Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 33

This edit request to Bitcoin has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "Bitcoin (₿) is a cryptocurrency with the largest market cap. It is the first decentralized digital currency, as the system works without a central bank or single administrator." to "Bitcoin is the first decentralized digital currency, it uses cryptography to perform transactions and record them into a public ledger."

This change should be made to correct the sentence "Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency with the largest market cap", since it is not grammatically correct. The correct version would be "Bitcoin is THE cryptocurrency..." but it doesn't make a good sentence to start this article. I would also ask to not change the article to it's previous version: "Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency, widely believed to be a speculative bubble by economists". That was very misleading and was probably written by someone who doesn't have proper knowledge and understanding of cryptocurrencies. It surely is speculative, just like stocks, FOREX, futures, real estate are, but considering it a bubble and comparing it to the tulip mania has been the most rushed and judgmental review an economist could make.

What would you do if I changed the first sentence of the "September 11 Attacks" article to: "The September 11, 2001 attacks (also referred to as 9/11) were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks widely believed to have been perpetrated by the US government and it's secret agencies" ? It'd be a scandal for most people (especially Americans). I am not saying that is true, but multiple evidence exists, and many famous individuals in the fields of arts, politics, economics etc. have claimed to believe that 11/9 attacks were caused, planned or directly performed by the United States of America. It would not be a problem finding dozens of reputable sources stating just that.

It is very easy to find articles and sources that praise or condemn a specific thing, act, event, person. You should know already that the internet is a universe full of lies, opinions, threats, insults, vulgarities and so on. Wikipedia above all else, should be the site were truth and objectivity is found. "Widely believed" sentences may be present in many articles, but it's very wrong and misleading using such a sentence as the first in an article. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to write and discuss on Wikipedia. Take care. OrangeRaver (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the lede formerly read "Bitcoin (₿) is a cryptocurrency widely believed by economists to be a speculative bubble." There'e a section in the text that documents this extensively. 4 of the best known Nobel laureates in economics are listed in the 1st sentence. Shiller and Thaler are both known for work related to bubbles (or market irrationality). The other 4 Nobel laureate economists who have said that bitcoin is a bubble are James Heckman, Oliver Hart, Thomas Sargent, and Angus Deaton. None of the refs are to just any place on the internet - they are to some of the highest quality sources on the internet, e.g. The New York Times, CNBC, Bloomberg, the Guardian, and the BBC. If you are seriously comparing these folks to the wing nuts who say that the US government caused 9/11, then you need to re-examine your thought processes. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Probably the speculative bubble content should be trimmed as there is already a sub-page. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done No obvious consensus to make the change. Fish+Karate 08:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Bitcoin has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The following paragraph should be removed (no replacement text needed):

"In March of 2017, Japan passed the Virtual Currency Act which made Bitcoin legal tender in all Japanese jurisdictions effective April 1st, 2017.^[1] The passage of the Virtual Currency Act has led to more merchant adoption of Bitcoin in Japan than in most other nations.^[2]"

The first ref says "The Virtual Currency Act defines Bitcoin and other virtual currency as a form of payment method, not a legally-recognized currency or legal tender," contradicting the above text, not supporting it

The 2nd ref just doesn't say anything like "The passage of the Virtual Currency Act has led to more merchant adoption of Bitcoin in Japan than in most other nations." It only talks about Japan - there are no comparisons to other countries. Moreover it is not a reliable source, more like a bitcoin-puff-pusher. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I just went ahead and removed the offending paragraph, See Reuters correction of their similar mistake. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

@Smallbones: You don't need to make an extended-protected edit request when you're able to make the edit yourself. Fish+Karate 08:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

There is a chat page at Wikidata:Project chat --ジャコウネズミ (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Bitcoin has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The article states "The block size limit of one megabyte was introduced by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2010, as an anti-spam measure."

But the one megabyte block size limit was not put in place as an anti-spam measure, it's an anti-DoS measure. Manufoy (talk) 06:43, 16 June 2018 (UTC) @Manufoy: can you provide a source for this? Would be a good change to make. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done User's had 2 weeks to provide a source and hasn't. 08:59, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The evidence is circumstantial, however, it appears that there is more to suggest that the 1MB block size was a anti-DoS measure, as opposed to it being an anti-spam measure https://cointelegraph.com/news/satoshis-best-kept-secret-why-is-there-a-1-mb-limit-to-bitcoin-block-size Manufoy (talk) 11:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

This site is not an RS for crypto sites. It appears they accept paid placements which they do not disclose and there is a now completed RS noticeboard about this source. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The contents of the article linked are factually accurate and verifiable. Manufoy (talk) 02:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Please see this Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_242#Cointelegraph_source and note that blocksize is a hot-button topic on this article, and thus we are being more careful with it. What you are advocating might be correct, but we need sources. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Smallbones added a paragraph in the lead that in my view reads as an overstatement of some critical opinions as facts.

"extensively used as method for making illicit payments" - this is not a universally accepted opinion. I pointed to some sources suggesting quite the opposite.

"not widely used for legal purchases from merchants" - what source says that? why this should be in the lead? It is not a balanced summary.

"Thefts of bitcoins from exchanges are common" - how common is common? who says this? why this should be in the lead? It is nod a neutral summary either.

"The energy requirements for running the system are "an environmental disaster." - again, somebody's opinion stated as fact.

I removed the paragraph, but Smallbones reverted my edit commenting: "If you want to remove this material start an RfC" I don't think I need an RfC to remove a non-neutral non-summary that has been just added to the lead. However, I welcome other editors to comment. Retimuko (talk) 00:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

There are a large number of reliable sources which document Bitcoin's popularity among criminals. The article shouldn't, and doesn't, say that the majority of usage is criminal, but it would be absurd to pretend this isn't a major part of how reliable sources discuss the topic. Likewise, there are a large number of sources discussing the very high electricity usage.

As for commerce, I've never seen a reliable sources which support that it is widely used. I can find a huge number of niche industry blogs and churnalism and similar listing those websites and coffee shops where it can (or could) be used, but nothing reliable on how common this practice actually is. From what I've seen from reliable sources, "not widely" seems accurate. Grayfell (talk) 01:22, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

(EC)We should not allow this article to be an advertisement for bitcoin by putting all critical material into separate articles or at the bottom of this article (section 6 of 7). Almost all the material before section 6 promotes bitcoin and was originally (or still) sourced to the cryptocurrency propaganda press. We have to report what the reliable sources say, e.g. the New York Times, Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, Reuters, and academic papers.

The views of the 8 Nobel laureates in economics that bitcoin is a bubble can't be buried at the bottom of the article. What could be more important for a reader to know than the fact that the experts consider the bitcoin market to be irrational, the most prominent current example of a financial bubble. And these aren't just any Nobel prize winners in economics. Robert Shiller and Richard Thaler won the honor for studying just this type of financial irrationality.

The advertising bans to bitcoin related material wasn't mentioned in the lede, but very well could be. The bans apply on the platforms Facebook, Google, Twitter, Bing, Snapchat, LinkedIn, MailChimp, Baidu, Tencent, Weibo, and others. (Facebook has just announced some sort of modification to their ban, requiring pre-approval for ads.) . What to all these companies know that the authors of this article have missed?

The criminal nature of much of the use of bitcoin is well known and documented, going back to at least the Silk Road (marketplace), which transacted in bitcoin exclusively. Some sort of criminal behavior involving bitcoin is report monthly or even weekly. 140 current investigations by the FBI have been reported recently. See also from just a quick search.

Nothing we put in this article has to be a "universally accepted opinion" as Retimuko would have it. If you want to see the source of the quote just click the footnote right next to the quote to get the full chapter from the Bank of International Settlements, which says "Put in the simplest terms, the quest for decentralised trust has quickly become an environmental disaster." This is from a highly respected institution, written by a highly respected academic, and it is a very widely held view, backed up by clear statistics. It was covered in all the reliable financial press. We have to include it, not bury it.^[1]

And, of course, the bitcoin market is crashing, down 70% since its December peak. We don't need to hide the facts with vague claims of "undue weight". Smallbones_(smalltalk) 01:55, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• Smallbones, if you want to mention the price you can do that in one sentence. I agree with Retimuko that this is a situation with WP:SOAP getting to the point of WP:UNDUE and needs to stop. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

• I don't see how this is undue. Not even a little. The lede should summarize the body. The current amount of critical content in the body seems mild in proportion to the overall quantity of critical sources available. A single short paragraph in the lede certainly doesn't seem excessive. The attribution of the quote could be tweaked for clarity, and there's plenty of room for discussion on how this is handled in the body (per WP:CSECTION, etc.) but downplaying this aspect would misrepresent sources. That's not going to work. Grayfell (talk) 07:40, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Well it is could also be more concisely summarized in the lede, such as 'Bitcoin has been criticised for a number of reasons including use in illegal transactions, allegedly high electricity consumption, price volatility, & thefts from exchanges.' ... No reason to do a long-winded diatribe in the lede for this. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: - first you should self-revert your removal of the text we are discussing. Just removing well documented text is not a proper way to deal with this question.

Calling a short paragraph a "long-winded diatribe" is just name calling. For the record the paragraph is:

'Bitcoin has been extensively used as method for making illicit payments, for example paying for drugs on the darknet market. It is not widely used for legal purchases from merchants. Thefts of bitcoins from exchanges are common. Many economists and investors consider the bitcoin market to be a bubble. The energy requirements for running the system are "an environmental disaster."'

Which fact do you disagree with? Note that the disputed text is specific and only 60 words. Your disparaging suggested replacement says nothing specific and is 25 words. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Indentation is messed up, so let me start here and address Smallbones' points one by one:

>"We should not allow this article to be an advertisement for bitcoin by putting all critical material into separate articles or at the bottom of this article"

I do not suggest downplaying criticism. I disagree with the way it was done. In my view it was done by exaggerating criticism and stating it as a fact.

>"The views of the 8 Nobel laureates in economics that bitcoin is a bubble can't be buried at the bottom of the article"

I did not dispute this part. The only sentence that was attributed and did not look like overstating was "Many economists and investors consider the bitcoin market to be a bubble."

>"The advertising bans to bitcoin related material wasn't mentioned in the lede, but very well could be"

Fine, I don't mind at all, but not quite sure it is important enough for the lead.

>"The criminal nature of much of the use of bitcoin is well known and documented"

This is quite controversial, but was stated as a fact: "Bitcoin has been extensively used as method for making illicit payments". The word "extensively" is not very specific, and borderline weasel. Some sources suggest something of the sort, but others disagree. I have already pointed to a few. Here are more:

The Evolution of the Bitcoin Economy and Analyzing the Network of Payment Relationships.

Bitcoin Laundering: An Analysis of Illicit Flows into Digital Currency Services

>"Nothing we put in this article has to be a "universally accepted opinion" as Retimuko would have it"

My comment you are referring to was about the statement just discussed above that "Bitcoin has been extensively used as method for making illicit payments". I meant to say that the point is controversial, but was presented in the lead as if it was universally accepted, not even mentioning the other side.

Regarding the "environmental disaster". Yes, many sources said something like this (largely repeated the same story), but there are other reliable sources saying that this is overestimated. Some sources say that this is a complete waste, but others say that it is a reasonable cost for having reliable money independent of governments, and, for instance, mining gold or maintaining banking systems costs even more.

Here are a few sources:

No, bitcoin isn't likely to consume all the world’s electricity in 2020.

Is bitcoin an energy hog?

Bitcoin: Does it really use more electricity than Ireland?

Study claims Bitcoin uses as much energy as Ireland. Not so fast, experts say.

>"And, of course, the bitcoin market is crashing, down 70% since its December peak"

Why do you bring this up? What does this have to do with the criticism in question? I don't mind a balanced discussion of price fluctuations and such. Retimuko (talk) 06:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

One thing that needs to be restated here, even though all current participants in this discussion have been notified, is that this article is under special sanctions (Wikipedia:General sanctions/Blockchain and cryptocurrencies, see also notice near the top of this page), and we are expected to uphold the editing standards of Wikipedia (expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process) - which include, of course, declaring any paid editing status, and any WP:COI (which for this article includes any ownership of bitcoins). Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Again it appears the indent outdent is messed up. So I will reply here in reponse to both Retimuko and Smallbones. Smallbones (talk · contribs) this lookes like WP:BLUDGEON. As you can see above, it appears both Retimuko and I support including content. We are discussing content and I don't think asseretions of conflict of interest are productive or even have a place in this talk page discussion. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I think COI is very important to keep in mind. Nobody is saying involved editors cannot make changes at all, but involved editors should be aware that they are not entirely impartial.

If we agree to include content according to due weight, that means including content in the lede. I still don't see why this proposal is a problem. Nobody is saying we should use the lede to add the bit about using "more energy than Ireland", or any similar hard number, but many sources support that the high energy usage is a serious, ongoing concern. The NBC source linked above supports that this is significant, since it says that all parties agree [that] Bitcoin mining is energy intensive, and that it's only expected to increase. The BBC article just says it's very difficult to say. It never says that this comparison is false. The American Enterprise Institute opinion (by someone who is himself controversial, to put it mildly) is not rebuttal, at most it is yet another demonstration of why this issue is significant, and the more significant this is, the more important it is for the article to summarize it. Grayfell (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me the existing lede without adding more paragraphs is already too long and could be pruned. The purpose of the lede is to summarize and not to examine all the points in detail, nor is it our job as editors to WP:OR which parts of the article are 'important' and which are not because it has a couple of sources (bitcoin is subject of widespread coverage and there are sources for just about everything). Smallbones is building criticsm sections on this article and others (which is fine) and it has just as much right to summarize that content in the lede taking into account this is a large article and everything else should be summarized as well. I have added a summary of the text smallbones suggested to add in this edit. Hopefully this issue is closed for now. I didn't add sources as the sections below are properly sourced, is that ok? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I've added a sentence about economists saying that bitcoin is a bubble. What could possibly be more important to our readers than this? I also copyedited the short paragraph that was added to the lede. "&" is not our style and "alleged" is generally used in relation to legal charges. I don't think there are any major legal charges related to energy use and people are criticizing some well documented very high energy usage, *not* allegations of very high energy usage. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

It appears to me that Bitcoin#Scaling_Debates and Bitcoin#Scalability both cover the same subject. Seems these sections should be merged. Comments? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Although they look similar, each discusses its own subject: Bitcoin#Scaling_Debates - forking based the different solutions to the scalability issue; Bitcoin#Scalability - the scalability issue itself and how it is currently solved in the original Bitcoin blockchain. At least this is how I see it. Enivid (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

so you mean that there are scalability issues and solutions? i also see a lot of discussion of bitcoin cash, bitcoin gold, bitcoin private, etc. do we have any sources that bitcoin gold or bitcoin private are in any way related to scaling? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, see this source for example: https://hackernoon.com/the-great-bitcoin-scaling-debate-a-timeline-6108081dbada Enivid (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Bitcoin has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Bitcoin Prevailing bitcoin logo Prevailing bitcoin logo Denominations Plural bitcoins Symbol ₿[a] Ticker symbol BTC, XBT[b] Subunits  ​1⁄1000 millibitcoin  ​1⁄100000000 satoshi[2] Coins Unspent outputs of transactions (in multiples of a satoshi)[3]:ch. 5 Development Original author(s) Satoshi Nakamoto White paper "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System"[4] Implementation(s) Bitcoin Core Initial release 0.1.0 / 9 January 2009 (9 years ago) Latest release 0.16.1 / 15 June 2018 (21 days ago) Website bitcoin.org Ledger Ledger start 3 January 2009 (9 years ago) Timestamping scheme Proof-of-work (partial hash inversion) Hash function SHA-256 Issuance Decentralized (block reward)[6][7] Block reward ₿12.5[c] Block time 10 minutes Block explorer blockchain.info Circulating supply ₿16,858,762 (as of 11 February 2018) Supply limit ₿21,000,000 [5]

The symbol was encoded in Unicode version 10.0 at position U+20BF ₿ BITCOIN SIGN in the Currency Symbols block in June 2017.[1]
Compatible with ISO 4217.
July 2016 to approximately June 2020, halved approximately every four years

This article contains special characters. Without proper rendering support, you may see question marks, boxes, or other symbols. Bitcoin (₿) is the world's first cryptocurrency, a form of electronic cash.[8]:3[9] It is the first decentralized digital currency: the system was designed to work without a central bank or single administrator.[8]:1[10] Bitcoins are sent from user to user on the peer-to-peer bitcoin network directly, without the need for intermediaries.[8]:4,5 These transactions are verified by network nodes through cryptography and recorded in a public distributed ledger called a blockchain. Bitcoin was invented by an unknown person or group of people using the name Satoshi Nakamoto[11] and released as open-source software in 2009.[12]

Bitcoins are created as a reward for a process known as mining. They can be exchanged for other currencies,[13] products, and services. Research produced by the University of Cambridge estimates that in 2017, there were 2.9 to 5.8 million unique users using a cryptocurrency wallet, most of them using bitcoin.[14]

Many economists and investors consider the bitcoin market to be a bubble. Bitcoin has also been criticized for its use in illegal transactions, its high electricity consumption, price volatility, and thefts from exchanges. Windbeard (talk) 21:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Please do not copy article content to the talk page and make your changes as it's impossible to see what changes you made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I am guessing you added this content, hoping you might be able to explain. Why there are duplicate sources and which is better to include.

There were an estimated 24 million bitcoin users primarily using bitcoin for illegal activity, who held $8 billion worth of bitcoin, and made 36 million transactions valued at $72 billion.[1][2]

I recently deleted the ssrn source, and leaving the oxford source, then I realized the oxford source was a blog, so i restored it. Comments on which is better to keep or a rationale for having both? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

It's a "belt and suspenders" approach. The paper at SSRN is the important source and if you just want to keep one of the two, keep this one. The "blog" from the University of Oxford Faculty of Law shows that "Oxford" considers the paper to be important and summarizes it in a less academic way (and if you look hard, there's even a button to download it). Note that the authors are not from Oxford. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:00, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Today I removed this statement from the lede: "Many economists and investors consider the bitcoin market to be a bubble. Bitcoin has also been criticized for its use in illegal transactions, its high electricity consumption, price volatility, and thefts from exchanges." This statement does not belong in the lede unless we also put in a balancing opposing statement. Yes, many economists believe that Bitcoin is a bubble, but many well-credentialed people believe that Bitcoin is NOT a bubble.

Here are a few examples:

• https://www.nasdaq.com/article/five-reasons-why-bitcoin-is-not-a-bubble-cm864891
• https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/business/bitcoin-is-no-bubble-israeli-expert-insists-1.5628075
• http://theconversation.com/a-bubble-we-dont-even-know-how-to-value-bitcoin-89017
• https://panampost.com/editor/2017/11/15/bitcoin-is-not-a-bubble/
• https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2018/01/08/why-bitcoin-is-not-in-a-bubble-1
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/cherryreynard/2017/12/22/is-it-possible-that-bitcoin-isnt-a-bubble/#4ff704643d3d
• https://news.bitcoin.com/is-bitcoin-a-bubble-no-but-things-could-get-wild/
• https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/op-ed-bitcoin-not-bubble-its-s-curve-and-its-just-getting-started/
• https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/05/bitcoin-is-not-a-bubble-other-cryptocurrencies-are-glint-co-founder.html
• http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/367768-bitcoin-isnt-the-bubble-the-global-financial-system-is
• https://medium.com/@stufffromsam/bitcoin-is-not-a-bubble-its-just-bitcoin-36b3f7f68b05
• http://www.newsweek.com/bitcoin-price-crash-not-bubble-bursting-just-blip-756933
• https://bcfocus.com/cryptocurrency-analysis/why-bitcoin-is-not-a-bubble/7628/
• https://cointelegraph.com/news/media-hype-falsely-reports-bitcoin-as-greatest-bubble-in-history

If we truly want the Bitcoin Wikipedia article to be fact-based and neutral, we can't express one side of the argument in the lede without also presenting the opposing view. In a controversial topic such as whether Bitcoin is a bubble or not, we must present both sides of the argument, and then let the reader decide for him or herself whether it is a bubble or not. We should not explicitly try to direct their thought in one direction or the other. To do so would be the textbook definition of bias. I read the lede several times with the sentence in it, and there was no way that I could consider that lede as neutral. It seemed to be biased against Bitcoin. So I propose that either we leave it out completely, or we present the opposing point of view in a balancing well cited sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdjere (talk • contribs) 19:45, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Rdjere: I support the changes you have made to remove POV content that clearly has a WP:NPOV issue. I created a new section for your commments, hope that was ok, if it wasn't please feel free to delelete the talk page section header I added. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I've looked at most of the above list of articles that say bitcoin is not a bubble. Most are not from reliable sources. Of the remaining few, most are opinion pieces or interviews with bitcoin industry folks, who really don't have any credibility compared to the 8 Nobel laureates in economics who say that bitcoin is a bubble. The rest are self-contradictory or just gobbledegook. In short, you seem to have collected a group of people who believe the WP:Fringe theory that bitcoin is not a bubble, almost exclusively from biased sources. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 11:16, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Smallbones, you WP:TE in the lede, again here needs to stop. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Smallbones: in this edit you change the name of Etymology to Terminology and then 4 days later you go on to blank the section entirely here , saying "remove section. I worked hard on this section trying to get it to actually say something, but it still just looks like infobox material". I'm having trouble why you think section blanking a standard section is correct. Please explain. Seems this talk page is starting to be a lot about your edits. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't think "Etymology" is at all a standard section in our articles. Before I tried to tame it it was exactly the following. Please just tell me what you think that needs to be saved that's not already in the infobox. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOBLANKING. The reason I asked you about it as I was wondering if there was some logic behind it. The justification for keeping it is simply WP:PRESERVE. You are a regular editor now on this article and there is no reason not to at least seek WP:CONSENSUS before blanking a section. From my point of view the section is encyclopedic and it certainly doesn't seem to be controversial (like some of the scaling content) nor does it seem promotional. It might be boring, but that isn't really a justification to kill it just because you cant fix it in a way that you like it. I'll ping a few uninvolved editors and see if they care to comment @MER-C: and @Jytdog:. Maybe I am making a stink about nothing, but this seems uncooperative and I think before you blank whole sections it might be a good idea to at least seek some discussion first. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Note - I deseectioned the pasted section from the article, and moved it up into the discussion so it is not awkwardly hanging out here, unsigned.

WP:PRESERVE has been met by having this copied to the talk page.

I find most of this content trivial and unencyclopedic, and much of it is sourced to primary sources which is not great. Jtbobwaysf was specifically there is valuable in your view? Jytdog (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi jytdog, thanks for the comments and moving this into the section. It seems a bummer that all the controversy this article seems to be at the center of we dont have much content on why the subject is actually called bit-coin, rather than byte-coin, or something else. Something I think I personally would find interesting as a reader. However, as you mentioned, there is nothing in the content that I am especially in love with either and what I find boring you call trivial. I suppose I was more complaining about the process of section blanking a section that is boring/trivial instead of discussing it. But we are now discussing it :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

This section is, by and large, redundant. Wiktionary covers most of this already. MER-C 16:25, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

jytdog and Mer-C, I appreciate your feedback. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Smallbones: You wrote, "Please just tell me what you think that needs to be saved that's not already in the infobox." In my opinion, this is putting a cart before the horse. The Wikipedia policy is that the lead section (including the infobox) shall summarize the information contained in the article body. If we want the information to be present in the lead section (including the infobox), it must first and foremost be present in the article body. Therefore, your deletion was not justified by the relevant Wikipedia policy. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

This edit request to Bitcoin has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

New features Bitcoin Gold was a hard fork that followed several months later in October 2017 that changed the proof-of-work algorithm with the aim of restoring mining functionality to basic graphics processing units (GPU), as the developers felt that mining had become too specialized.[62] Bitcoin Private, launched in March 2018, added the ability to keep certain details private in a transaction, in contrast to bitcoin which has a transparent transaction history.[citation = https://grizzle.com/bitcoin-guide/] Grizzlemedia (talk) 15:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I think we'd need another non-crypto reliable source. Grizzle's topics are "CRYPTO, MARIJUANA, INVESTING" - it must be a very entertaining site with such diverse topics, but we'd need something more mainstream. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf, Rdjere, Ladislav Mecir, Bradv, Retimuko, Audacity, MER-C, Doc James, Jytdog, Bri, TonyBallioni, JzG, and Winged Blades of Godric: When will I be allowed to put important documented information near the top of the article? There is a group of editors who are removing every edit I make to the lede or near the top of the article and this gives the article a pretty rosy tint. My experience is that this type of behavior is typical in articles about dodgy financial instruments.

I'll try to keep this short, but please reply so that this doesn't keep festering.

The information that keeps getting deleted is generally critical of bitcoin. It's being allowed buried deep in the article, e.g. a dedicate "Criticism" section - presumably because the info is obviously verifiable and important. But, put a summary of that info anywhere near the lede, and all the sudden the information is labeled biased and removed.

A key example: eight (8) Nobel laureates in economics have stated in no uncertain terms that bitcoin is a bubble. Economists usually don't comment on individual financial instruments, but this judgement as far as I can tell is nearly universal among academic economists and is well documented in very reliable sources.

• consider what would happen if a Nobel prize winner in physics were reported saying in the NY Times that a certain device was a perpetual motion device. I'm sure that would be included near the top of any article that we have of the device.
• What if two Noble prize winners in medicine were to say that an over-the-counter medicine was extremely dangerous. Of course that would be included in the lede.

But the bitcoin case is more extreme than that. The economists quoted for the most part either won their prizes for studying bubbles or related topics, or are the very, very best known people in the field (e.g. Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman) and there are many supporting academic papers specifically about bitcoin.

And then there are the regulatory agencies, e.g. the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission the and U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Between these 2 they've issued 6 "customer advisories" or "investor alerts", which is highly unusual. AFAIK, together they only issue about 10-20 of these each year for the entire financial market. Binary options - the worst of recent scams - only got 3 if I remember correctly.

And then there are the websites which have banned bitcoin ads. Facebook*, Twitter, Google, Bing, etc. etc. (*Facebook has a new policy which I haven't seen explained yet - bitcoin advertisers may get pre-approval in some cases).

And the important documented criticisms don't end there by a long shot.

We're lying to our readers if we don't put some of this material in the lede, or at least near the top of the article. A rosy "this is a wonderful new technology and the price is going to the moon" type article is just totally bogus and against Wikipedia's rules.

Some recent examples of reverts

• removal of ideology section Added July 1 removed July 17 by Bradv edit summary (→‎Ideology: rmv section - this doesn't flow with the rest of the article, is not factual, and is full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH problems)

• Many economists and investors consider the bitcoin market to be a bubble. Bitcoin has also been criticized for its use in illegal transactions, its high electricity consumption, price volatility, and thefts from exchanges. (in lede with ref) removed July 15 by Bradv edit summary (Undid revision 850356635 by Smallbones (talk) - restoring more neutral wording - putting this information in the lede without any counterpoint is WP:UNDUE)

• Previously removed by Rdjere July 14 partial edit summary (… This sentence does not belong in the lede unless there s a balancing counterstatement that is properly cited. The lede should be neutral, fact-based and balanced. Many people do not believe that Bitcoin is a bubble. Why not cite this as well?)

• reversion by Bradv on July 17. I’ll let others decide if that’s 2RR

• Similar material removed by Retimuko on June 30 and by Jtbobwaysf on July1

• New section I added about regulatory warnings moved down 27 minutes after I posted it on July 17 This may well have been a good edit (taken in isolation), but it is very frustrating to see anything that I write near the top of the article get buried.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

First question, is bitcoin not a bubble according to any economists? If there's no such evidence forthcoming then WP:FRINGE applies and the July 15 revert can be undone without consequence. Second question, would some level of protection prevent further disruption including improper reverts of properly sourced content? ☆ Bri (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything at all convincing - the best I can remember is an unknown (to me) economist who said something like "3 things can happen to bitcoin, a) it could go to the moon, b) it could muddle through about where it is now, or c) it could go to zero". The digest I was reading didn't seem to go anywhere with this and I gave up reading it. Of course expecting zero differences of opinion among economist is unrealistic (even the theory of evolution is occasionally argued by biologists) but I haven't seen anything that makes a case for it not being a bubble. I'll turn around and challenge to "go to the mooners". Can you find an academic economist who's written a paper saying that bitcoin is not a bubble? Your 2nd question is more difficult, but there are possible courses of action, and they are up to the admins to decide. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Smallbones, this is getting out of hand. WP:NOTABOUTYOU applies here. This is a WP:SOAP issue that has become WP:TE and is disruptive. For example:

• Here you added youtube links . I believe youtube videos dont have any place here on an article that is subject to administrative sanctions.
• Here you removed external link Medium of exchange wikilink from an article with the edit summary of "trim"
• Here you removed a currency symbol for bitcoin from a template with the edit summary of "spam"
• Here you removed sourced content from the Zug article in a section that is tagged for expansion claiming it was "trivia"

From my standpoint there is a lot of evidence that you are deleting info from templates, deleting sourced content from sections marked for expansion, etc that is disruptive. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

So you are accusing me of something (copyediting?), rather than answering the question "When will I be allowed to put important documented information near the top of the article?" Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:00, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

We work by consensus here, so again WP:NOTABOUTYOU. Your edits, like anyone else's edits, will be given an appropriate weight as determined by the community. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Please check WP:NPOV (which encompasses WP:Weight, WP:UNDUE, etc.)

"This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." Also "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects."

WP:NOTABOUTYOU is an essay about conflicts-of-interest. I do not have a COI here or in any areas I write about. I think if you ask any editor who has worked in the same areas I have for as long as I have, they can tell you that. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry that nobody has bothered answering my question (with the exception of Bri). If I don't see a coherent response in the next 10 hours or so, I'll go ahead and follow Bri's advice and reinsert the July 15 reversion into the lede You don't get to redefine WP:NPOV to exclude the mainstream view from the lede. NPOV is non-negotiable. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 02:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The article needs to describe what the subject is before it criticizes it. You have a very clear agenda on this topic, as you have stated on my talk page: "The most important thing to know about bitcoin is that it is a bubble where you're very likely to lose anything you invest." Wrong. The most important thing about bitcoin is that is a cryptocurrency, a form of electronic cash.

Warnings to readers have no place in the article, and criticism of bitcoin can be placed in a section where there is adequate room to source, explain, and provide counterpoint to these views. You wouldn't change the lede of Donald Trump to say he is a traitor, despite all the news today — rather, this information goes further down the article where it can be treated fairly.

I, and many other editors here, are attempting to make sure this article is neutral and accurate. We do that in part by opposing tendentious edits by people with obvious bias. Bradv 03:40, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• My own feeling is that the current lede does a good job accurately and objectively describing Bitcoin on a technical level, and does not need to be expanded. However, I wouldn't be opposed to including discussion of the controversy around Bitcoin if this is can be done in a concise and balanced way. For example, "Proponents of Bitcoin argue that it is superior to traditional currencies due to its decentralized structure, which eliminates middle men. However, critics have argued that Bitcoin is too volatile to be an effective currency, and have characterized the rapid rise in the price of Bitcoin as a bubble." Thoughts? Λυδαcιτγ 04:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
• BradV,you need to relook as to how leads of articles are written.Given the sheer volume of criticism in the body and the general opinions of world-renowned-economists economists as to the subject, support the theme of Smallbone's edit, (though agreeing that it could have been framed better).I am also inclined to ask Audacity about whether he's aware of WP:FALSEBALANCE, since on my glance-through of the article,there did not seem to exist any renowned economist or academic expert as a proponent.∯WBG^converse 04:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

(EC - response to Audacity) My proposed edit leaves in the 1st paragraph of the lede, which adequately identifies what bitcoin is. I propose to add, as the second paragraph:

"Many economists and investors consider the bitcoin market to be a bubble. Bitcoin has also been criticized for its use in illegal transactions, its high electricity consumption, price volatility, and thefts from exchanges."

which is the mainstream view and is remarkably concise. As for the "balance" you propose, starting with "Proponents of Bitcoin argue that it is superior to traditional currencies due to its decentralized structure, which eliminates middle men." I don't think I've seen anybody actually argue that - just interested parties asserting it without any factual support. Perhaps you can supply somebody who makes a reasoned argument along these lines. But the argument would be easily contradicted - about 99% of all bitcoin transactions go through an exchange, i.e. a middleman, and then they all go through a "miner", another middleman. We don't have to invent a balancing statement where no balance exists. So all you are doing is taking a clear statement and making it unclear. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

@Smallbones:@Winged Blades of Godric: I'm not at all wedded to the particular formulation I proposed. But I do think we should allocate some space to describing the (potential) successes of Bitcoin as well as its (potential) failures. How about something similar to this sentence from Economics of bitcoin? "Bitcoin developments have been drawing the interest of politicians and legislators as a result of bitcoin's capability to eradicate fraud, simplify transactions, and provide transparency, when bitcoins are properly utilized." Λυδαcιτγ 05:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but any statement regarding "bitcoin's capability to eradicate fraud, simplify transactions, and provide transparency" would have to include the facts as cited from reliable sources. That would have quite the opposite effect than the one you are looking for. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• Hi, Smallbones. Let us take the statement you mention as important sounding as follows: "Many economists and investors consider the bitcoin market to be a bubble." that has been recently removed from the lead section. The relevant Wikipedia policy mentions that the lead section should summarize the article body. When reading article body, I see four investors mentioned as claiming that bitcoin is a bubble. Since four is not many, it is correct to claim that the deleted wording does not summarize the information from the article body. Similarly, the article body mentions eight economists, not many economists. Seeing this, I am sure that this particular deletion was well justified. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:27, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, Smallbones, I do not think that your edits are a good subject to general discussion:

• There are many edits of yours that haven't been reverted.
• You cannot get any general sanction that your edits shall not be reverted. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Just a quibble, but your counts are off. The main point however is that I can supply any reasonable number of examples that you ask for. A dozen is probably too many - readers will see it as just beating a dead horse. How many more examples do you want?

As far as "sanctions" - you should be aware that American and British English give this word almost exactly opposite meanings in just slightly different contexts. If you're suggesting that the proposed addition can be removed because of some (nonexistent) consensus here, you are just wrong. I'm repeating myself, but WP:NPOV clearly states "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." If you are talking about the other type of sanctions, let the chips fall where they may. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:59, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

8 isn't many? Are we preparing a legal document or do you need 80? And, a couple of renowned economists or concerned academics who have praised bitcoin, please.......

• You are free to propose specific changes here, bearing in mind that the consensus reaction to crypto at the moment is skeptical verging on scornful. The price crash exposed so many issues - pump and dump, price manipulation, fraud and so on - that any claim needs to be very carefully evaluated and we must reject out of hand any in-universe sources. I agree that much of the coverage of crypto on WP is akin to alt-med fans writing about quackery. Guy (Help!) 13:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• "In-universe sources" is apt. Yes, we need to get perspectives – for the lede especially – outside of Bitcoin specialist publications. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• We shouldn't say "bubble" to describe the current valuation; it's a violation of WP:CRYSTAL in that it predicts the price will go down in the future. (It also violates the more general principle that Wikipedia should not be offering financial advice.) I see nothing wrong with the Bitcoin has also been criticized for its use in illegal transactions, its high electricity consumption, price volatility, and thefts from exchanges langauge, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• That's absolutely not what CRYSTAL states.∯WBG^converse 18:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• (EC)@Power~enwiki: We are certainly not offering any financial advice here. The "bubble" sentence just says that many economists say it is a bubble. We are allowed to cite other people's opinions and in this case it seems like quite an important opinion. It's also not a crystal ball to write that they have already said these things.
• It might seem strange for the uninitiated but I don't think that even the economists are giving investment advice. It's standard practice for economists (including financial economists) *not* to give financial advice unless they are being specifically paid for it, with a written contract (e.g. as a consultant). Otherwise, they can open themselves up for lawsuits, etc. So they are just saying "this is my professional opinion of the situation, do with it what you'd like" or "these are my policy recommendations" to congress or whomever. It's like a doctor not giving out medical advice to random people on the street, but being willing to explain general medical ideas.
• Part of the reason that so many economists have given so many opinions on this topic probably has to do with bitcoin advocates themselves. They can be rather pushy and are looking for any news to support their position - or at the very least a reason to report a controversy. That's my reading of the case where the 4 Nobel Prize winners were asked about bitcoin at a joint press conference. The economists were probably there to discuss policy recommendations (e.g. trade policy) or macroeconomics. So when you're asked for your opinion you can give it, but without making investment recommendations.
• I'll ask you to self-revert your removal of the "bubble" sentence. It's just not a violation of WP:Crystal or investment advice. If you'd prefer not to, perhaps as a sign of disagreement, I can do the reversion myself - but this would only work if we both agree not to edit war over it. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• If you look closely, you will notice that I didn't remove the sentence, I merely moved it to the end of the lead. Additional context beyond stating that experts agree it's a bubble is necessary, and I don't plan to self-revert. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the move down in the lede for weight and I suggest the word "many" is not neutral, nor encyclopedic (as we would need to count the sources and then to do some WP:OR to decide if we have crossed the threshold to be 'many'). I think 'some' would be more appropriate and neutral (or another similar word). @Smallbones:, no reason to demand Power~enwiki (talk · contribs) self revert by offering you can do it for him (lol) if he agrees he wont change it. As Ladislav Mecir (talk · contribs) pointed out above, there is no general sanction process here where you can receive a guarantee that your edits wont be reverted. Imagine how boring wikipedia would be if worked on some sort of quid pro quo. PS- There is a whole article dedicated to this subject Cryptocurrency bubble, why the push to jam all this content into the first paragraph lede of this bitcoin article? I have changed the lede here with the logic that "some" is more neutral than "many." However, I am wondering outloud if some is a weasel word? I also changed the wikilink from market bubble to Cryptocurrency bubble, since we already have an article on this bubble. Comments welcome Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Since you welcome comments, I'm happy to oblige. It looks to me like you are trying to prove my statement that every time I put important, well documented material near the top of the article somebody tries to bury it. It was actually @Audacity: who moved the main part of the material down (without bothering to comment here), but your bizarre comments about why "many" is incorrect looks like you want to obfuscate the fact that 8 Nobel laureates in economics have said that bitcoin is a bubble. How many do you think would qualify as "many"?

In any case, I've specified exactly how many (8 Nobel laureates in economics) and put the material back up top where it belongs. Audacity suggested something (though he hasn't been clear on many things) that I don't think is correct. He seems to believe that moving text up or down in the article is not a revert, and thus doesn't qualify according to the 1RR rule we are working under. This would likely make a mess of this article, where the facts really aren't in question, only the placement of the material. But either way, we should all be working under the same rules. May I ask @MER-C and TonyBallioni: to comment on this last point? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

The lede is not the right place to put such a biased and controversial statement by itself without a counterbalance. 8 Nobel laureate opinions do not make something highly controversial fact. How diverse is that group of Nobel laureates? Is it possible that they all have similar backgrounds and similar biases? That is why it is important to look at and present diverse opinions so the reader can decide for him or herself. Wikipedia articles should not be propaganda. That statement at the top of the lede makes one small group of people's opinion more important than everyone else's.

There are many highly credible people who take the opposing view. We cannot just present one side of the argument in the lede. That is EXTREMELY biased and frankly lazy. It is just a matter of sitting down and doing the work to research and present the opposite view in a well cited manner.

I suspect the the final version will look similar to this (this is a really rough version): The proponents of Bitcoin cite its useful characteristics: a good store of value, relatively low transaction fees, a low mutability public ledger.... The critics of Bitcoin cite its negative values: high electricity usage, its bubble-like characteristics.....

Something similar to above is what I think would make the article balanced and neutral. The last edit was horrible IMO. It looked like it was written by someone with an agenda against Bitcoin. This not only makes Bitcoin look bad (we shouldn't strive to make bitcoin look good or bad, just present the facts on both sides) but more importantly, it makes Wikipedia look bad. This is not about us: it is about the perceived reliability of Wikipedia as a neutral fact-based source of information.

Very busy at the moment, but when I have time, I will try to research and write a good counterbalance. A few credible people that I know for a fact have the opposite views: Andreas Antonopoulos (his analysis of Bitcoin electricity usage), Erik Voorhees, Jeremy Tucker etc. These guys are not dummies, and if you want to summarize the entire Bitcoin article in the lede, you can't ignore their perspectives. There is no rush on this => it is better to get it right than to rush and get it wrong. We need to research and cite both sides, and if we want them in the lede, we need to put both in. I will try to find an existing Wikipedia article that is well written to post here as an example.Rdjere (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I know that the hardest part is getting started. I made a simple edit adding both sides of the coin to the lede. It is not yet well cited, but I have faith in Wikipedia, and I have even more faith in the Wikipedia PROCESS. People take what you present and they improve upon it. It is NOT about what I think: its about having the community come to consensus. I honestly think that what I've added is better than what was in the last edit, but it is still far from perfect. I know that I have to trust the community, and I have to TRUST THE PROCESS. I am not always right, but us taken in aggregate are going to usually be right. DIVERSE groups of people make better choices than any individual.Rdjere (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I think this is hardly neutral and full of weasel words on both sides.

"good storage of value" - good? how good? according to whom?

"relatively low cost" - relative to what? according to whom?

"no inherent value" - this is some sort of a misconception. what inherent value is in, say, dollars?

"extensive use in illicit activity" - again extensive use. how extensive? there is research that such use is overestimated. dollars are extensively used in all sorts of crime. so what?

I think that such statements should be attributed. Retimuko (talk) 04:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Precisely why I think that both sides should be left out until BOTH sides are fully researched. For some reason, one person thinks that there is an unnecessary sense of urgency to urgency call Bitcoin a bubble. The truth is Bitcoin is new. There is no precedent, so we truly don't know if it is a bubble or not. Not even 8 Nobel prize winners. A lot of smart people think it is a bubble. A lot of smart people think it is not. Both sides need to be heard, and it takes time to research both sides. There is no rush. We need to research and present a summary of both sides in the lede.Rdjere (talk) 05:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a classic case of WP:FALSEBALANCE. What you've done is to take a clearly written description of a very important set of well documented facts, backed by 8 Nobel laureates:

"Eight Nobel Prize laureates in economic have said that the bitcoin market is a bubble. Bitcoin has also been criticized for its use in illegal transactions, its high electricity consumption, price volatility, and thefts from exchanges.[10]"

and replaced it with the opinions of people you haven't even named (or you don't know who you're describing yet), with unknown qualifications, little or no documentation in the body of the text, making false claims. In short it's total bull.

"Bitcoin's proponents[who?] consider the following to be its positive qualities:

• independence from world governments, banks and corporations
• no central authority to censor or interfere with transactions
• a good store of value, akin to "digital gold"[citation needed]
• relatively low cost and fast peer-to-peer transactions between people regardless of geographic location[citation needed]"

and then you remove the facts from the previous version

"Bitcoin's critics consider the following to be its negative qualities:

• behaves like an economic bubble
• wastefully high electricity usage causing great environmental damage
• no inherent value
• not backed by any government
• extensive use in illicit activity

and compare the two points of view as if they were somehow equal. Please put the old version back in. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. This is not about what you or I think: it is about the community coming to consensus. If you read through this talk page, people are repeatedly telling you that that statement is biased, yet you ignore them and keep putting the statement in. Wikipedia cannot function that way. You put your opinion above everyone else's, and more concerning, you put the opinion of 8 Nobel Laureates above everyone else. This is the most important thing to remember: the 8 Nobel Laureates are stating their OPINIONS. That does not make it fact. But you seem to have an agenda to make the Wikipedia article convince someone new to Bitcoin that Bitcoin is a bubble with 100% certainty. This is troubling. A scholar should instintively want to present all sides of the argument so that the reader can come to their own conclusion. I do not understand what your motivation is to have this incredible sense of urgency to get that statement into the lede without also including the other perspectives. I have already told you where to find the alternative perspectives, so there is no excuse not to include them. Andreas Antonopoulos has hundreds of hours of podcasts at Letstalkbitcoin.com, hundreds of videos on Youtube, and he has written a book on the topic. Jeremy Tucker is also very well respected, and his views are well documented. Ditto for Erik Voorhees. Ditto for Jeremy Allaire. Ditto for Marc Andreesen. Ditto for Tim Draper. I am currently tied up with work, but when time allows, I have no problem going in and doing the research to present the other side. To put in one side and not the other is irresponsible. The best would be to leave all of it out of the lede until we have a balanced set of statements. Take a look at The Ethereum Wikipedia page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethereum They wisely chose to keep the lede focused on what Ethereum is and how it works. Their lede is 100% factual and 100% neutral. If you listen to the community, the consensus will always lead you towards the right path. You need to read through this entire talk page again, and start listening to what the community is telling you, in my humble opinion. Again, it is NOT about what we think. It is about trusting the process of the community coming to consensus.Rdjere (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

This edit is not an improvement. The bullet-points in the lead are not style-compliant, and the "benefits" are either promotional hype, of questionable accuracy ("low-cost transactions" may or may not actually happen), or re-state "de-centralized" far too much. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:24, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Is it worthwhile to make a section that goes over the arguments for and against bitcoin (farther down in the article, not in the lede)? This seems to be what these two editors are pushing. Regardless, this formatting mess should not be in the lede unless greatly summarized and style compliant. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

"This edit is not an improvement." Understood => then please improve it by doing the necessary research to accurately portray both sides of the argument. I am in no way wedded to the edit I made. I just see it as a starting point to get a balanced set of statements in the lede. I did not create the unnecessary sense of urgency on this, someone else did. My point of contention is that it is irresponsible to present only one side or the other. If you don't like the current edit, please do the research to accurately fill in both sides. The bullet points that I put in were things that I remembered people saying a lot on both sides. I listen to hundreds of hours of Bitcoin podcasts every month (Letstalkbitcoin, Bitcoin.com podcast etc). I also watch hundreds of hours of Bitcoin interviews each year. I watch both proponent videos and critical videos. So I have been exposed to virtually every point of view on both sides. The unnecessary sense of urgency placed on this compelled me to put something in as a stop gap that can be improved upon. I suspected that the previous edit amounted to propaganda. As I read through this talk page, and read the comments, I saw that many others held the same view. I suspect that community consensus will agree that the bulleted edit that I made is far from perfect, but it is at least a starting point for getting to our ultimate goal: an unbiased, fact-based and neutral Bitcoin wikipedia article. I don't put myself above the community. I will ALWAYS defer to community consensus, and I am willing to help in any way necessary.Rdjere (talk) 18:45, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

You shouldn't be telling people to improve the material you put in when they don't agree with that material. You really need to do the work yourself. The article has been here since 2009 (!) and seems to have been mostly edited by fans. Surely somebody could have added what the proponents say (if it weren't so embarrassing).

As far as there being a consensus for removing the material I've added near the top, I don't see that at all. Yes, there are a lot of people yelling at me - but it's just a few people. You should count them before asserting a consensus. Most importantly, they are ignoring Wikipedia's rules and standards. And WP:NPOV can not be overruled by a consensus - even if there were one.

Anne H. Dyhrberg who you've cited, would probably not appreciate being called a "proponent" of bitcoin. That's not an academic's role to advocate for financial instruments. With all due respect to Ms. Dyhrberg, she seems to be a PhD candidate at Sydney U, who wrote the paper while a Masters student. Comparing her work to 8 Nobel laureates is certainly a case of false balance. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

• Made a lot of progress. Research takes a LONG time. Read a lot of papers tonight. Will continue ASAP, need some sleep. Reading multiple Bitcoin papers, you see patterns. I'm trying to source papers from very diverse sources. Will continue the same approach with Bitcoin's negative characteristics. IMO just citing 8 Nobel laureates in not enough because 8 Laureates are very likely to be of similar demographic backgrounds, similar economic views, similar training => similar biases. Will try to read as many Bitcoin papers as possible to see what positives and negatives re-occur across diverse spectrum.

I've revert the lede back to the last @Power~enwiki: version. Nobody seems to agree with the previous direction. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:51, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

No one has spoken since my last comment, Your action is premature. continuing on.Rdjere (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

• Note, I have fixed the threading in this section and have left a note for Rdjere about how to thread. 18:24, 22 July 2018 (UTC)