Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be
aware before they can be sanctioned.
With respect to any reverting restrictions:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to
the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
Example: "I installed bitcoin software, downloaded the bitcoin blockchain, and received 1 bitcoin after giving my bitcoin address to my employer. I received 0.03 bitcoins as a tip. Maybe I'll sell my bitcoins on a bitcoin exchange."
This article is written in
American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
Bitcoin was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the
good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be
renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
computers,
computing, and
information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptocurrency, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
cryptocurrency on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptocurrencyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptocurrencyTemplate:WikiProject CryptocurrencyWikiProject Cryptocurrency articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Finance and
Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article was
copy edited by
Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 1 October 2018.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
Other talk page banners
Material from
Bitcoin was split to
Bitcoin network on
26 May 2013. The former page's
history now serves to
provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution.
Merged articles
Bitcoin Core was nominated for
deletion.
The discussion was closed on 20 July 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were
merged into
Bitcoin. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see
its history; for its talk page, see
here.
Namecoin was nominated for
deletion.
The discussion was closed on 13 December 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were
merged into
Bitcoin. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see
its history; for its talk page, see
here.
Bitcoinj was nominated for
deletion.
The discussion was closed on 13 December 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were
merged into
Bitcoin. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see
its history; for its talk page, see
here.
Bitcoin Foundation was nominated for
deletion.
The discussion was closed on 11 December 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were
merged into
Bitcoin. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see
its history; for its talk page, see
here.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the
Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in
2017, when it received 15,026,561 views.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report17 times. The weeks in which this happened:
Alessia Pannone (September 14, 2023).
"Bitcoin on Wikipedia: record number of views in anticipation of the ETF". en.cryptonomist.ch. Retrieved September 15, 2023. On 8 September, the Wikipedia page dedicated to Bitcoin recorded a total of 7,830 views, marking the peak in daily views for 2023.
Murtuza Merchant (September 14, 2023).
"Why Bitcoin Wikipedia Page Traffic Just Hit 2023 Peak". msn.com. Retrieved September 15, 2023. Bitcoin's (CRYPTO: BTC) Wikipedia page recently saw an unprecedented surge in its daily traffic.
DISHITA MALVANIA (October 31, 2023).
"Bitcoin Wikipedia Page Views Soar Amid Ongoing Rally". cryptotimes.io. Retrieved October 31, 2023. Bitcoin's wikipedia page recently experienced a sharp increase in the number of people visiting it, reaching its highest level since mid-2022.
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
The following discussion is an archived record of a
request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to remove the statement from the lead. There was consensus that the study being cited has been subject to criticism and thus that its conclusions should not be stated in wikivoice, and that this is not significant enough to include in the lead per
WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. However, there was rough consensus to retain information regarding the study in the article body, with attribution and discussion of the criticism and controversy surrounding it.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 21:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Note, the statement (and other similar and often cited statements related to digiconomist.net) are anchored by a group of mostly students that seem to promote themselves as climate activists and influencers related to this position.
Alex de Vries: operator of often cited digiconomist.net. He is PHD candidate and his
linkedin refers to himself as "Global influencer"
Christian Stoll: seems to be a "former student" according to
MIT. Do we have an actual position for this person?
Are we contributing to these students fame by citing it with this weight?
Thanks!
Jtbobwaysf (
talk) 10:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:RFCNEUTRAL, this should have been brief and neutral. Casting aspersions against these academics is not neutral and not appropriate.
Grayfell (
talk) 04:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The journal Joule is published by
Cell Press, which is itself an imprint of
Elsevier. The editor-in-chief is Philip Earis, who previously ran several publications for the
Royal Society of Chemistry. If you have some policy-based reason these specific academics are so unreliable that they disqualify the journal itself, you should present that instead of whatever this is. It is, of course, possible for lecturers, graduate students, and former students to be the authors of reliable sources, especially when published in reputable journals.
As for Christian Stoll specifically, I don't know who he is either, but he's contributed to comments
published in Nature. To vaguely imply that he must be unreliable because you cannot find a job title is downright petty and silly.
Grayfell (
talk) 05:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)reply
This discussion section (that you have also contributed to) is a discussion section, not part of the RFC proposal, and thus not subject to RFCBRIEF. In fact, the more discussion and contributions in an RFC the better. The Nature source you provided (which was not part of the RFC) is titled "COMMENT", it appears it is something similar to an an op-ed. I find it odd that we are talking about the published work of a student, but if you think that helps, carry on. Thanks!
Jtbobwaysf (
talk) 06:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I tend to agree with Grayfell, but I have one concern, the source (
Revisiting Bitcoin’s carbon footprint) is a "COMMENTARY" and Commentary articles may not be subject to peer review, at the discretion of the editorial team. (see
Article types). If you go to "Publication history" in "Article info" it only says "Published online: February 25, 2022". On the other hand, for "Articles" and "Reports", subject to peer-review, you can see the timeline of the peer-review process, for instance:
So the source was NOT peer-reviewed. But it's more than a
WP:PREPRINT as
Article types says: Commentary articles will usually be single-author articles commissioned by the editorial office, but unsolicited contributions and multi-author contributions (for example from a coalition of experts) will be considered. So there's some sort of editorial control.
Conclusion: I still think that it is RS, because
it is often cited, but it is not that strong. And probably not strong enough to be cited in the lead.
You did the citation search incorrectly -- you have to use "Advanced Search". I count
20 citations maximum -- hardly "often cited".
It's also a single paper, not a meta-analysis/review, and so hardly represents any wider consensus on a long-studied issue of Bitcoin (one challenge being tying a precisely defined acceptable number to it).
Ironically, if it were a peer-reviewed study, then it would still be highly questionable for citation as it is a
WP:PRIMARY source (unless, again, it is a review or meta-analysis).
The reputability of the authors and the journal are not under objection here. This is not a suitable RS for a unique claim in the lede (or a unique claim anywhere, frankly) because of how existing policy on academic literature works. And on this topic, I'd be shocked if you can't find an actual suitable RS.
SamuelRiv (
talk) 20:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The main issue we are facing here is one of due weight. For wikivoice we would want to see rough consensus among a wide range of well respected authors (we dont have this) and for lead we are summarizing the body
WP:MOSLEAD. What we have is controversy, and that gets cited well in the press, and at wikipedia we need to be critical in our judgement of sources to determine what we are looking at and the due weight we apply to those sources. A couple editors claimed this lead content is a placeholder for expanding the article body, however there is nothing holding editors back from expanding a whole section(s) on the bitcoin environmental claims and this RFC doesnt cover that, it narrowly covers this 0.2% digiconimist claim in the lead.
Jtbobwaysf (
talk) 10:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
As I said, I came to agree with you that for wikivoice in the lead, we need high-quality RS. Anyway, this RfC ended @
Jtbobwaysf: do you plan to extend it for another 30d?
a455bcd9 (Antoine) (
talk) 10:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I dont think it needs to be extended, do you? I think it just needs an uninvolved party to close it, appears to be rough consensus to remove it from the lead.
Jtbobwaysf (
talk) 07:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Jtbobwaysf I don't know the process that well but per
WP:RFCEND now that this RFC ended and isn't listed anymore I don't see how any uninvolved party could be aware of the existence of this RFC and has an incentive to end and close it.
a455bcd9 (Antoine) (
talk) 08:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah, I missed that. I'll remove my request.
Nemov (
talk) 14:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Polling
Remove from
WP:LEAD and maybe remove from body, as poorly cited for such as a claim in
WP:WIKIVOICE. If included in body, needs to be re-worked to state something like 'often cited research report by PHD students have claimed that Bitcoin uses 2% of world's electricity (or just delete entirely). As it is currently the text is
WP:PROMO of
WP:SOAP for theories by a group of students seeking to further their career.
Jtbobwaysf (
talk) 12:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Remove per
WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY this isn't mentioned enough in the article to justify due inclusion in the lead.
Nemov (
talk) 14:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Retain. Jtbobwaysf's dismissal of this as "student activism" is wrong. This information should be included in the body, per many, many sources both already cited in this article and at
Environmental effects of bitcoin. This is, per countless sources, a defining issue with bitcoin. Past attempts to proportionately summarize this have repeatedly been frustrated via wikilawyering and similar. Local consensus should not be abused to push the
WP:FRINGE perspective that bitcoin is not harmful to the environment.
Grayfell (
talk) 04:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Neutral tending towards remove: per
WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY +
per JPxG (yes it's
whataboutism, but still) + the source is not super strong (non peer-reviewed commentary).
a455bcd9 (Antoine) (
talk) 06:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC) => Update: the lack of rigor in the analysis pointed by
this recent paper is the final nail in the coffin of a claim that was already weakly-sourced by a non-peer reviewed commentary. I think it can and should still be mentioned in the article, but with all the necessary caveats and in any case, not be featured in the lead as
WP:WIKIVOICE.
a455bcd9 (Antoine) (
talk) 08:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Neutral the thing that really matters the most in this and any page is how the information is covered at all. It is eternally a possibility that a statement is true even being sourced to one reputable academic even if some other additional sources are students. But however this comment may still be trivial even if it is true since 0.2% is very small especially when you consider that every calculation of this type has a margin of error. Therefore there is very likely to be a better way to cover the climate impact of this and whether it should be covered in the lead.
Jorahm (
talk) 18:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Retain in some form, though possibly with minor tweaks. This is a major aspect of the topic and has received massive amounts of coverage. Common sense is needed when evaluating sources; the specific one used here has been cited
90 times, which is a massive amount for a paper from 2022; and other sources have said similar things (I added
another one just now; note that it does not cite the paper in question.) If there are objections to relying on that paper, look over some of those 90 citations and add them as secondary sources, tweaking the wording to reflect how they summarize it if necessary. If it's not covered enough in the body, expand the body. Additional sources might require minor tweaks to summarize all of them. But none of these things are arguments for removal when something has this degree of coverage. --
Aquillion (
talk) 11:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The
CNBC citation you added cites the
White House, which in turn cites digiconimist. This 0.2% claim does all seem to loop back to that digiconimist source. The wider claim about the fact that bitcoin's energy usage is large & controversial is already in the LEAD and is not part of this RFC (this RFC addresses this 0.2% claim only).
Jtbobwaysf (
talk) 04:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Retain, and coverage of the topic should be expanded in the body because of its importance. One paragraph tucked away in the Mining section is not adequate for this facet with
an article of its own. It will be easier to incorporate it into the lead when it is addressed properly in the body.
3df (
talk) 04:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Remove. Per my discussion comment. Get a proper RS, see what they say, then reform.
SamuelRiv (
talk) 20:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Remove from lead for
MOS:LEADREL, but retain in article. The source seems strong enough for inclusion (per
A455bcd9's discussion comment) to establish that such estimates exist, but does not establish that this estimate is a central fact about Bitcoin worthy of inclusion in the lead.
Carleas (
talk) 02:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Remove from the lead but can include in the article if reliable sources are cited.
NihonGoBashi (
talk) 02:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Remove as per Antoine in the Discussion section (though I don't think it's a RS due to the lack of peer review). -
AquilaFasciata (
talk |
contribs) 15:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
XBT lol?
absolutely no one calls it that, and any references to it are basically dead. XBT most definitely doesn't deserve to be the 5th word on the Bitcoin entire page.
googling XBT, 8 of the 10 results are for a scam shitcoin called XBIT with the symbol XBT , so youre also helping a shitcoin make money scamming.
no one calls BTC XBT
whatever scammer from XBIT got y'all to put that up there is living a better life because of the free exposure.
I've changed the note to show only Bloomberg as the current user of XBT. I would like some input from other editors as to whether listing the XBT code so prominently makes sense these days. It's not even close to popularity with the BTC code.
Vgbyp (
talk) 13:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I also think it is odd, it is a very old term that is no longer used (I dont have a bloomberg terminal). I think everyone uses BTC and we should drop the jargon that bloomberg is using.
Jtbobwaysf (
talk) 07:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
NYSE ETF rigged
Why is there no section on how the ETF whales are rigging the price since January 10. Since the Jan 10 approval of ETFs, the NYSE is forced to keep it high to sell ETFs to customers. ABNs (all but New York) push the price down every day after NYSE closes. NYC is the biggest whale so they correct the price when NYSE opens.
Zindra Lord (
talk) 09:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)reply
That can be added to the article if there are RS reports on this. Do you know any?
Vgbyp (
talk) 17:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Moving the price right at the market close is common in mark to market positions as it changes the cost for the market makers overnight, particularly the short interest fee. I doubt you are going to find
WP:RS for this, but if you can, please let us know. My
WP:OR musings certainly are not ok for inclusion the article, I just point them out to let you know they are not unusual. Thanks!
Jtbobwaysf (
talk) 05:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
RfC on changing article variant to Oxford spelling to align with whitepaper
The following discussion is an archived record of a
request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
(
non-admin closure) There was a relatively low turnout to this RfC. However, the numerical majority (4:1) is clearly in favor of retaining the current engvar. Those voting yes did not explicitly cite a policy but their arguments echo
MOS:TIES whereas those voting no primarily cited
MOS:RETAIN. I find that there is consensus to maintain the current engvar (American English). If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page.
Sincerely, Dilettante 16:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Should this article's ENGVAR be changed to Oxford spelling?
Getsnoopy (
talk) 02:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Context
It seems like the article variant was arbitrarily set as American English in
this edit, which could've been confused been confused with
Oxford spelling because of its widespread use of the -ize suffix at the time. Moreover, given that Satoshi used Oxford spelling in the original Bitcoin whitepaper, it would be a good homage to have this article match that to symbolize Bitcoin's international nature (akin to Oxford spelling's international nature, as it is used by the UN & ISO, for example).
Polling (English variety)
That edit from back in 2017 didn't appear to have been arbitrary at all. Such templates are commonly added to document existing consensus, per
MOS:RETAIN.
Further, this is not formatted as a proper
WP:RfC.
Lastly, Wikipedia articles should absolutely not be an "homage", and non-neutral proposals like this are not appropriate, per
WP:RFCNEUTRAL
Do not insert your comments into the middle of someone else's, as your edits removed the signature and made it impossible for other editors to know who said what without going into the page history. Talk pages are intended to be a record of the conversation. If strictly necessary, you can use quotes to respond to specific points. See
WP:INTERPOLATE.
Grayfell (
talk) 00:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The RFC does probably also fail rfcbrief as well. However, I do support the change.
Jtbobwaysf (
talk) 07:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Fixed the formatting, so it's OK now.
Getsnoopy (
talk) 08:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
No - (
Summoned by bot) Simply haven't seen any real argument why it should change. Not enough of a connection between this subject and a particular location to override what's been in place for at least 7 years. To be clear, if it were a different template and someone proposed adding the American English template, I'd also oppose. Fighting over
WP:ENGVARs is not a good use of time IMO, except when there's an obvious connection. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 11:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
No - (
Summoned by bot) there are no strong ties between Bitcoin and any national variety of English so there is no reason to change a stable article - and this would apply regardless of what variety was stable.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2024
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please remove this sentence:
In September 2021, the Bitcoin Law made bitcoin legal tender in El Salvador, alongside the US dollar.[4]
and replace it with this one:
In September 2021, the Bitcoin Law made bitcoin legal tender in El Salvador, alongside the US dollar,[4] and required businesses to accept it.[113]
Legal tender is anything that must be accepted when there's a debt, but as that article says, In some jurisdictions legal tender can be refused as payment if no debt exists prior to the time of payment (where the obligation to pay may arise at the same time as the offer of payment). For example, vending machines and transport staff do not have to accept the largest denomination of banknote. However, source 113 says that this isn't the case in El Salvador: According to this law, not only bitcoin must be accepted as a means of payment for taxes and outstanding debts, but also all businesses are required to accept bitcoin as a medium of exchange for all transactions.123.51.107.94 (
talk) 05:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure this is really needed because the third sentence after that one in the same paragraph states: "businesses refused to accept it despite being legally required to." I don't think it makes sense to repeat this twice inside the same paragraph.
Vgbyp (
talk) 09:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be
aware before they can be sanctioned.
With respect to any reverting restrictions:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to
the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
Example: "I installed bitcoin software, downloaded the bitcoin blockchain, and received 1 bitcoin after giving my bitcoin address to my employer. I received 0.03 bitcoins as a tip. Maybe I'll sell my bitcoins on a bitcoin exchange."
This article is written in
American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other
varieties of English. According to the
relevant style guide, this should not be changed without
broad consensus.
Bitcoin was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the
good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be
renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
computers,
computing, and
information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptocurrency, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
cryptocurrency on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptocurrencyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptocurrencyTemplate:WikiProject CryptocurrencyWikiProject Cryptocurrency articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to
Finance and
Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article was
copy edited by
Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 1 October 2018.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles
Other talk page banners
Material from
Bitcoin was split to
Bitcoin network on
26 May 2013. The former page's
history now serves to
provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted so long as the latter page exists. Please leave this template in place to link the article histories and preserve this attribution.
Merged articles
Bitcoin Core was nominated for
deletion.
The discussion was closed on 20 July 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were
merged into
Bitcoin. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see
its history; for its talk page, see
here.
Namecoin was nominated for
deletion.
The discussion was closed on 13 December 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were
merged into
Bitcoin. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see
its history; for its talk page, see
here.
Bitcoinj was nominated for
deletion.
The discussion was closed on 13 December 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were
merged into
Bitcoin. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see
its history; for its talk page, see
here.
Bitcoin Foundation was nominated for
deletion.
The discussion was closed on 11 December 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were
merged into
Bitcoin. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see
its history; for its talk page, see
here.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the
Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in
2017, when it received 15,026,561 views.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report17 times. The weeks in which this happened:
Alessia Pannone (September 14, 2023).
"Bitcoin on Wikipedia: record number of views in anticipation of the ETF". en.cryptonomist.ch. Retrieved September 15, 2023. On 8 September, the Wikipedia page dedicated to Bitcoin recorded a total of 7,830 views, marking the peak in daily views for 2023.
Murtuza Merchant (September 14, 2023).
"Why Bitcoin Wikipedia Page Traffic Just Hit 2023 Peak". msn.com. Retrieved September 15, 2023. Bitcoin's (CRYPTO: BTC) Wikipedia page recently saw an unprecedented surge in its daily traffic.
DISHITA MALVANIA (October 31, 2023).
"Bitcoin Wikipedia Page Views Soar Amid Ongoing Rally". cryptotimes.io. Retrieved October 31, 2023. Bitcoin's wikipedia page recently experienced a sharp increase in the number of people visiting it, reaching its highest level since mid-2022.
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
The following discussion is an archived record of a
request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to remove the statement from the lead. There was consensus that the study being cited has been subject to criticism and thus that its conclusions should not be stated in wikivoice, and that this is not significant enough to include in the lead per
WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. However, there was rough consensus to retain information regarding the study in the article body, with attribution and discussion of the criticism and controversy surrounding it.
voorts (
talk/
contributions) 21:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Note, the statement (and other similar and often cited statements related to digiconomist.net) are anchored by a group of mostly students that seem to promote themselves as climate activists and influencers related to this position.
Alex de Vries: operator of often cited digiconomist.net. He is PHD candidate and his
linkedin refers to himself as "Global influencer"
Christian Stoll: seems to be a "former student" according to
MIT. Do we have an actual position for this person?
Are we contributing to these students fame by citing it with this weight?
Thanks!
Jtbobwaysf (
talk) 10:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Per
WP:RFCNEUTRAL, this should have been brief and neutral. Casting aspersions against these academics is not neutral and not appropriate.
Grayfell (
talk) 04:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The journal Joule is published by
Cell Press, which is itself an imprint of
Elsevier. The editor-in-chief is Philip Earis, who previously ran several publications for the
Royal Society of Chemistry. If you have some policy-based reason these specific academics are so unreliable that they disqualify the journal itself, you should present that instead of whatever this is. It is, of course, possible for lecturers, graduate students, and former students to be the authors of reliable sources, especially when published in reputable journals.
As for Christian Stoll specifically, I don't know who he is either, but he's contributed to comments
published in Nature. To vaguely imply that he must be unreliable because you cannot find a job title is downright petty and silly.
Grayfell (
talk) 05:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)reply
This discussion section (that you have also contributed to) is a discussion section, not part of the RFC proposal, and thus not subject to RFCBRIEF. In fact, the more discussion and contributions in an RFC the better. The Nature source you provided (which was not part of the RFC) is titled "COMMENT", it appears it is something similar to an an op-ed. I find it odd that we are talking about the published work of a student, but if you think that helps, carry on. Thanks!
Jtbobwaysf (
talk) 06:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I tend to agree with Grayfell, but I have one concern, the source (
Revisiting Bitcoin’s carbon footprint) is a "COMMENTARY" and Commentary articles may not be subject to peer review, at the discretion of the editorial team. (see
Article types). If you go to "Publication history" in "Article info" it only says "Published online: February 25, 2022". On the other hand, for "Articles" and "Reports", subject to peer-review, you can see the timeline of the peer-review process, for instance:
So the source was NOT peer-reviewed. But it's more than a
WP:PREPRINT as
Article types says: Commentary articles will usually be single-author articles commissioned by the editorial office, but unsolicited contributions and multi-author contributions (for example from a coalition of experts) will be considered. So there's some sort of editorial control.
Conclusion: I still think that it is RS, because
it is often cited, but it is not that strong. And probably not strong enough to be cited in the lead.
You did the citation search incorrectly -- you have to use "Advanced Search". I count
20 citations maximum -- hardly "often cited".
It's also a single paper, not a meta-analysis/review, and so hardly represents any wider consensus on a long-studied issue of Bitcoin (one challenge being tying a precisely defined acceptable number to it).
Ironically, if it were a peer-reviewed study, then it would still be highly questionable for citation as it is a
WP:PRIMARY source (unless, again, it is a review or meta-analysis).
The reputability of the authors and the journal are not under objection here. This is not a suitable RS for a unique claim in the lede (or a unique claim anywhere, frankly) because of how existing policy on academic literature works. And on this topic, I'd be shocked if you can't find an actual suitable RS.
SamuelRiv (
talk) 20:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The main issue we are facing here is one of due weight. For wikivoice we would want to see rough consensus among a wide range of well respected authors (we dont have this) and for lead we are summarizing the body
WP:MOSLEAD. What we have is controversy, and that gets cited well in the press, and at wikipedia we need to be critical in our judgement of sources to determine what we are looking at and the due weight we apply to those sources. A couple editors claimed this lead content is a placeholder for expanding the article body, however there is nothing holding editors back from expanding a whole section(s) on the bitcoin environmental claims and this RFC doesnt cover that, it narrowly covers this 0.2% digiconimist claim in the lead.
Jtbobwaysf (
talk) 10:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
As I said, I came to agree with you that for wikivoice in the lead, we need high-quality RS. Anyway, this RfC ended @
Jtbobwaysf: do you plan to extend it for another 30d?
a455bcd9 (Antoine) (
talk) 10:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I dont think it needs to be extended, do you? I think it just needs an uninvolved party to close it, appears to be rough consensus to remove it from the lead.
Jtbobwaysf (
talk) 07:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Jtbobwaysf I don't know the process that well but per
WP:RFCEND now that this RFC ended and isn't listed anymore I don't see how any uninvolved party could be aware of the existence of this RFC and has an incentive to end and close it.
a455bcd9 (Antoine) (
talk) 08:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah, I missed that. I'll remove my request.
Nemov (
talk) 14:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Polling
Remove from
WP:LEAD and maybe remove from body, as poorly cited for such as a claim in
WP:WIKIVOICE. If included in body, needs to be re-worked to state something like 'often cited research report by PHD students have claimed that Bitcoin uses 2% of world's electricity (or just delete entirely). As it is currently the text is
WP:PROMO of
WP:SOAP for theories by a group of students seeking to further their career.
Jtbobwaysf (
talk) 12:14, 8 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Remove per
WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY this isn't mentioned enough in the article to justify due inclusion in the lead.
Nemov (
talk) 14:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Retain. Jtbobwaysf's dismissal of this as "student activism" is wrong. This information should be included in the body, per many, many sources both already cited in this article and at
Environmental effects of bitcoin. This is, per countless sources, a defining issue with bitcoin. Past attempts to proportionately summarize this have repeatedly been frustrated via wikilawyering and similar. Local consensus should not be abused to push the
WP:FRINGE perspective that bitcoin is not harmful to the environment.
Grayfell (
talk) 04:49, 9 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Neutral tending towards remove: per
WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY +
per JPxG (yes it's
whataboutism, but still) + the source is not super strong (non peer-reviewed commentary).
a455bcd9 (Antoine) (
talk) 06:24, 9 January 2024 (UTC) => Update: the lack of rigor in the analysis pointed by
this recent paper is the final nail in the coffin of a claim that was already weakly-sourced by a non-peer reviewed commentary. I think it can and should still be mentioned in the article, but with all the necessary caveats and in any case, not be featured in the lead as
WP:WIKIVOICE.
a455bcd9 (Antoine) (
talk) 08:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Neutral the thing that really matters the most in this and any page is how the information is covered at all. It is eternally a possibility that a statement is true even being sourced to one reputable academic even if some other additional sources are students. But however this comment may still be trivial even if it is true since 0.2% is very small especially when you consider that every calculation of this type has a margin of error. Therefore there is very likely to be a better way to cover the climate impact of this and whether it should be covered in the lead.
Jorahm (
talk) 18:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Retain in some form, though possibly with minor tweaks. This is a major aspect of the topic and has received massive amounts of coverage. Common sense is needed when evaluating sources; the specific one used here has been cited
90 times, which is a massive amount for a paper from 2022; and other sources have said similar things (I added
another one just now; note that it does not cite the paper in question.) If there are objections to relying on that paper, look over some of those 90 citations and add them as secondary sources, tweaking the wording to reflect how they summarize it if necessary. If it's not covered enough in the body, expand the body. Additional sources might require minor tweaks to summarize all of them. But none of these things are arguments for removal when something has this degree of coverage. --
Aquillion (
talk) 11:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The
CNBC citation you added cites the
White House, which in turn cites digiconimist. This 0.2% claim does all seem to loop back to that digiconimist source. The wider claim about the fact that bitcoin's energy usage is large & controversial is already in the LEAD and is not part of this RFC (this RFC addresses this 0.2% claim only).
Jtbobwaysf (
talk) 04:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Retain, and coverage of the topic should be expanded in the body because of its importance. One paragraph tucked away in the Mining section is not adequate for this facet with
an article of its own. It will be easier to incorporate it into the lead when it is addressed properly in the body.
3df (
talk) 04:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Remove. Per my discussion comment. Get a proper RS, see what they say, then reform.
SamuelRiv (
talk) 20:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Remove from lead for
MOS:LEADREL, but retain in article. The source seems strong enough for inclusion (per
A455bcd9's discussion comment) to establish that such estimates exist, but does not establish that this estimate is a central fact about Bitcoin worthy of inclusion in the lead.
Carleas (
talk) 02:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Remove from the lead but can include in the article if reliable sources are cited.
NihonGoBashi (
talk) 02:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Remove as per Antoine in the Discussion section (though I don't think it's a RS due to the lack of peer review). -
AquilaFasciata (
talk |
contribs) 15:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
XBT lol?
absolutely no one calls it that, and any references to it are basically dead. XBT most definitely doesn't deserve to be the 5th word on the Bitcoin entire page.
googling XBT, 8 of the 10 results are for a scam shitcoin called XBIT with the symbol XBT , so youre also helping a shitcoin make money scamming.
no one calls BTC XBT
whatever scammer from XBIT got y'all to put that up there is living a better life because of the free exposure.
I've changed the note to show only Bloomberg as the current user of XBT. I would like some input from other editors as to whether listing the XBT code so prominently makes sense these days. It's not even close to popularity with the BTC code.
Vgbyp (
talk) 13:25, 25 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I also think it is odd, it is a very old term that is no longer used (I dont have a bloomberg terminal). I think everyone uses BTC and we should drop the jargon that bloomberg is using.
Jtbobwaysf (
talk) 07:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
NYSE ETF rigged
Why is there no section on how the ETF whales are rigging the price since January 10. Since the Jan 10 approval of ETFs, the NYSE is forced to keep it high to sell ETFs to customers. ABNs (all but New York) push the price down every day after NYSE closes. NYC is the biggest whale so they correct the price when NYSE opens.
Zindra Lord (
talk) 09:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)reply
That can be added to the article if there are RS reports on this. Do you know any?
Vgbyp (
talk) 17:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Moving the price right at the market close is common in mark to market positions as it changes the cost for the market makers overnight, particularly the short interest fee. I doubt you are going to find
WP:RS for this, but if you can, please let us know. My
WP:OR musings certainly are not ok for inclusion the article, I just point them out to let you know they are not unusual. Thanks!
Jtbobwaysf (
talk) 05:37, 28 February 2024 (UTC)reply
RfC on changing article variant to Oxford spelling to align with whitepaper
The following discussion is an archived record of a
request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
(
non-admin closure) There was a relatively low turnout to this RfC. However, the numerical majority (4:1) is clearly in favor of retaining the current engvar. Those voting yes did not explicitly cite a policy but their arguments echo
MOS:TIES whereas those voting no primarily cited
MOS:RETAIN. I find that there is consensus to maintain the current engvar (American English). If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page.
Sincerely, Dilettante 16:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Should this article's ENGVAR be changed to Oxford spelling?
Getsnoopy (
talk) 02:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Context
It seems like the article variant was arbitrarily set as American English in
this edit, which could've been confused been confused with
Oxford spelling because of its widespread use of the -ize suffix at the time. Moreover, given that Satoshi used Oxford spelling in the original Bitcoin whitepaper, it would be a good homage to have this article match that to symbolize Bitcoin's international nature (akin to Oxford spelling's international nature, as it is used by the UN & ISO, for example).
Polling (English variety)
That edit from back in 2017 didn't appear to have been arbitrary at all. Such templates are commonly added to document existing consensus, per
MOS:RETAIN.
Further, this is not formatted as a proper
WP:RfC.
Lastly, Wikipedia articles should absolutely not be an "homage", and non-neutral proposals like this are not appropriate, per
WP:RFCNEUTRAL
Do not insert your comments into the middle of someone else's, as your edits removed the signature and made it impossible for other editors to know who said what without going into the page history. Talk pages are intended to be a record of the conversation. If strictly necessary, you can use quotes to respond to specific points. See
WP:INTERPOLATE.
Grayfell (
talk) 00:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The RFC does probably also fail rfcbrief as well. However, I do support the change.
Jtbobwaysf (
talk) 07:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Fixed the formatting, so it's OK now.
Getsnoopy (
talk) 08:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
No - (
Summoned by bot) Simply haven't seen any real argument why it should change. Not enough of a connection between this subject and a particular location to override what's been in place for at least 7 years. To be clear, if it were a different template and someone proposed adding the American English template, I'd also oppose. Fighting over
WP:ENGVARs is not a good use of time IMO, except when there's an obvious connection. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 11:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
No - (
Summoned by bot) there are no strong ties between Bitcoin and any national variety of English so there is no reason to change a stable article - and this would apply regardless of what variety was stable.
Thryduulf (
talk) 12:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2024
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please remove this sentence:
In September 2021, the Bitcoin Law made bitcoin legal tender in El Salvador, alongside the US dollar.[4]
and replace it with this one:
In September 2021, the Bitcoin Law made bitcoin legal tender in El Salvador, alongside the US dollar,[4] and required businesses to accept it.[113]
Legal tender is anything that must be accepted when there's a debt, but as that article says, In some jurisdictions legal tender can be refused as payment if no debt exists prior to the time of payment (where the obligation to pay may arise at the same time as the offer of payment). For example, vending machines and transport staff do not have to accept the largest denomination of banknote. However, source 113 says that this isn't the case in El Salvador: According to this law, not only bitcoin must be accepted as a means of payment for taxes and outstanding debts, but also all businesses are required to accept bitcoin as a medium of exchange for all transactions.123.51.107.94 (
talk) 05:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure this is really needed because the third sentence after that one in the same paragraph states: "businesses refused to accept it despite being legally required to." I don't think it makes sense to repeat this twice inside the same paragraph.
Vgbyp (
talk) 09:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)reply