedia users and will be rightly proud of your website. However this notability test seems to contradict wikipedia referencing rules that wikipedia cannot be used as a source of reference. I am happy to create a wikipedia page for the currency but I find wikipedia ignoring something as not worth mentioning because no one made an article, a little big headed. 194.138.39.53 ( talk) 11:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The criteria for selecting what coins mentioned appears very very random, I can imagine people were trying to squeeze in their coins through out, resulting in such a mess. However, shouldn't it be common sense that a Cryptocoin should be 'at least' 1yr old ? Coins like Aurora, Maza, Vertcoin are all unworthly mentions, made to 'wow' people for a quick 'get rich' schemes. I work in coinbase for the last 18 months, and to be honest, except Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dogecoin. All the rest are considered Minor, where you then have Feathercoin, Primecoin, Peercoin, Worldcoin and Ybcoin that is actually developed by respectable people who show their faces. Mastercoin is fine to mention, given it is different, similar to Ripple, but again, no one talks about Mastercoin or Ripple at all either, almost embarassing to see it on this list.
WinterstormRage (
talk)
15:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
If we're going to do this properly, let's try to come up with some criteria under which a coin can be added. I propose the following rules:
Universal:
Major:
Minor:
Now, I fully expect this to be amended and modified. These are arbitrary rules, and they use possibly fallible third party resources. But, as an initial draft, what do you think?
ThePenultimateOne ( talk) 12:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
We need to define this category as a few people have been adding coins presumably in an effort to manipulate the market.
The definition needs to be: Cryptocurrencies that coin a complex novel aspect (unique, new, different).
I'm questioning whether or not Dogecoin should be in the list, but even myself as a major anti-scamcoin advocate, I have to give Dogecoin the credit for its (absurd) ingenuity in branding.
VinceSamios ( talk) 19:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that whatever the definition of a "notable cryptocurrency" is, in each case it needs to be demonstrated using verifiable, reliable sources. The *coin project pages do not count as such. Smite-Meister ( talk) 20:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
"Cryptocurrencies are legal in all countries except Iceland, due primarily to Iceland's freeze on foreign exchange". I know what the source, a major Icelandic newspaper, says "illegal". Their quote from the central bank possibly really means that. It is about the capital controls and that Bitcoin is not an exception (a product). I just wander if you only use Bitcoin domestically does that work? [I know about Auroracoin that supposedly an answer to Bitcoin illegal.]
Bitcoin is mined in Iceland in big data centers so I take illegal with a grain of salt. comp.arch ( talk) 11:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
People keep removing references to Ripple (payment protocol) from the page, claiming that for whatever reason it does not fit into their personal definition of cryptocurrency. Wikipedia is about sources, however, and they more or less consistently describe Ripple (XRP, really) as a cryptocurrency. If you disagree and can justify your position, please discuss it here before editing.
Then there is the matter of the table of notable cryptocurrencies. The current choice of fields pretty much defines "cryptocurrency" as "bitcoin clone", since many of the fields do not make any sense in any other context. This seems rather inappropriate. Smite-Meister ( talk) 14:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Ripple has radically changed their protocol between versions. Version 0.1 was very far away from being a cryptocurrency. There was nothing resembling a distributed blockchain for starters. But version 0.6 seems to have all the essential features found in other cryptocurrencies, especially a distributed blockchain and distributed consensus versus double-spending. So the question to be answered from reliable sources isn't whether Ripple is a cryptocurrency, but in what ways is it one and when did it become one. Mercury's Stepson ( talk) 01:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey folks. I think the chart needs to go, or at least be split into a semi-protected list with only the most recognizable coins (Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dogecoin, etc) being shown here. It seems that everybody is recently been trying to put his/her own altcoin on the chart as a means of obscure promotion (some of these coins' notability are being put into question this very second as I write this.)
What does everyone think? Citation Needed | Talk 15:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I suggest adding BlackCoin to the list here. It's had its own article since July, and was the first purely POS coin, which I think alone makes it sufficiently notable. It's currently 15th in the list according to market cap (about $2.2 million) and is accepted on 15 exchanges (Aurocoin, listed here, is accepted on 7). Are there any objections? Greenman ( talk) 16:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, two proposals. First, that all cryptocurrencies with articles be included in the list. Lists are essentially navigation features, and most lists of this nature across Wikipedia include all entries that have an article. There would then be no need to debate notability in multiple locations (template, here and on the actual article). It also makes spotting non-notable articles easier, and as soon as any articles are chanllenged and deleted, the redlinks can be removed. The second proposal is that the list be moved into a separate article, such as happens elsewhere, for example with Content management system and List of content management systems. Greenman ( talk) 12:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Suggestion from someone with less knowledge on cryptocurrencies: given that "altcoin" redirects to this page, perhaps there should be a definition here? Samirluther ( talk) 03:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I copy edited teh section in December and an IP address first time contributing to this page reverted it today stating I added grammatical errors and the rearrangement of sentences was unnecessary, i.e. did not improve readability). I t is correct that I did forget to insert an 'and' where there is a period.
as it stands now though, it's unencyclopedic language with its own errors. the link is dead and I am not sure that the 2 separate sentences are correct.I wont revert/editwar. someone else please heck on this.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 04:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Not notable by itself. A method of cryptocurrency technics Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 16:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
File:Altcoins symbols.png | Hello Cryptocurrency/Archive 2. You are cordially invited to participate in the
Cryptocurrency Task Force (part of WikiProject Numismatics) a project dedicated on improving Wikipedia's coverage and detail regarding all things related to cryptocurrencies. |
-- 1Wiki8........................... ( talk) 09:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I see Gravatar mentioning DogeVault at http://en.gravatar.com/support/profile-crypto-currency/ but going to https://www.dogevault.com/ I read:
DogeVault.com
Announcement
We regret to announce that on the 11th of May, attackers compromised the Doge Vault online wallet service resulting in wallet funds being stolen.
After salvaging our wallet we have ascertained that around 280 million Dogecoins were taken in the attack, out of a total balance of 400 million kept in our hot wallet. 120 million Dogecoins have been since recovered and transferred to an address under our control.
It is believed the attacker gained access to the node on which Doge Vault’s virtual machines were stored, providing them with full access to our systems. It is likely our database was also exposed containing user account information; passwords were stored using a strong one-way hashing algorithm.
All private keys for addresses are presumed compromised, please do not transfer any funds to Doge Vault addresses.
Doge Vault. Posted 15/05/2014
Isn't this incident worth mentioning? Searching for DogeVault in this article I find nothing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.140.47.76 ( talk) 17:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Is it just me or are we now paying someone for the privilege of building them their very own rainbow table? xerxesbeat ( talk) 04:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Crypto asset is an ill-referenced article that appears to be speculative original research. It's been tagged for multiple problems for about a year now and isn't getting any better. In usage that I can find, the term "crypto asset" describes cryptocurrencies. I can see a hypothetical use for a separate term (things that aren't currencies per se but are on a blockchain as a unique object), but (1) the real-world usage doesn't seem to match that (2) the current article certainly doesn't substantiate that. So I suggest that article's properly-cited content be merged into this one and crypto asset redirected to cryptocurrency. Any objections? - David Gerard ( talk) 09:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
There have been a few reversions in the article regarding some SEC accusations against an individual. Since the individual appears to be low-profile and no conviction is mentioned, WP:BLPCRIME applies. I'll attempt a BLP-compliant edit that keeps most of the content without naming the individual. VQuakr ( talk) 17:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cryptocurrency. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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) 02:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Substantially duplicative content: The article content of digital currency seems to be more-or-less a slightly smaller duplicate of cryptocurrency. Even if digital currency turned out to be a separate subject, its current article content is still a large bulk of duplication that should be in either one article or the other. ( Ripple (payment protocol) is mentioned, but it also appears in the cryptocurrency article and is also covered separately in electronic money instead.) Closeapple ( talk) 01:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Do-Not suggest systemic changes such as this without doing alot of research, In this case you clearly have not done that.
Digital currencies are a very large, very important and very different thing to cryptocurrencies, they in no way necessary overlap and there is absolutely no reason to merge their two wiki pages, nor will there EVER be a good reason to delete the digital currency page.
Digital currencies include anything from the 'gold' in world of warcraft to american dollars and are defined simply as "any form of currency system implemented digitally". Cryptocurrencys on the other-hand are cryptographic messaging systems which use irreversibility in mathematics to implement a distributed verifiable (usually digital) currency... Just because something is a Digital currency certainly does not mean it is a Cryptocurrency.
Any similarity which exists between them in your head is meaningless and trivial, they are not to be merged.
And finally; @Closeapple your response is so wrong that i actually feel sick, bitcoin is the NAME of an advanced and specific cryptocurrency it's not the term we use to refer to all coins which are implemented using binary digits, it's certainly not a misnomer ! and at Wikipedia; ridiculously ideas like that are best left inside your head.
Electronic money is another thing again, please just don't post about crypto-anything until you fully understand Public-key_cryptography because you'll just embarrass yourself.
Finally; i intend to remove the 'merge suggestion' within a week unless someone comes up with a reason for merging the pages which is both logically valid and technically grounded.
27 February 2014 (UTC) comment added by 180.216.42.3 ( talk)
Apparently my merger request has been misinterpreted. To be clear: My proposal was to remove the more-or-less duplicate content from Digital currency because it was already in, and about, Cryptocurrency. It is not a request to terminate the Cryptocurrency article.
The Digital currency article, if it remains, needs to be about digital currency in general, not just a repeat of the cryptocurrency subtopic. Almost every source reference in the Digital currency article says "Bitcoin" in the title. That's a bad sign. -- Closeapple ( talk) 17:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
No content merger is required !, if there is problems with the digital currency article; then just go fix it, leave this page alone!... there is absolutely no logical connection between Crypto and Digital currencys, they should not be merged to any extent.
If CloseApple is having a problem with the digital currency article, i suggest CloseApple goes and fixs it... and i strongly suggest he leaves the Cryptocurrency article ( a highly complex programming subject about which he clearly knows nothing ) alone.
( obviously the merge has not been deleted yet as discussion continues; however there is an overwhelming 'Nay' rough consensus emerging so unless relevant new information is brought to the discussion i intend to remove the merger request in 3 days (17/3/2014).
I know that no-one has directly suggested Bitcoins are a bad or limited example, however to be clear All Cyptocurrencies are DIRECTLY based upon the group sourced protocol Bitcoin, which is also by far the most well documented CC-protocol; and the fundamental crypto-scripting feature of Bitcoin is what every other coin builds it's unique features upon ( including highly complex coins - like the decentralized DNS namecoin )
203.59.228.97 ( talk) 04:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if this isn't the correct course of action - this is my first activity contributing to Wikipedia.
I'd like to dispute the claim of Bitcoin being the first cryptocurrency. It's widely cited the Bitcoin shares similarities in terms of features to David Chaum's eCash [1], or DigiCash. That was a currency that made heavy use of cryptography and blind signatures to provide anonymous transactions, outlined as early as the end of the 80's and implemented over the 90's. However, it had a centralised issuer, but still allowed an offline mode. I would class this as at least partially distributed.
I don't doubt Bitcoin is the first fully distributed cryptocurrency.
I believe anything providing information or history of cryptocurrencies should mention the work of David Chaum.
Thanks
Again, apologies if this is the wrong approach.
ItsDom ( talk) 12:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
The very first use of the underlying cryptographic messaging system was by the British military, the first use of that system as a form of currency was bitcoin.
Do your research on how Bitcoins protocol actually works and you'll never feel the need to contest this fact again. 27 February 2014 (UTC) comment added by 180.216.42.3 ( talk)
Recent disagreement has arisen regarding the use of the term digital in the definition of the term cryptocurrency. This talk section has been created for us to discuss our perspectives and argue our points before re-adding the term so as to avoid public misconception and to minimize redundant and potentially incorrect article page edits.
My perspective is that Cryptocurrency, like it's parent fields cryptography and currency, has no innate connection and can exist entirely separate to digital signal processing.
Basic cryptography ( which is the key component of Cryptocurrency ) has existed far longer than the word digital, the concepts invoked by cryptography make complete and useful sense even within noisy or analogous implementations.
I believe the cause of this misnomer arose because of the avid connection between popular cryptocurrencies like bitcoin and popular modern electronic computing devices; which are by no means the only possible type of computing devices.
Cryptocurrency specifications can provably be implemented entirely within the minds of a group of humans, Cryptocurrencies are certainly not based upon digital currencies and i am yet to find or hear any argument which could prove that Cryptocurrencys cannot exist without digital-signal-processing which is all that is meant by the term digital.
Feel free to discuss, but please do-not include the term digital into the main article without providing strong supporting evidence that it needs to be there. encyclopedias are supposed to be minimal and concise, they are not the place for unintelligent hearsay.
Thank you, 180.216.52.21 ( talk) 02:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
NOTE ON NEW CURRENCY ADDITIONS: If a cryptocurrency is not notable enough to have its own article on Wikipedia, do not include it in this article's table. If it has a recently created article and you're not sure it's notable (see WP:GNG).
Dreamcoin | DRM | — | 2014 | Carsen Klock | Yes | ~0.2 | 8.41% | ~1.85 | X11 [1] | Yes | Yes | |
Pelecoin | PLC | — | 2014 | — | Yes | — | — | — | — | — | — | |
Nrjcoin | NRC | ₦ | 2014 | Makoto Harada | Yes | — | 50.55% | ~101.10 of ~200 | scrypt [2] | Yes | No | |
Groestlcoin | GRS | — | 2014 [3] | gruve_p (pseudonym) | Yes | ~0.2 | 44.76% | ~47 of 105 | Groestl | Yes | Yes |
Jonpatterns ( talk) 09:41, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you.-- FeralOink ( talk) 13:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
table is too wide on 14" monitor, maybe vertical text images would be beneficial? See, Help:Table#Vertically_oriented_column_headers. Jonpatterns ( talk) 10:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
A sourced definition of cryptocurrency has always been lacking on this page, and should be its own subsection. It would allow distinction from other similar terms ( digital currency, virtual currency).-- Wuerzele ( talk) 05:53, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I've been trying to add a coin to the list of cryptocurrencies, which although may not be well known (the point of this coin is far more stealth than Bitcoin offers) it is well known within it's circles having more users of the coin and a higher market cap than the majority of the coins on that list. I was going to revert it's removal until I read the criteria that it must have a wikipedia page. How can whether or not something has a wikipedia article be determined as an object of note? I realise you're wikipedia users and will be rightly proud of your website. However this notability test seems to contradict wikipedia referencing rules that wikipedia cannot be used as a source of reference. I am happy to create a wikipedia page for the currency but I find wikipedia ignoring something as not worth mentioning because no one made an article, a little big headed. 194.138.39.53 ( talk) 11:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
The criteria for selecting what coins mentioned appears very very random, I can imagine people were trying to squeeze in their coins through out, resulting in such a mess. However, shouldn't it be common sense that a Cryptocoin should be 'at least' 1yr old ? Coins like Aurora, Maza, Vertcoin are all unworthly mentions, made to 'wow' people for a quick 'get rich' schemes. I work in coinbase for the last 18 months, and to be honest, except Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dogecoin. All the rest are considered Minor, where you then have Feathercoin, Primecoin, Peercoin, Worldcoin and Ybcoin that is actually developed by respectable people who show their faces. Mastercoin is fine to mention, given it is different, similar to Ripple, but again, no one talks about Mastercoin or Ripple at all either, almost embarassing to see it on this list.
WinterstormRage (
talk)
15:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
If we're going to do this properly, let's try to come up with some criteria under which a coin can be added. I propose the following rules:
Universal:
Major:
Minor:
Now, I fully expect this to be amended and modified. These are arbitrary rules, and they use possibly fallible third party resources. But, as an initial draft, what do you think?
ThePenultimateOne ( talk) 12:54, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
We need to define this category as a few people have been adding coins presumably in an effort to manipulate the market.
The definition needs to be: Cryptocurrencies that coin a complex novel aspect (unique, new, different).
I'm questioning whether or not Dogecoin should be in the list, but even myself as a major anti-scamcoin advocate, I have to give Dogecoin the credit for its (absurd) ingenuity in branding.
VinceSamios ( talk) 19:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that whatever the definition of a "notable cryptocurrency" is, in each case it needs to be demonstrated using verifiable, reliable sources. The *coin project pages do not count as such. Smite-Meister ( talk) 20:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
"Cryptocurrencies are legal in all countries except Iceland, due primarily to Iceland's freeze on foreign exchange". I know what the source, a major Icelandic newspaper, says "illegal". Their quote from the central bank possibly really means that. It is about the capital controls and that Bitcoin is not an exception (a product). I just wander if you only use Bitcoin domestically does that work? [I know about Auroracoin that supposedly an answer to Bitcoin illegal.]
Bitcoin is mined in Iceland in big data centers so I take illegal with a grain of salt. comp.arch ( talk) 11:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
People keep removing references to Ripple (payment protocol) from the page, claiming that for whatever reason it does not fit into their personal definition of cryptocurrency. Wikipedia is about sources, however, and they more or less consistently describe Ripple (XRP, really) as a cryptocurrency. If you disagree and can justify your position, please discuss it here before editing.
Then there is the matter of the table of notable cryptocurrencies. The current choice of fields pretty much defines "cryptocurrency" as "bitcoin clone", since many of the fields do not make any sense in any other context. This seems rather inappropriate. Smite-Meister ( talk) 14:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Ripple has radically changed their protocol between versions. Version 0.1 was very far away from being a cryptocurrency. There was nothing resembling a distributed blockchain for starters. But version 0.6 seems to have all the essential features found in other cryptocurrencies, especially a distributed blockchain and distributed consensus versus double-spending. So the question to be answered from reliable sources isn't whether Ripple is a cryptocurrency, but in what ways is it one and when did it become one. Mercury's Stepson ( talk) 01:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey folks. I think the chart needs to go, or at least be split into a semi-protected list with only the most recognizable coins (Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dogecoin, etc) being shown here. It seems that everybody is recently been trying to put his/her own altcoin on the chart as a means of obscure promotion (some of these coins' notability are being put into question this very second as I write this.)
What does everyone think? Citation Needed | Talk 15:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I suggest adding BlackCoin to the list here. It's had its own article since July, and was the first purely POS coin, which I think alone makes it sufficiently notable. It's currently 15th in the list according to market cap (about $2.2 million) and is accepted on 15 exchanges (Aurocoin, listed here, is accepted on 7). Are there any objections? Greenman ( talk) 16:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, two proposals. First, that all cryptocurrencies with articles be included in the list. Lists are essentially navigation features, and most lists of this nature across Wikipedia include all entries that have an article. There would then be no need to debate notability in multiple locations (template, here and on the actual article). It also makes spotting non-notable articles easier, and as soon as any articles are chanllenged and deleted, the redlinks can be removed. The second proposal is that the list be moved into a separate article, such as happens elsewhere, for example with Content management system and List of content management systems. Greenman ( talk) 12:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Suggestion from someone with less knowledge on cryptocurrencies: given that "altcoin" redirects to this page, perhaps there should be a definition here? Samirluther ( talk) 03:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I copy edited teh section in December and an IP address first time contributing to this page reverted it today stating I added grammatical errors and the rearrangement of sentences was unnecessary, i.e. did not improve readability). I t is correct that I did forget to insert an 'and' where there is a period.
as it stands now though, it's unencyclopedic language with its own errors. the link is dead and I am not sure that the 2 separate sentences are correct.I wont revert/editwar. someone else please heck on this.-- Wuerzele ( talk) 04:17, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Not notable by itself. A method of cryptocurrency technics Arthistorian1977 ( talk) 16:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
File:Altcoins symbols.png | Hello Cryptocurrency/Archive 2. You are cordially invited to participate in the
Cryptocurrency Task Force (part of WikiProject Numismatics) a project dedicated on improving Wikipedia's coverage and detail regarding all things related to cryptocurrencies. |
-- 1Wiki8........................... ( talk) 09:52, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I see Gravatar mentioning DogeVault at http://en.gravatar.com/support/profile-crypto-currency/ but going to https://www.dogevault.com/ I read:
DogeVault.com
Announcement
We regret to announce that on the 11th of May, attackers compromised the Doge Vault online wallet service resulting in wallet funds being stolen.
After salvaging our wallet we have ascertained that around 280 million Dogecoins were taken in the attack, out of a total balance of 400 million kept in our hot wallet. 120 million Dogecoins have been since recovered and transferred to an address under our control.
It is believed the attacker gained access to the node on which Doge Vault’s virtual machines were stored, providing them with full access to our systems. It is likely our database was also exposed containing user account information; passwords were stored using a strong one-way hashing algorithm.
All private keys for addresses are presumed compromised, please do not transfer any funds to Doge Vault addresses.
Doge Vault. Posted 15/05/2014
Isn't this incident worth mentioning? Searching for DogeVault in this article I find nothing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.140.47.76 ( talk) 17:02, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Is it just me or are we now paying someone for the privilege of building them their very own rainbow table? xerxesbeat ( talk) 04:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Crypto asset is an ill-referenced article that appears to be speculative original research. It's been tagged for multiple problems for about a year now and isn't getting any better. In usage that I can find, the term "crypto asset" describes cryptocurrencies. I can see a hypothetical use for a separate term (things that aren't currencies per se but are on a blockchain as a unique object), but (1) the real-world usage doesn't seem to match that (2) the current article certainly doesn't substantiate that. So I suggest that article's properly-cited content be merged into this one and crypto asset redirected to cryptocurrency. Any objections? - David Gerard ( talk) 09:46, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
There have been a few reversions in the article regarding some SEC accusations against an individual. Since the individual appears to be low-profile and no conviction is mentioned, WP:BLPCRIME applies. I'll attempt a BLP-compliant edit that keeps most of the content without naming the individual. VQuakr ( talk) 17:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cryptocurrency. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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) 02:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)