Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 29

The first sentence in the "Classification" section is:

Bitcoin is a digital asset^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]} designed by its inventor, Satoshi Nakamoto, to work as a currency.^[7][8]

The question is whether there is a consensus to remove the cross link to the digital asset article. As far as I am concerned, there is no such consensus, and the cross link should remain in the text, since it can aid understanding of the digital asset term. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I saw this revert and also was confused what the objection with the cross link was. Is there a dispute going on if bitcoin is a digital asset or a cryptocurrency? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:19, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

No, bitcoin can be both, and this is just about the question whether there should be a cross link or not. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Right, I have seen it referred to as a digital asset as well. Theochino (talk · contribs) in the talk page section above also seems to be suggesting that asset be added to this page for NPOV. I don't see a problem with it. Maybe we put somewhere it has been referred to as a cryptocurrency, digital asset, token (maybe, if true), etc Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Bitcoin is a digital asset in the sense that it's a resource of economic value (see asset) that exists in the digital realm. I have no particular problem describing it as such. The issue is that the Wikipedia article on digital asset refers to digital assets of the sort that a designer might use and manipulate on a screen in his or her job, "photography, logos, illustrations, animations, audiovisual media" (quoted from the article). Ladislav Mecir does not make this distinction but I do. The term has more than one meaning depending on context. Hence leaving the description in the article but removing the wikilink to something unrelated. – Steel 19:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

For awareness, Ladislav Mecirand I have discussed this previously at /Archive 27#.22Digital_asset.22. – Steel 19:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I must think that the issue is caused by a lack of reading comprehension on Steel's side. He does not take into account, e.g., these formulations from the digital asset article:

• "A digital asset in essence is anything that exists in a binary format and comes with the right to use."
• "The term "digital asset" refers, but is not exclusive to..."
• "Types of digital assets include, but are not exclusive to..."
• "In March 2015, The Wall Street Journal mentioned digital currencies as a type of digital asset."

What I find sufficient for the discussion is whether bitcoin is called a digital asset in reliable sources - the answer is "yes", and actually, this is not opposed by any reliable source I know of. What remains to be decided then is whether the cross link would help to understand the formulation in the article by pointing a user to the related article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I think I agree with user Steel here, it is not appropriate to link to this digital asset as it looks like it is about web-design. Nothing to do with this second definition. Ladislav, if you want to make a new article for 'digital asset (token),' (or something like that) and doing the disambiguation page, we can look at linking it. But for now, it doesn't make any sense to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf - here you are making exactly the same mistake as Steel, trying to use your own understanding of digital asset and come to the conclusion that bitcoin is not one. That is what is called WP:OR. The correct approach is to rely on WP:IRS to do the research and find out whether bitcoin is a digital asset or not. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:52, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you might want to edit the digital asset article first to include your proposed definition before you second link this article to it. If you cant reach consensus to edit the digital asset article with a new definition of it, then you need to create a new article (e.g. digital asset (crypto) and link to it, and do the disambiguation. I am sure this is not the first time this has happened at wikipedia. You can't just link random new definitions to existing wikipedia articles that have nothing to do with what you are linking them to. As far as I can understand the argument you are making has nothing to do with WP:OR or WP:IRS. You have found good sources, and there are lots of sources that call Bitcoin a digital asset, both true. But the digital asset article you want to link to is about a different subject matter, and this is the second time that Steel says you have brought it up on this talk page. I might be totally off base here, maybe @David Gerard: will comment here? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, my point is that I do not propose any definition of what a digital asset is, and would prefer you to stop claiming otherwise. I use WP:IRS claiming that bitcoin is a digital asset, that is all. If there is a consensus to use a RfC to determine whether a cross link to the article shall be present, it can be done. Just, please, realize that your idea that digital assets are "about web-design" is your original interpretation of the digital asset article and not a fact confirmed by reliable sources. Yet another problem with Steel's preference to use two successive links to two articles looking as follows: digital asset is that it does not follow the principles in WP:MOS suggesting that there shall not be two or more successive cross links, and if there is a more specific digital asset article, it shall be linked instead. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: The digital asset article you are proposing to wikilink to says: "Digital assets are classified as images, multimedia and textual content files." Just first add some stuff to the digital assets article about Bitcoin or cryptocurrency, then link after you are sure the content is going to stick on the page (there might be editors over at that page who object to it)... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, there already is "some stuff in the Digital asset article about bitcoin or cryptocurrency", you can find it if you try. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

{{help me}}

Ladislav, I have reverted your https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitcoin&oldid=756381801 edit that we are discussing above. Steel pointed out this is the second time this issue has been discussed (earlier discussion archived). I am somewhat at a loss over this whole discussion. As far as I can tell, @Steel: and myself are both opposed to linking to digital asset article that appears to the both of us to be an article about web design (for lack of a better word). I think I will ask for others to look at this, as I too am confused about the wikipedia policy regarding this type of thing. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:04, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

bitcoin is not both, one cannot invent classifications that don't exist on a belief that it should. None of all the article mentioned in the reference explain how they come to the conclusion it's a currency vs commodity. The inventor set to invent something (called a Cash system) but managed to invent a Commodity. It's clearly shown in the table above using only Wikipedia definitions. Theochino (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Please do not discuss whether bitcoin is a currency here. I explicitly stated that this question is still being disputed in reliable sources, and I do not want to take any side. You are also being off topic. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why these classifications are mutually exclusive. - Shiftchange (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Satoshi Nakamoto wanted to be a Currency; but it does not match the classification of a currency. It's like building an encased bicycle and calling it a car; and then wanting it to be a car. One can clearly see that it's not a currency. The Webster Merriam definition would be valid is bitcoin was first defined as a Commodity, otherwise even that definition is invalid. Theochino (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Theochino, if you want to discuss unrelated issues, use the above section, you are off topic here. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

Bitcoin is not money but a commodity; and it took me two years to come up with the simple answer to what bitcoin is: Bitcoin is the first Virtual Commodity ever created.

Money has been virtualized more than 200 years ago with the first check; and that is what cause the confusion. With Bitcoin, a Commodity has the same exchange speed as money. Money is created by a state/person that can protect it; Commodity exist regardless of what the state/person says. It's just there; and that is why it is not money.^[1][2][3]

When I discovered what bitcoin was, I asked a friend of mine, an internationally recognized expert on public debt finance, and to give me his opinion on bitcoin, and then on money. He sent me his paper on "The Functions of Money and Other Issues."^[4]

At the meeting of the Internet Governance Forum, at the meeting of the Dynamic Coalition on Blockchain Technologies,^[5] I pushed for the correct classification of what Bitcoin is, a Commodity.

Carla Reyes, the Moderator said: "I think the question of how to categorize the thing that it is is a good one. I'm from the United States and that's where I am most engrossed in how a government is trying to categorize this thing. It has been called virtual currency, not cryptocurrency. It has called property by the IRS. It has been called stored value by the states. Called a commodity by the CFDS but they would agree with you but it has been called a security by the securities exchange commission. So yes, categorizing what this thing is is difficult and I think though to focus on distributed ledger technology, DLT is where we might get the most bang for the governance discussion whether than focusing on the currency commodity itself."^[6]

By mentioning that the classification of what it is using the lack of standard by each Regulatory Agency seems to be the general approach, albeit the wrong approach. The approach need to be the scientific method, and historically, what define (and to this day) money is that it can be created and destroyed by the power of a single entity (Central Bank, Authority, etc ...) A commodity exist regardless of what the power to be want.

Theochino (talk) 03:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Not the first virtual commodity. Buyable in-game assets have been in games for years. Second Life has markets in virtual commodities. John Nagle (talk) 05:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, bitcoin is not the first virtual commodity. Actually, bitcoin is not a virtual commodity. Some reliable sources call it a commodity, digital commodity, digital asset or a digital collectible, while no reliable source calls it a virtual commodity. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of that, it's clearly not the first. Digicash was probably the first. John Nagle (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

"The approach need to be the scientific method, and historically, what define (and to this day) money is that it can be created and destroyed by the power of a single entity (Central Bank, Authority, etc ...)" - this is wrong, in fact, and pure WP:OR. It does not apply to commodity money. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

"Buyable in-game assets" are Currency since they are created by the game maker, the game maker is what control it. Second life are not commodities because they are also controlled by the game maker; Second Life is actually a Commodity Like behavior but it is not.

What differentiate a Commodity and a Currency is Control by a central entity that Creates and Destroy the Currency (French Franc, Euro, Hawaii Dollars) ....

It's not because everyone want it to be a Currency that it is ... the mistake comes that Virtualization of Currency took place two hundred years ago when the first check was written against currency. The check became an instrument representing the currency (but was not the currency.)

bitcoin (small B) doesn't represent anything ... bitcoin is here for itself. It's value is derived by the needs and wants of it's user (own wikipage definition) and therefore it's a commodity; it share the exchange speed of a currency but "speed" is not what makes the definition of a currency; control does.

Theochino (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

bitcoin is not a Commodity money either. It can become a commodity money if a central bank declares it legal tender, but noone has done that yet.

Theochino (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Theochino, I reverted your edit. Please find some WP:RS to make such a major change to this projected page. WP:OR wont cut it here... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, you are saying that the definitions in Wikipedia of what is bitcoin (with small B) are correct ? Should we change the definition of Commodity and Currency to match bitcoin's ? It is explained in State of Florida (vs) Espinoza Theochino (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Theochino, I addressed some WP:OR aspects of your research above, here is just an additional note. You wrote: "bitcoin is not a Commodity money either. It can become a commodity money if a central bank declares it legal tender, but noone has done that yet." - I do not want to discuss whether bitcoin is money or not, since that dispute is still going on. However, note that commodity money does not need to be a legal tender, which is another WP:OR aspect of your 2 year research. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir, how do you come to the idea that is Commodity Money ? Where is the reference you use ? Because according to Wikipedia, it need to have a value of it's own; as far as I see (even on DarkNet, the value of merchandise priced in Bitcoin is pegged to the exchange rate of the national currency. To be a Commodity Money it would require that good be priced in Bitcoin regardless of the exchange rates on the markets. Wouldn't you say ? Theochino (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Theochino, you have a problem with reading comprehension. I explicitly stated that the question whether bitcoin is money or not is subject to dispute that is still going on and that I, therefore, refuse to claim that bitcoin is money, which means that I refuse to call bitcoin commodity money too. My above note is about the WP:OR nature of your findings that ignore common knowledge from available sources, trying to also push your own definition of commodity money. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir so why the heading starts with "is a cryptocurrency" and that is what is in dispute. Bitcoin is not commodity money, it's just a commodity. Theochino (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Theochino, well, previously, the sentence stated that bitcoin is a digital asset. However, an editor (I reverted his edit once) changed the wording to the current one not respecting the status quo. Nevertheless, taking into account that the cryptocurrency is characterized as a "digital asset designed to work as a medium of exchange", there is actually no significant problem, since bitcoin indeed is a digital asset as confirmed by reliable sources, and was designed to work as a medium of exchange as confirmed by other sources. Therefore, I think that the main point of controversy is just a misunderstanding. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir What source would that be that came up with the "Digital Asset" classification ? Because I read papers trying to make that argument and digital asset is Intellectual Property and not tied to bitcoin. So by using Digital Asset, it is becoming the exact thing we are arguing here. Bitcoin is now 9 years old and it's properties have been studied; My source whose a PhD that worked on public debt says it's a commodity; does my source trump your source ? Theochino (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

"What source would that be that came up with the "Digital Asset" classification ?" - all of these: ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]}, and the list is in no way exhaustive, while your "source" is not what Wikipedia means when defining WP:IRS.

"...and digital asset is Intellectual Property and not tied to bitcoin." - here you are making two mistakes:

• you are trying to come up with your own understanding of what a digital asset is and interpret it in some way. That is WP:OR.
• you do not realize that the standard approach is to rely on WP:IRS to do the research and tell whether bitcoin is a digital asset or not, while you shall only cite the findings

Moreover, the classification as a commodity and the classification as a digital asset are not necessarily mutually exclusive, which you fail to notice. I do not know whether this illustrative example helps or not, but here goes: Wikipedia defines gold as "a chemical element with the symbol Au (from Latin: aurum) and the atomic number 79.", while your PhD source would probably classify it as a commodity. Does that mean that the Wikipedia definition is wrong? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir Yes, the definition in Wikipedia is wrong. It's a circular reference by popular voting which is totally wrong.

I started by following the first link in this chapter Cryptocurrency and got to this reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptocurrency#cite_note-2^[1]. I tried to reach the author but she doesn't work at Thomson Reuters anymore and the only Person citing Cryto-Currency is Timothy B. Lee.

I contacted Timothy B. Lee via his Twitter asking if he stood by original statement to Thomson Reuters.^[2]

Timothy B. Lee replied that stood by his answer^[3] and that Merriam-Wesbster of currency

Merriam-Webster says "something (as coins, treasury notes, and banknotes) that is in circulation as a medium of exchange."

^[4][5]

After reading the Merriam-Webster definition, the theme of Central Creator was not present^[6] and I emailed Webster to request clarification. See twitter entry: https://twitter.com/TheoBitcoin/status/812035540291878913.

Our definition of  "currency" includes the meaning "something (as coins, treasury notes, and banknotes) that is in circulation as a medium of exchange." The individual definitions of "coin," "treasury note," and "banknote" all indicate the involvement of some form of central authority.

Theochino (talk) 21:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Theochino, it is admirable that you are trying to contact various persons with your questions. However, the private conversations you mention do not confirm your formulation that "Bitcoin is the first Virtual Commodity ever created.", and the lack of supporting evidence is the main problem with your original results. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir thanks. And it's interesting that those that actually talked to Satochi at first classify it as "Virtual Commodity." What is the supporting evidence that it is a Currency? I offered a whole table of evidence that Bitcoin is a Commodity or are you arguing the "First" in the sentence? My Question is whether Bitcoin = Virtual Commodity (and not whether it is the first.) Theochino (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir do you agree then that Bitcoin == Virtual Commodity ? Theochino (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Do I agreee that bitcoin is a virtual commodity? - No. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:05, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir Ok, you don't believe it's a commodity.

Question #1: what do you believe it is and what arguments do you use to justify ?

Question #2: is the classification I made in the table in the section below wrong ? If so, what ?

Theochino (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

"Ok, you don't believe it's a commodity." - that is not true at all. I see that you have serious problems with reading comprehension. I do believe bitcoin is a commodity, that is why I do not believe bitcoin is a virtual commodity. I also found out that you may have a conflict of interest, being engaged in a litigation. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Theochino, I agree with you that State of Florida v. Espinoza should be included in the article. I did a quick check and didn't see it. Please be bold and consider adding it to this Bitcoin#Classification section, or another section you deem appropriate. It is important to have a section that discusses the different ways that bitcoin is being classified, and the debate surrounding it. I do agree that this current section seeks to state definitely that it is a digital asset, and I think I have seen some debate on that. Certainly State of Florida v. Espinoza is notable and ought to be included. I think it could even be covered briefly in the header section (IFF there really is a significant debate), but first let's put it in a content section (maybe Bitcoin#Classification) and then later we can discuss on this talk page and find some consensus about the header section. Theochino, I think @Steel: might have been asking similar questions as you... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir Asking for a neutral look at the properties of Bitcoin is not COI. Otherwise everything would be COI. What is your interest as saying it's a currency (vs) a commodity ? Let's discuss the mathematical and scientific economical properties and our different beliefs. Can you show me using the scientific method that I am wrong ? Calling COI is a character defamation. Theochino (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

"Calling COI is a character defamation." - well, no. COI does not have anything in common with character. The fact is that you are taking part in a litigation, and being in the COI, you are not supposed to make any changes to the related Wikipedia texts. Per Conflict-of-interest_editing_on_Wikipedia, you are not supposed to edit the article at all, which you are still continuing to do. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

The check that Theochino asks for here has been performed above with these results:

• The claim that "Bitcoin is the first Virtual Commodity ever created." is WP:OR, not supported by reliable sources. This has been found out in the discussion, and there is only one editor, Theochino, ignoring this result.
• Theochino is taking a part in a litigation related to this specific subject, and, as such, he has a conflict of interest and is not supposed to edit the article at all.

These findings are sufficient to refuse to add the requested POV-check tag again. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done It seems that you have already removed the tag yourself. Please note that the edit request template is to be used only by editors with a conflict of interest. If Theochino has a conflict of interest, then he should be requesting edits on the talk page and not editing the article per WP:COI guidelines. st170e^talk 23:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

St170e Here is the source from Bloomberg that Ladislav Mecir : https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-17/bitcoin-is-officially-a-commodity-according-to-u-s-regulator or https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/07/26/bitcoins-not-money-judge-rules-as-she-tosses-money-laundering-charge refusing to consider .... I am not a daily wikeditor so I don't know all the little rules that have creepted up over the years but either Ladislav Mecir but he had been keen on keeping that info out and now is claiming that my lawsuit is a WP:COI breach. The writing of the lawsuit is what is what made me realize that Wikipedia entry is 100% wrong and that it need correction. Since he called a COI on me, I am asking the

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A consensus could not be reached.

so someone from outside can see the facts at hand and issue a

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

on the article.

Hi there. The request edit template is not for content disputes of any kind, it is present in order to allow people with COI in the subject area to improve the articles, which requires a neutral editor to view and submit the changes. In case of arguments, prior consensus should be present before any proposed changes are submitted to the requested edits section. Edit request declined per no consensus. Oh, and make sure to sign your post by typing four of these ~ after any talkpage comment. Regards, VB00 (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

VB00, so what is the process to correct this information ? I wrote my piece here trying to reach consensus with and I left a long explanation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ladislav_Mecir#Long_explanation_so_we_can_sync_up. What tags from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace do you suggest I use to trigger a complete independent review of the material since the content presented is inaccurate ? Theochino (talk) 10:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

VB00 Found my own answer : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/request ... I'll give Ladislav Mecir a few days to review and digest my long ass explanation then I'll following the Dispute Resolution stuff. Theochino (talk) 11:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Just a tip - adding a cleanup template will not "trigger an independent review of the material" in any near future, because the NPOV Dispute Category still has stuff from December 2010... Well that's actually not so bad, considering that it does not rely on anyone "waiting for an answer" (at edit requests, some people have had to wait a year before receiving a reviewer reply...). Regards, VB00 (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

This is a very good article but it is unclear on the monetary status of bitcoin. Two questions are unanswered:

1. Who controls money supply? The article does not explicitly spell out how the supply of bitcoin is restricted, but there is an indirect description in the form of the "Mining" section. It says that bitcoin is, essentially, created through the virtual equivalent of gold mining. But who owns the bitcoin-supply algorithm? Can anyone create their own algorithm and thereby new supply? This question is not answered in the article.

2. Does bitcoin have intrinsic value? For a commodity to become money, it cannot have any intrinsic value. A pack of cigarettes is not money because it has value of its own. Money can only be a carrier of value. I glean from this article that bitcoin has no intrinsic value, but there is room for clarification here in order to further explain the monetary status of bitcoin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.45.189.99 (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Re "The article does not explicitly spell out how the supply of bitcoin is restricted" - This is explicitly mentioned in the "Money supply" section, where it is stated that the rules specify how the supply grows. (Currently by 12.5 bitcoins when a new block is created, until next halving, ...)

Re "But who owns the bitcoin-supply algorithm?" - the algorithm is open source (its behaviour is described in the article) and everyone, including yourself can use it.

Re "Can anyone create their own algorithm and thereby new supply?" - Everyone, including yourself can create any algorithm they like, but unless it is accepted by bitcoin users, it cannot increase the supply of bitcoins.

Re "Does bitcoin have intrinsic value?" - There are various interpretations this question can have:

• For coins made of precious metal, the "intrinsinc value" means the value of the metal from which the coin is made. For bitcoin, this interpretation does not make sense, since, in case of bitcoin, the "coins" are unspent outputs of transactions registered in the blockchain, not made of any metal.
• When interpreted in the sense described by the intrinsic theory of value, the question is also obscure, since the intrinsic theory of value is heterodox, known to be inferior to the currently standard subjective theory of value. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

It clearly states it is limited to 21,000,000 bitcoins or 2,100,000,000,000,000 Satoshi.
87.102.44.18 (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

According to the various Wikipedia pages defining Fiat Money, Medium of Exchange, Digital Currency, Commodity; bitcoin fit the commodity profile and not the currency profile. All the source cited have Political Agendas to get bitcoin accepted as a Currency and not as a Medium of Exchange.

As you can see, everything under Commodity end up with a astonishing "yes" and everything under Fiat, Currency and Money has a "no"

How can bitcoin be something that has many "no" I advance.

See table below.

Theochino (talk) 17:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The entry in question is :

'''Bitcoin''' is the first virtual [[commodity]] (commonly referred by the misnomer [[cryptocurrency]]) and a [[payment system]]{{r|primer|p=3}}

(vs)

'''Bitcoin''' is a [[cryptocurrency]] and a [[payment system]]{{r|primer|p=3}} 

Theochino (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I think your debate is if Cryptocurrency should exist as an article? Maybe nominate it for AfD instead. This is a very strange debate that I don't yet understand. But I think you might create a discussion here, and wait a few days before making major changes (one I reverted and subsequently tagging the page to support your proposed discussion). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The goal is to bring a bit of order in the whole space :) CryptoCurrency should exist as an article. Ripple is a CryptoCurrency since Ripple controls it. Since Bitcoin has no controlling party, it's a CryptoComodity. Once you think as Bitcoin as a commodity, everything falls in place; multiple markets place (BTC-e, BitFinex, etc ...) multiple exchange rates depending on local demand (same as lettuce.) The Wikipedia page with the wrong definition creates so much confusion for everyone (took me 2 years and 9 month to realize it.) That is why Bitcoin and the Blockchain is revolutionary; it removes control from the creator. Theochino (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. You need to find WP:RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, please see WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. You need to find WP:RS, your 2 year research does not suffice to meet Wikipedia standards. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir (talk · contribs) It's not WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS since Judge wrote it in her decision ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]} Theochino (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

So if it is not money, and ready the definition of currency "in the most specific use of the word refers to money in any form when in actual use or circulation" then it's a commodity.Theochino (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

As mentioned above, you still need a huge leap of faith to come to your original result that "Bitcoin is the first Virtual Commodity ever created." Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: removed the POV tag after this discussion went nowhere. @Theochino: you re-added the POV tag today. Let's finish this discussion here and remove the tag unless we find a specific problem. Theochino, your WP:OR isn't enough. If you have WP:RS to show bitcoin is an asset, please by all means add the content to the article. There are certinaly differing discriptions of the how bitcion is classified, including the Florida case. All of those classifications that are supported by WP:RS shall be provided equal weight under WP:NPOV. But this tag is not necessary as a tool to force a discussion of it, and I support Ladislav's removal of it. Theo, please just add the content and if someone deletes it, we can again have a discussion here on the talk page, that's what the talk page is for. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf I readded the tag because the discussion has not even started. According to the rules, you and Ladislav Mecir have been the admin of this page that you also have some interest in the topic. I am asking that people that don't know anything on the topic take a good look at the various facts and make an honest judgement on those facts. Now, a judge in Florida has asked the question and came up with a good answer and contradict your classification: http://www.article78againstnydfs.com/docs/FloridaCase/FloridaCase.pdf. Let's talk facts. Trowing at me WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:RS wishing that I go away, ain't going to happen. Being on the Internet too long to be deterred. I started a new section to discuss the facts from scratch. Theochino (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf So you know who you have to deal with, here is a bunch of presentation I did in New York City: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCf75zFbSbSRLbJ0LmdyiVUw and I knew when this happened I reached my first goal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXgADV1M7AE?t=23s (kind of the real life version of Godwin's Law) - Here I am asking the regulator a question : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzIuCzat_nk ... I know that the three of us want bitcoin to succeed; but what I am trying to say is that the definition is wrong and it is a disservice to us and to those who make the law. You can listen to http://www.dfs.ny.gov/about/hearings/vc_01282014_indx.htm and see how your belief make people not really understand what it is and we ended up in this limbo. What I am asking is that we reexamine the facts based on new information. Theochino (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf Before starting the lawsuit, I believe what was written here was correct, but in studying for the lawsuit I discovered that everything was incorrect. A private key is just a random x,y coordinate and the public key is just another x,y coordinate mixed with and known elliptic curve. Now tell me I am wrong Theochino (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Jtbobwaysf, you wrote: "Let's finish this discussion here and remove the tag unless we find a specific problem. Theochino, your WP:OR isn't enough. If you have WP:RS to show bitcoin is an asset, please by all means add the content to the article." - I cannot agree with your characterization of the discussion. There actually are two findings that are subject to consensus.

• The claim that "Bitcoin is the first Virtual Commodity ever created." is WP:OR, not supported by reliable sources. This has been found out in the discussion, and there is only one editor, Theochino, ignoring it.
• Theochino is taking a part in a litigation related to this specific subject, and, as such, he has a conflict of interest and is not supposed to edit the article at all.

These findings justify the deletion of the related tag inserted by Theochino, who wanted to make the edit to the lead section as described. Your formulation "If you have WP:RS to show bitcoin is an asset" is ignoring what Theochino really asked for, which is the formulation not mentioning the word asset at all. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

I have today added some content to the classification section that this talk page discussion brought up was missing. I have added two court rulings (Florida and New York) that have differing views on classification as well as the conflicting views by the CFTC and the IRS. While I am not sure if this solves the broader debate that may (or may not be going on here), this discussion bring up the fact that there is indeed some dispute as to how bitcoin is currently classified by the courts and the regulators. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

In today's Wired Magazine https://www.wired.com/2017/01/bitcoin-will-never-currency-something-way-weirder Theochino (talk) 20:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you found a new article. I read it, but couldn't find anything confirming your "Bitcoin is the first virtual commodity." Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Please follow the guidelines you clearly spell out ... that you are following the "latter" style of always lowercasing.

76.178.161.118 (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence in the "Ponzi scheme concerns" section is:

Various journalists,^[1][2] economists,^[3][4] and the central bank of Estonia^[5] have voiced concerns that bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme.^[6]

The problem with the citation^[6] is that:

• the citation is superfluous, since all the claims in the first sentence are confirmed by the other citations
• the citation is irrelevant, since it actually does not confirm any of the claims in the sentence
• the citation is dubious, since the cited article claims that there are only two objections by bitcoin opponents, which contradicts many sources listing numerous other objections by bitcoin opponents

Due to the above reasons, the citation^[6] shall be deleted as superfluous, irrelevant and dubious. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

• I agree. Thereisnous (talk) 08:28, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
• I agree. Second there is irrefutable proof that bitcoin is not a ponzi scheme. Users purchase tokens, and those tokens are different (with a different serial number) from tokens sold to a different user. Maybe this should be mentioned in this section for NPOV. (Needs an RS, my opinion certainly doesn't qualify) Maybe what Mt.gox was doing was a ponzi, but that doesn't relate to the bitcoin platform directly... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I have got several objections against the section being present in this article:

• The section text is just a duplicate of a paragraph present in the Blockchain article. In my opinion, the text naturally belongs to the Blockchain article (if anywhere). It is unnecessary to duplicate the text here, since this article is linked to the Blockchain article anyway.
• The first source cited does not look like an independent reliable source to me.
• Per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, Wikipedia is not supposed to predict the future.

I believe that these points justify the deletion of the section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2961405

Here's a paper on bitcoin.

Benjamin (talk) 09:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

They could easily identify the scammers and ransomeware attackers but refuse to do so. It should be declared illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.132.21.52 (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

After reading thru the article I wonder what on earth are you talking about. BTW there is an obtuse word string of 5 words, which should be a sentence that at least could be made grammatical (like 'twas brillig and the slithy toves did gyre & gimbol"): "suspended withdrawals citing technical issues.[51]" How do withdrawals do citing? People do citing. That word string starts no where & ends no where. (PeacePeace (talk) 17:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC))

Thank you, I corrected the copy&paste error you mentioned. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I was wondering why Bitcoin.org is not linked in the infobox? Ethereum links to Ethereum.org. It is the original Domain. It was registered even before the White paper was published. --2A02:908:5C8:F240:B1A1:4BEA:2EB:B2FB (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea of the answer to your question, with certainty. But Wikipedia is built on reliable secondary sources. Do you have a secondary source that articulates the relation of bitcoin.org to bitcoin and the bitcoin protocol? N2e (talk) 05:30, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

As currently written, the Blockchain subsection of the article says:

"The blockchain is a public ledger that records bitcoin transactions." While immediately above this sentence, the {See also} note correctly links to the article describing what a blockchain is, and that article correctly explicates both the nature of what a blockchain is and the wide variety of blockchains that exist in current practice. They are not all bitcoin or bitcoin-protocol blockchains.

Propose to change the locution to:

A1. "The bitcoin blockchain is a public ledger that records bitcoin transactions."

or

A2. "The bitcoin blockchain is a public ledger that records transactions on the bitcoin network."

Rationale: needs an adjective to describe the specific sort of blockchain that is being referred to here. It simply is not the case that there is only one blockchain, and that blockchains records bitcoin transactions. There are many blockchains (data structures of a particular type) up and running today. The article prose should be explicit about the type of blockchain.

• SUPPORT—as nom, support the proposal, with either A1 or A2; slightly prefer A2. Rationale is presented in the nom post. N2e (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose — bitcoin is neither "the blockchain" nor "a blockchain". Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency and a payment system. As for the proposed changes: the article is about bitcoin, and, consequentially, the "Blockchain" subsection is about the blockchain used in bitcoin. Per WP:MOS, there is no need to underline this in the section, especially when there is only one blockchain used in bitcoin. Moreover, the blockchain used in bitcoin is the original blockchain, from which other blockchains are either derived, or have taken an inspiration. As to the reference to the Blockchain article — this is also problematic, since the article has many issues like:
  • Unreliable sources
  • Dubious claims
  • Missing citations
  • Marketing spin

Due to the listed issues, I would actually prefer to remove the reference to the Blockchain article until the listed issues are resolved. Instead of trying to correct the "Bitcoin" article that is not broken (if we do not take into account its length, which still needs decreasing, not increasing), we should rather concentrate on correcting the Blockchain article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• COMMENT—I am OK with either A1 or A2 as well. I think it should be made clear to the wikipedia reader that there is a bitcoin blockchain, and the 'bitcoins live on it.' Certainly bitcoins don't currently live on the Ethereum blockchain. Maybe I am also missing something, I don't see why this change is controversial. Also Bitcoin has a large role in the history of blockchain, as it was the first commercially viable blockchain (at least from what I understand), and is now one of hundreds or maybe thousands public blockchains that exist. Is there some nuance I am missing? I read this first last night and again today, trying to understand before I replied to this comment. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

What you are missing is the fact that per WP:MOS, in the Bitcoin article, when speaking about blockchain, it is not needed to point out either in the section name, or in the text that it is a bitcoin blockchain, since that is evident. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:40, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with Ladislav. The point of any encyclopedia article is to make things clear for our readers, as long as the material is sourced and cited. In this case, the use of the definite article ("the") misleads our readers. There is a group of technologies now known as blockchain. Bitcoin instntiates one of those, and uses that particular blockchain in it protocol and to further its purposes; many other blockchains exist. Thus, the "bitcoin blockchain" simply clarifies what it is. It is a blockchain, not the blockchain, and we should not confuse our readers. WP:MOS is never used to suggest that writing confusing prose is acceptable. N2e (talk) 17:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support While I might be missing something, using the word the makes it imply (to me) that bitcoin is the blockchain. Bitcoin is a name of a particular instance of a blockchain, and Bitcoin was also maybe the first major viable blockchain. But I think other than that, most of this section can be deleted if you are seeking to reduce the size of this article. I am sure most of this is covered in the blockchain article, and only what is unique about bitcoin's instance of a blockchain need be covered in this section. "The bitcoin network operates on a blockchain, and the (IFF it is true) the bitcoin blockchain was the first commercially viable blockchain... See also Blockchain". That's what I would do. Besides my long yarn here, I in general support what N2e is suggesting above. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Has the size of this talk page ever reached crazy long proportions? Not for as long as I've seen it. It's always been incredibly light for a Wikipedia talk page. Please knock off this incessant archiving. All you're doing is stifling conversation.Tgm1024 (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Did you check how "quickly" this page is being archived? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The talk page is archived automatically, I think, and the speed at which it is archived can be adjusted. I would support archiving less often. Benjamin (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Still no indication that any of the editors proposing the change checked how often the talk is being archived. Regarding the total length of the talk: you can get an idea by looking at the archive pages. For your information, relatively recently, the interval of automatic archivation was prolonged, making it 3 times longer. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

This was first added here, and then added back here with some sources put in, so it appears as it does below:

Bitcoin combines three ideas that had been widely discussed (and implemented) in computer science, but never combined into a payment system. The core ideas of a chain of blocks, with each block cryptographically signing the previous, is based on the Merkle tree^[1]. The bitcoin network itself operates as a Distributed hash table^[2] Bitcoin mining is a Proof-of-work system, similar to the Hashcash anti-spam system.^[3] The key insight ofBitcoin insight was to combine these three concepts to form a self-sustaining, independent, decentralized payment system.^[4] Unlike other digital cash systems, such as DigiCash, Bitcoin sacrifices anonymity: all of the parties of every Bitcoin transaction is publicly known and recorded on the public ledger. But Bitcoin identities are not names, they are public keys: what is unknown is the which Bitcoin public keys are held by which humans or corporations. As such, Bitcoin provides pseudonymity, rather than true anonymity.

This is not summarizing reliable sources. The sources are somewhat iffy, and the core claim about combining three things remains unsourced. Jytdog (talk) 02:09, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed Actually, the book^[1] claims that the ideas that bitcoin combined were essentially two: Hashcash by Adam Back and blockchain by Haber and Stornetta. According to the book, Haber and Stornetta incorporated Merkle trees to the blockchain as an efficiency improvement to be able to collect several documents into one block. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello Bitcoin people. An article was created today on IOTA (Distributed Ledger Technology). The topic has proved to be controversial, and the article itself is already protected three days. It looks like a reasonable discussion has begun at Talk:IOTA (Distributed Ledger Technology). People who are regular contributors to Bitcoin might have some knowledge in this area and might be able to contribute to the IOTA discussion. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: I noticed you deleted a section created by @Benbest:. Certainly scability is a major debate right now and has been for more than a year, and deserves some sort of treatment in the article. Maybe we can discuss that here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I deleted it, these are the reasons:

* Per WP:TOOBIG, the article should be significantly smaller than it is now. I reduced it by moving "History", "Energy consumption", "Security", "Data in the blockchain", "Legal status tax and regulation" and "Criminal activity" to subarticles. Per WP:TOOBIG, it still should be reduced by more than 30 kB. Do you have any idea how to achieve that?

* Both the claims and the sources were questionable. I do not deny that the debate is going on, but, if present, the contents must be based on reliable sources. Due to article size, I would prefer the section to be in the Bitcoin network subarticle. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

To not increase the size, I just added a link to the subarticle. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• SUPPORT the position of the OP, Jtbobwaysf. The bitcoin scalability debate is significant, has been covered extensively in multiple reliable sources for a year or two now, has not (yet) been resolved, and is clearly an important part of the History of bitcoin. While no one here is advocating for extensive section-length treatments of the topic that would significantly add to the article length, it is poor encyclopedic explication for that important topic to be missing entirely. It seems a short few sentences, at a minimum, to provide an overview to the debate is warranted in this article. The gory detail can certainly be left for a sub-article. Cheers. N2e (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I have copied all the content back off the other sub-page, as there was almost nothing extra and per @Ladislav Mecir:'s comment over at the Talk:Bitcoin_scalability_problem that he also didn't think the sub-page warranted a separate page. I think we can just allow this section to grow until its large enough to warrant a sub-page. But I think moving the majority of the content about scaling (and what generates most of the press, other than the bitcoin price) should be on the main page, not some sub-page. Now I have left duplicate content on the sub-page Bitcoin_scalability_problem, so can someone advise what is the procedure for deleting this sub-page? Is it AfD? Or just an admin delete? @David Gerard:, care to comment on this delete process? I think it is uncontroversial Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the current contents of the "Scalability debate" section. In my opinion, the second paragraph is just a longer version of the first one, and it can be safely deleted to not increase the size of the article too much. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Didn't see what content was deleted. Added content today about segwit, there is no reason this article fails to mention off chain scaling solutions such as lightning/segwit, given it is a large percentage of the current news coverage. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"Didn't see what content was deleted." - This is the deleted paragraph:

The bitcoin scalability problem is a consequence of the fact that blocks in the blockchain are limited to one megabyte in size.^[1] Bitcoin blocks carry the transactions on the bitcoin network since the last block has been created.^{[2]: ch. 2} The one megabyte limit has created problems for bitcoin transaction processing, such as increasing transaction fees and delayed processing of transactions that cannot be fit into a block.^[3]

Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

"...there is no reason this article fails to mention off chain scaling solutions such as lightning/segwit, given it is a large percentage of the current news coverage." - I support an introduction of a reasonble claim supported by WP:IRS. Your edit did not do that. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: You deleted the content I previous added, and I reverted it just now. You claimed Bitcoin Magazine, was not an RS. However, it Bitcoin Magazine is widely cited among the crypto articles... if there is a noticeboard that with consensus stating it is no longer an RS, please let me know, and I will try to find another source. I also added some more content and created a list of proposals. Lots of RS added, including Business Insider a Nigerian newspaper called Nigeria Today (funny they pick this up), CoinDesk, and investopedia. I also added the content to my sandbox User:Jtbobwaysf/sandbox#Scalability_debate, as maybe this content is controversial and it takes a while before it sticks.

@Benbest: do you have anything to add, like the sections, or dislike it?

@N2e: comments on leaving the content here, or trying to make a second sub-page. I dont see enough content here to make a subpage yet. Is toobig a justification for deleting content in this section, seems each side of the debate that has received notable coverage should be worthy of mention. The main players that I have read about are segwit, Bitcoin Unlimited, BIP148. Is there something I am missing. I also included the two big consensus meetings in Hong Kong and New York. Maybe I shouldn't have done those as separate bullets?

Maybe this section should be called the scaling controversy Happy editing :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

"You deleted the content I previous added, and I reverted it just now." - you know that without achieving a consensus, this adheres to the definition of edit warring? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Comment — Wiki editing standards are pretty clear. If it is material to the topic, and sourced/cited, then such info definitely belongs in this article. If the article is quite large, as this article is getting to be but is not over the standard guideline on article size, then the information would be summarized here before having detail moved to another article.

The scaling debate is quite clearly a major debate in the community, has been for nearly two years now, and is very well sourced by many tens of news articles about it, since 2015. Clearly the scaling debate—what it is; when it got started; why it is an issue; what proposed solutions are for scaling the bitcoin protocol; who is and what groups are supporting various approaches; summaries of the pros/cons of various solutions—is all plainly a part of what ought to be covered in the article.

We should be trying to improve the article to convey information; moving that information about this major issue to some other article without covering it here should not even be a realistic debate. It needs to be covered in this article, whether summarized or in detail, while if there is too much detail on this protracted issue, that detail might well be also covered in one of the other detailed articles on the bitcoing protocol and its history. Cheers. N2e (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

N2e (talk · contribs) I added this content, which was deleted by @Jytdog: which I have preserved here in my sandbox User:Jtbobwaysf/sandbox#Scalability_debate. Its pathetic that this article has little reference of the scaling debate that has been going on for a couple of years already (one of the primary sources of industry rag discussions). More than a year ago I added wikilink to Blockstream on this article (the primary funder of bitcoin development from what I have heard), it was also deleted. In deleting the content this month, jytdog noted that investopedia (which I used as one of the sources) was user generated content (I didn't know that btw). However, I also added other content not sourced from investopedia. There is coverage of the scaling debate in CoinDesk, Bitcoin Magazine, etc. These sources are being used as RS on other cryptocurrency pages and these sources have already passed RS Noticeboard discussions. It appears that in this article's case these sources are being rejected for some reason, but this is resulting in an NPOV problem, as the page basically doesn't discuss the scaling issues bitcoin is facing and the coverage that receives. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Jtbobwaysf. Re "Bitcoin Magazine is widely cited among the crypto articles" and "These sources are being used as RS on other cryptocurrency pages" - to that I must refer you to WP:IRS stating that the "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." Especially in relation to the Bitcoin Magazine, the fact is that neither the Bitcoin Magazine nor any other source published the information on their publication proces such as whether they have any editorial policies in place. Thus, their publication process is not demonstrably reliable. The use of citations in other Wikipedia pages is not the requisite demonstration. In contrast to that, check CoinDesk, who publish the information on their editorial policies and are widely and demonstrably cited by other independent sources, not just by other Wikipedia articles. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

This RS debate is pretty common among the crypto articles, that in general seem to all have serious NPOV issues.

1. Are you asserting that any source that does not have a written editorial policy on their website is not an RS? Is this a matter of wikipedia policy, or is this your opinion? First time I have come across this position by en editor.

2. Are you saying coindesk is an RS because it has an editorial policy on their website? http://www.coindesk.com/editorial-policy/

3. Are you saying that bitcoin magazine is not an RS because it doesn't have an page on the website with an editorial policy, and thus it violates wikipedia policy requiring a source to have a webpage with an editorial policy?

Thanks, Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

My response:

"Is this a matter of wikipedia policy, or is this your opinion?" - WP:IRS says that "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." So, no, the demonstrability of the reliable publication process is not my opinion, it is required by WP:IRS.

"Are you saying coindesk is an RS because it has an editorial policy on their website?" - No. I am saying that they both have a reliable publication process in place, and they are demonstrably cited by other independent and reliable sources, which is another demonstration of their reliability. I can give examples of such citations.

"Are you saying that bitcoin magazine is not an RS because it doesn't have an page on the website with an editorial policy..." - No. I am saying that the "These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people." requirement is not satisfied. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you are making a mistake to have a big debate in this section on the Talk page. Better: clear proposal; other editors weigh in with their rationale; ask for a non-involved closer to close the debate. Just let it ride; it is obvious that there are many other issues you two might disagree about. Just let those ride; or take them elsewhere. Leave this section with just the question of "Is the scalability debate history, at least at a summary level, appropriate to be covered in this article." My two cents. N2e (talk) 17:16, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@N2e:You are right N2e, I again drifted off subject as I tend to do. Maybe there isn't consensus here to add more content. I have added more content over at the sub-page. Bitcoin_scalability_problem By the way I think it is a bit weird the sub-page is called a problem, as some would call the scalability issue a feature. Everyone has a different idea on this... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I have added a bit of content over at Bitcoin scalability problem. Welcome more eyeballs and comments. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Bitcoin Magazine now has a full editorial policy section on its "About" page; https://bitcoinmagazine.com/about/ Hope it will work as a RS now. Thanks. Acharkin (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2017 (UTC) acharkin 18:11,11 July 2017 (EST)

In my opinion, the article should have a (short) section on a very important aspect of Bitcoin, namely, its inherent value or lack thereof. It seems to me to be one of the most important aspects of Bitcoin especially where recent reports about how the value of Bitcoin has dramatically increased will cause many to think of it as a speculative way to get rich quick.

Early money was gold and silver coins. Then there was paper money "backed by gold". Then "fiat" money backed by the stability of a nation's government and the strength of its economy and by responsible management of the money supply. While Bitcoin would seem to get high grades on the last item, regarding the 1st two items, it would seem to have no intrinsic value whatsoever. Bitcoin is a new type of fiat money, one might call it "unbacked fiat" money. This deserves a separate section and explicit sentences. There may be sentences here and there that imply something about intrinsic value, but the point in easily missed. Even in the Economics of Bitcoin article, sections 5, 6 and 7 don't explicitly address this fundamental point.

Bitcoin's blockchain technology offers many advantages, but intrinsic value, or lack thereof, is a real and relevant aspect. (Note: I'm neither long nor short Bitcoin.)HarvPhys (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

• Disagree
  • The term "intrinsic value" refers to the Intrinsic theory of value, which has been replaced by the Subjective theory of value in modern economy.
  • "It seems to me to be one of the most important aspects of Bitcoin" - you did not offer any support of independent reliable sources for this.
  • "recent reports about how the value of Bitcoin has dramatically increased will cause many to think of it as a speculative way to get rich quick" - you did not offer any support of independent reliable sources for this.
  • 'one might call it "unbacked fiat" money' - you did not offer any support of independent reliable sources for this. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

The issue of intrinsic value is clearly a most important issue, quite possible the 2nd most important after the topic of blockchain. If the editors wish to leave it out, fine. I will just note that if a section on intrinsic value is added, one can add the above note about "the Intrinsic theory of value, which has been replaced by the Subjective theory of value in modern econom[ics]" - one can note that cryptocurrencies take a significant step toward subjective value and away from intrinsic value. Regarding "how the value of Bitcoin has dramatically increased will cause many to think of it as a speculative way to get rich quick", the media has been headlining both the former and latter points recently. If I had added that line to the article, I would have been required to give supporting references, however, I was just noting for the editors a serious omission in the article for their consideration. The dramatic ups and downs of Bitcoin (and Ethereum) are due to lack of intrinsic value and further it's being "unbacked" by acknowledged government (I'll leave it to you to come up with a more erudite term than "unbacked"). Some references to the above comments are http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/12/bitcoin-falls-to-near-one-month-low-amid-bubble-concern-scaling-debate.html and http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/11/ethereum-price-crash-continues-bitcoin-moves-higher-cryptocurrency.html and https://secure.wealthdaily.com/127648?device=c&gclid=CK7pzr7vg9UCFYSKswodn1EF3Q and http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/07/strategist-tom-lee-weighs-sees-bitcoin-going-as-high-as-55000.html and http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/11/bitcoin-regulation-btcc-ceo-bobby-lee-says-rules-needed-for-new-asset-class.html and http://subscribe.outsiderclub.com/125206?device=c&gclid=CPOahcXyg9UCFUxLDQodOyQIaQ. This is all that needs to be said on the point I raise about the editors should explicitly address the point about intrinsic value and will comment no more, but instead leave it in the hands of the very capable editors of this article.HarvPhys (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

• Comment "one can note that cryptocurrencies take a significant step toward subjective value and away from intrinsic value" - that is provably false, in fact. There actually is an economic article written from the Intrinsic theory of value point of view. As you mentioned, you are interested in this heterodox theory and point of view. I bet you will be surprised what are the findings and how much they differ from what is "clear" to you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment 'one can add the above note about "the Intrinsic theory of value, which has been replaced by the Subjective theory of value in modern econom[ics]"' - there is no need to do that. Wikipedia already contains this information at a much more appropriate place. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment "The dramatic ups and downs of Bitcoin (and Ethereum) are due to lack of intrinsic value" - That is patently wrong, in fact. If judging bitcoin using the Intrinsic theory of value, perhaps surprisingly for you, you should respect the findings made from this point of view and admit that bitcoin does have intrinsic value as found out, or dismiss the intrinsic theory of value as heterodox, in which case, your claim does not even make any sense. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
• Comment "recent reports about how the value of Bitcoin has dramatically increased will cause many to think of it as a speculative way to get rich quick" - this is a forecast made by you. As such, it should not be in Wikipedia per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL policy. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

ponzi scheme — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.67.74 (talk) 22:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

No — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:82:203:3348:7C4A:CAAB:F3E7:B3A7 (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comparison_of_bitcoin_wallets @Huon: you nominated Comparison_of_bitcoin_wallets for AfD and I guess you forgot to place a message on this main page for comments. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:55, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

There is no obligation, whatsoever, to place a notice on related article talk pages. None. Jytdog (talk) 05:04, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. I hadn't "forgotten" to place a message here; I saw no need to do so. There's a dedicated notification process for deletion discussions (see WP:DELSORT, and even that is not an obligation of the nominator); leaving messages at other articles' talk pages is not part of that process. Huon (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog:, you have also deleted a similar list of wallets from the Ethereum Classic page as well, and that is under discussion over there. It seems there should be a discussion if a list of wallets is encyclopedic, as it will likely apply to many different cryptocurrency articles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

None of this is about improving this article. Please see the header at the very top of this page. Jytdog (talk) 14:40, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

I think your last point summarizes our difference of opinion. My opinion is that the wallet content that was likely moved off this main Bitcoin article to the sub-article due to WP:TOOBIG does affect the quality of this page. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bitcoin. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140409025103/http://www.monetarism.co.uk/the-beginners-guide-to-bitcoin-everything-you-need-to-know/ to http://www.monetarism.co.uk/the-beginners-guide-to-bitcoin-everything-you-need-to-know/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:02, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

I propose a significant pruning of the intro section, it is terribly bloated.

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Length

Looking for feedback on where we are at on this article. I count 5 paragraphs, and the first paragraph is so long it could easily be counted as 2-3 paragraphs in itself. Let's move this content down into the article so it can be readable for readers who arrive on the page for the first time.

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Jtbobwaysf. I do agree that the lead section can be shortened. On the other hand, I disagree that the informations can be "moved down into the article", since I think that all the informations already are in there. The pruning should be done carefully to not remove really important informations from the lead section, though. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, the intro section is too long and too technical for an average reader. I propose the following edition of the intro (more than x2 shorter than the current one):

Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency and a digital payment system^[1]: 3 invented by an unknown programmer, or a group of programmers, under the name Satoshi Nakamoto.^[2] It was released as open-source software in 2009.^[3]

The system is peer-to-peer, and transactions take place between users directly, without an intermediary.^[1]: 4 These transactions are verified by network nodes and recorded in a public distributed ledger called the blockchain. Since the system works without a central repository or single administrator, bitcoin is called the first decentralized digital currency.^[1][4]

Besides being obtained by "mining", bitcoins can be exchanged for other currencies,^[5] products, and services (legal or illegal ones).^[6][7]

As of February 2015, over 100,000 merchants and vendors accept bitcoin as payment.^[8] According to a research produced by Cambridge University in 2017, there are 2.9 to 5.8 million unique users actively using a cryptocurrency wallet, most of them using bitcoin.^[9]

Please feel free to modify it. - Sandegud (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Since you invited edits, I made a couple of adjustments:

1. used "digital payment system" instead of "electronic payment system" to reflect the cited source
2. kept the claim that the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto is unknown
3. removed the, somewhat misleading, claim that bitcoin is the largest of its kind Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The new version is better, thank you. Sandegud (talk) 12:14, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I am good with the suggestions proposed. Suggest someone go ahead and make the edits, unless there is a feeling here that we need to wait for more input. Unless someone else really disagrees, I am also ok with just making the changes myself in a few days. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Jtbobwaysf. I (and maybe also Sandegud) just wanted to make sure other editors, such as yourself, get enough time to discuss this, because it may be perceived as a big change. The only question is what can be perceived as "enough time". Now it looks that we have got unanimous consensus, and the time we waited looks reasonable too. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I have gone ahead and made the changes per our discussion above. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't expect every Wikipedia article necessarily to be comprehensible to me, as every topic has its own language, subtleties, etc. It is nice though if the lead can be accessible to an average intelligent reader, or at least the first sentence of it. Could the first sentence be something like "Bitcoin is a non-national on-line currency released in 2009"? I understand that any of these words other than "Bitcoin" could be deficient - my point is not the words, but the sentence.

I understand your wish, but, unfortunately, it is not possible to honour it, not because your words are "deficient", but because they are controversial:

• as explained in the article, there are sources claiming that bitcoin is a currency as well as sources that claim that bitcoin is not a currency. Wikipedia must remain neutral, that is why you do not see the currency classification in the lead section.
• I added the "worldwide" adjective to the first sentence, curious whether there will be a consensus on that. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

After reading and re-reading the part on transactions, it's still very unclear what it should say:

"Transactions are defined using a Forth-like scripting language.[7]:ch. 5 A valid transaction must have one or more inputs.[34] Every input must be an unspent output of a previous transaction. The transaction must carry the digital signature of every input owner. The use of multiple inputs corresponds to the use of multiple coins in a cash transaction. A transaction can also have multiple outputs, allowing one to make multiple payments in one go. A transaction output can be specified as an arbitrary multiple of satoshi. As in a cash transaction, the sum of inputs (coins used to pay) can exceed the intended sum of payments. In such a case, an additional output is used, returning the change back to the payer.[34] Any input satoshis not accounted for in the transaction outputs become the transaction fee.[34]"

I wish I could offer suggestions for improvement, but as a layman in this field, I'm not the right person to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thiemehennis (talk • contribs) 12:44, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a section that covers more non-traditional firms evolving into the space? There is a lot of activity surrounding the ICO's and specifically, 10 legal firms joined up in the last few months, Aug 2017. This is probably on the wrong talk space, but may should be on numerous. Forgive me if offended.

https://entethalliance.org/

--Wikipietime (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

This new bitcoin cash deserves some treatment on this page. Where to add it? I don't think "not to be confused with" at the top of the page is suitable.

Suggestions:

• Add to scalaing section
• Remove "not to be confused with" in header
• Add to history section?

Comments? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I think "Not to be confused with Bitcoin Cash." is good enough for now, WP:NOTNEWS and it's unclear what the situation will be in a week's time. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I was the one who added the hatnote. As Cash is a fork it literally shares all the history of Bitcoin up until that point, but the similar names mean that confusion may be present. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

All makes sense, thanks for the explanation. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:25, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It was removed by Ladislav Mecir with this edit. They gave the reason Remove the template, there are many other terms that are not listed here. -- Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

does the article mention cash anymore? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

It is mentioned twice. Once in the scalability section, and then once in the following history section. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not think it makes sense to single out Bitcoin Cash at the start as something "confused with bitcoin":

• As noted, Bitcoin Cash is mentioned and linked twice in the article: in the "History" section and in the "Scalability" section.
• There are many other notions like Bitcoin Foundation, Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin Unlimited and Parity Bitcoin that are not treated in that way, why then it is necessary to single out Bitcoin Cash as "confusing"?
• Per Fortune, bitcoin split into two derivative digital currencies, why single out just one of the derivatives as "confusing"? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:45, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I added a wikilink to Bitcoin Cash at the end of the intro. It is important enough to mention in the header. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2017 (UTC)