This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
Feel free to add/edit this template. I just quickly threw up these sections/topics. Genjix ( talk) 22:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that Blockchain.info is a 'technology'. I also don't think bittorrent is a bitcoin-related technology. I'm skeptical of the link to peer-to-peer file sharing, since file-sharing is not a Bitcoin-spedific technology either. Sanpitch ( talk) 20:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Some of the companies listed are bitcoin exchanges (Coinbase, Mt. Gox), while the bitcoin exchanges category that already includes them is also listed. For consistency, I'd suggest listing just the category, or listing all the exchanges as companies. Although some exchange companies also engage in other Bitcoin-related activities (e.g., LocalBitcoins manufactures ATMs, Coinbase provides merchant-processing services). Agyle ( talk) 23:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Propose to add Adam Back Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 20:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't support the removal of at least three people from this template. I would include Andreas Antonopoulos, Gavin Andresen and Adam Back. What is the justification for this large change without consensus? - Shiftchange ( talk) 23:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
This infobox, to me, feels like it just lacks structure and is an indiscriminate list of all things Bitcoin, though it isn't even consistent on that (omissions of various relevant topics). It needs restructuring and trimming imo. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Looking at this again, I still think this is an indiscriminate mess, and consequently of limited navigational value. It should be restructured, I think. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 17:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think 2020 Twitter bitcoin scam should be included for the history of Bitcoin. It's notable for the history of Twitter, yes, and it's included in Template:Twitter, but it isn't the biggest "hack" or scam to do with Bitcoin, heck, it isn't even a hack on Bitcoin at all, it's a hack on Twitter and a social engineering trick. As I say, 10 year test. This isn't the first Bitcoin scam, it certainly isn't the largest, and various others aren't documented here (like exchange heists).
By the way, David Gerard, this is a misuse of rollback. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 14:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
RG for Blockchain ( talk · contribs) asked for Blockchain.com to be added to this template. In my mind, blockchain.com is not a notable exchange, and my initial response was that we would only add notable exchanges. However, then I looked at the template, and I see that we have lots of exchanges that don't appear to be notable (note that my view on exchange notability as of this comment is just my personal opinion of notability). Note that RG for Blockchain is an employee of Blockchain.com. My position is probably leaning towards inclusion in the template (since there are many exchanges there already), but seeking comments first. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 16:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
Feel free to add/edit this template. I just quickly threw up these sections/topics. Genjix ( talk) 22:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think that Blockchain.info is a 'technology'. I also don't think bittorrent is a bitcoin-related technology. I'm skeptical of the link to peer-to-peer file sharing, since file-sharing is not a Bitcoin-spedific technology either. Sanpitch ( talk) 20:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Some of the companies listed are bitcoin exchanges (Coinbase, Mt. Gox), while the bitcoin exchanges category that already includes them is also listed. For consistency, I'd suggest listing just the category, or listing all the exchanges as companies. Although some exchange companies also engage in other Bitcoin-related activities (e.g., LocalBitcoins manufactures ATMs, Coinbase provides merchant-processing services). Agyle ( talk) 23:29, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Propose to add Adam Back Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 20:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't support the removal of at least three people from this template. I would include Andreas Antonopoulos, Gavin Andresen and Adam Back. What is the justification for this large change without consensus? - Shiftchange ( talk) 23:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
This infobox, to me, feels like it just lacks structure and is an indiscriminate list of all things Bitcoin, though it isn't even consistent on that (omissions of various relevant topics). It needs restructuring and trimming imo. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Looking at this again, I still think this is an indiscriminate mess, and consequently of limited navigational value. It should be restructured, I think. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 17:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think 2020 Twitter bitcoin scam should be included for the history of Bitcoin. It's notable for the history of Twitter, yes, and it's included in Template:Twitter, but it isn't the biggest "hack" or scam to do with Bitcoin, heck, it isn't even a hack on Bitcoin at all, it's a hack on Twitter and a social engineering trick. As I say, 10 year test. This isn't the first Bitcoin scam, it certainly isn't the largest, and various others aren't documented here (like exchange heists).
By the way, David Gerard, this is a misuse of rollback. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 14:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
RG for Blockchain ( talk · contribs) asked for Blockchain.com to be added to this template. In my mind, blockchain.com is not a notable exchange, and my initial response was that we would only add notable exchanges. However, then I looked at the template, and I see that we have lots of exchanges that don't appear to be notable (note that my view on exchange notability as of this comment is just my personal opinion of notability). Note that RG for Blockchain is an employee of Blockchain.com. My position is probably leaning towards inclusion in the template (since there are many exchanges there already), but seeking comments first. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 16:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)