Talk:Bitcoin

Nomenclature convention

See this thread. KLP (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Quote: "Let's use Bitcoin (singular, with upper case letter b) to describe the protocol, network, and software, and bitcoin(s) (singular or plural, with lower case letter b) to describe actual bitcoins, as generated by computers." --Mortense (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Gavin Andresen aka Satoshi Nakamoto

An anonymous user threw this little tidbit up on the page, and I'm reverting it due to the fact that this bit of information is unsourced and such a major factual detail that needs some fact checking before it can be confirmed as fact. I admit that the circumstantial evidence seems interesting, but I would either like a link to an article where Gavin admits he is the original author (Gavin has claimed otherwise) or somebody else has "spilled the beans" with "proof" beyond some IP editor throwing this bit in.

All in all, I do believe that Satoshi is a psuedonym for somebody, but I have no proof of that fact or any real clue as to who it might be. Unless it is sourced, it does not belong in this article. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That IP only seems to vandalize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.73.218 (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. It looks like he has tried to make this same edit a couple of other times, and is being persistent to inject this particular tidbit into the article. I would dare say he has failed the spirit if not the letter of WP:3RR and deserves to be blocked for that purpose alone. Further injection of this will have to be considered a sock puppet. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems extremely misleading to treat Satoshi Nakamoto as a real person, however. Shouldn't there be some reference to the discussions about the fact that he doesn't exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.90.167 (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

What discussions meet any sort of criteria for a reliable source? Adding to that, is there any possible "reliable source" to suggest that Satoshi Nakamoto isn't the real name of the person who wrote the software? Simply put, until something solid can be referenced even the entire debate is purely speculative.

I would count an actual admission by the "real" Satoshi on the Bitcoin forums using the "Satoshi" account as reliable in this case (assuming the account wasn't hacked), as would a hard hitting investigative journalism piece done for a major computing or news publication where somebody tries to track this bit of trivia down. It certainly would make for an interesting story to at least find out just who it is that wrote the software that is now stirring up some controversy. A blogger who heard third hand from somebody's cousin that Satoshi isn't real or worse yet raw speculation on the Bitcoin forums by the other participants is not what I call a reliable source at all.

There is at least some sort of "real life" person that does exist in terms of somebody who wrote the software. In that sense he does exist, and the question is only if the name "Satoshi Nakamoto" is the real name of the person who authored the original software. --Robert Horning (talk) 13:28, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

So maybe the opening sentence would best read, "Bitcoin was created either by a person named Satoshi Nakamoto or by a person using the pseudonym 'Satoshi Nakamoto'." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.106.138.11 (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

So should we go around at put that on every article where the author's identity isn't well established? … If there were a reliable source on it probably being a pseudonym— rather than just random speculation, as Robert Horning says— then I suppose it would be fine to mention, but I think it would be a little difficult to avoid making it disproportional since the article currently says very little about the developers of the software. --Gmaxwell (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

which bitcoin address example to use?

Sorry if this has already been proposed, but as a bitcoin address given as example for the address format, I think it would be nice to use the first address that appears in the block chain:

1A1zP1eP5QGefi2DMPTfTL5SLmv7DivfNa

--Grondilu (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we should use an actual address. Ideally there would be an invalid address, similar to IP addresses, which have invalid address ranges reserved for documentation. Since there's no such thing for Bitcoin, I propose we use a random nothing up my sleeve number, such as the SHA256 hash of the string "Bitcoin" and convert it into the format of an address. — DataWraith (talk) 08:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I concur. I see no utility in using an actual address. --Nuujinn (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Looking into this, I've learned a bit more about bitcoin addresses. Basically, an address is a 160 bit hash with a checksum to prevent typos. While the change Casascius made to corrupt the address in the article results in an invalid address, that address is not well-formed anymore (http://blockexplorer.com/q/checkaddress complains). Since I'm a perfectionist, I'll be bold and change the address as follows:

• SHA1("Bitcoin") = 42bd6b9eeb1da01504fefe014e16415246c0f66f (160 bit)
• Convert that into an address via http://blockexplorer.com/q/hashtoaddress/42bd6b9eeb1da01504fefe014e16415246c0f66f
  • This yields the address 175tWpb8K1S7NmH4Zx6rewF9WQrcZv2456

At this point the address is valid, and someone could send money to it (although no one could receive it). While I doubt anyone would actually send any, the last character can be changed to 'W' (for Wikipedia), which invalidates the checksum. Trying to send money to the address will now result in an error message from the bitcoin client. — DataWraith (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

That's fine.--Grondilu (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the previous address 1NS17iag9jJgTHD1VXjvLCEnZuQ3rJED9L is actually an invalid address that is given as the example address in the main Bitcoin client (hence its use). (The relevant code being m_staticTextInstructions = new wxStaticText( this, wxID_ANY, _("Enter a Bitcoin address (e.g. 1NS17iag9jJgTHD1VXjvLCEnZuQ3rJDE9L)"), wxDefaultPosition, wxDefaultSize, 0 ); in uibase.cpp of the client)Blue Matt (talk) 00:35, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

There should be mention of the legalities of this proposed currency.

BitCoin is not legal tender, and advertising it as such is against the law. While it may be a decentralised system based on open source technologies; that doesn't change that the rate you can 'mine' BitCoins is determined by a central authority. Where does the power to regulate and control inflation come from? Does it concern any economists that one can only 'create' money, not destroy it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.142.140 (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Coins can actually be destroyed trivially: generate a new address, transfer coins to it, and delete the private key for the address. The coins are now unusable. Also, the rate of mining is not based on a central authority. AFAIK it is a well defined function of the aggregate processing power of miners. 90.163.167.157 (talk) 02:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If this is the case, then how can the global maximum of $21 million be ensured? Also, if it is a function of computing power; doesn't this incentivise using massive data centers to mine? If this is the case, it means people with larger clouds win - hardly an even society. Also, I'd like to think there are better things our data centers could be doing than having to use some useless function to generate money for a completely abstract economy. Tyraz (talk) 02:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

It is the case. The global maximum still applies regardless of computing power. As for your other criticism, think how productive it is to drill holes to extract gold. Not much, right? And the one with more drilling power finds more gold. Yet we do not think it is unfair. It's the same concept. Useless function? People are trading bitcoins at around 5 usd lately.. 90.163.167.157 (talk) 05:13, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

If "people are trading bitcoins at around 5 usd lately", then by definition US finance and tax laws apply. So in addition to wasting computer resources "mining" bitcoin, we are now wasting human resources, in the form of attorneys, accountants, judges, law enforcement officials, legislators, economists, etc. who must now engage in the processes specified by these laws. ;-) Znmeb (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Bitcoin is not legal tender but it's definitely not illegal. Its existence doesn't violate any intrinsic human rights; quite the opposite it represents the ultimate freedom of humans to trade voluntarily and privately. Legal tender only means that a government recognizes a form of money as official. Just because gold is not legal tender does not make it illegal, and the same applies to Bitcoins. The only relevant mention of legality in the article should be governments ignorant enough to declare Bitcoins illegal. Malamute (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Bubble and POV

"Bitcoin's peer-to-peer topology and lack of central administration make it infeasible for any authority, governmental or otherwise, to manipulate the value of bitcoins or induce inflation by producing more of them.[citation needed]" without any mention about Economic bubble [1][2][3] is POVish Bulwersator (talk) 12:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is it "POV-ish"? The statement is factually accurate and doesn't seem to be related to economic bubbles. I'm going to delete the POV dispute marker, I think you need to explain your objection better or just edit the page yourself. A discussion of bubbles might be worth putting in to a separate section, but I'm not sure if it'd have anything useful to say beyond "Bitcoin is an asset and therefore can experience bubbles". Mike Hearn (talk) 18:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I restored it as possibility of bubble is hidden in truncated criticism section (and bitcoin bubble is frequent opinion so omitting it violates WP:UNDUE). It should be in lead. Sorry for bad English, Bulwersator (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I can see why it would be POV-ish, that's due to the suggestion that the value cannot be "manipulated". Sure, it can't be manipulated by producing more of them, but from the looks of things, they can be easily manipulated just by creative trading due to the small size of the market. Fair to say that BTC can't be counterfeited, but that's about it. Casascius♠ (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, whatever, but could you guys fix the article instead of just putting a marker there? If you think there needs to be a bigger discussion of bubbles go right ahead and add one. Or maybe if the middle clause about "manipulation of value" is deleted it'd be OK? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Hearn (talk • contribs) 11:19, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can try but my English is rather poor Bulwersator (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

That's no problem, I'm happy to fix spelling or grammar mistakes. Mike Hearn (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Terminology: generating, blocks, batches

The three key terms "generating node", "block" and "batch" are not properly explained in the article.

The section Bitcoin#Block-chain_and_confirmations defines a block as a file containing a list of recent transactions. It refers to generating nodes without explaining the term. Are these the nodes that generate bitcoins as explained in the later section Bitcoin#Generating_bitcoins?

That section talks about generating nodes as well as block-generating nodes, without explaining the difference, if any. The section further talks about batches of bitcoins produced by generating nodes, suggesting that "generating nodes" are "nodes-that-generate-batches-of-bitcons". Later in that section it talks about candidate blocks and says "one block gets generated every ten minutes", suggesting that a batch and a block is somehow the same thing. Is that true?

Finally, in Bitcoin#Transaction_fees, we learn that nodes "include transactions in the blocks they generate", apparently using the word "block" in the sense of "file-containing-list-of-transactions" and the word "generate" in the sense of "producing-files-containing-lists-of-transactions".

It would help a lot if this terminological confusion could be cleaned up. Thanks, AxelBoldt (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I've eliminated the word "batch" from the article— it's not a word used (commonly?) in bitcoin terminology. Nodes (optionally) generate blocks, an event that happens at random with a rate proportional to how hard nodes are working at it and a protocol controlled difficulty level. Blocks form an ordered consensus list of transactions for the purpose of guarding against double-spending: transactions exist and are visible before they're placed in the chain of blocks, but if two transactions spend the same coin then only one will ever make it into the official chain of blocks, and the other transaction and any transaction which depended on it will (eventually) be rejected by all participants. This is fundamentally the purpose blocks serve. The rules of the system allow the creator of the block to insert an additional transaction to pay themselves up to a protocol specified amount (currently 50 BTC), effectively generating new bitcoins out of thin air— but this is basically a side effect of the block generating process though an important one since it's the origin of all the bitcoin. I hope its more clear in the article now. --Gmaxwell (talk) 23:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Inherent bias

Pro-bitcoin people are more likely to write about it than anti-bitcoin people, and more likely to give the attention to those writings necessary to get them published in a reliable source. Therefore, we should pay particular attention to including anti-bitcoin points. I'm not suggesting lowering the standards of RS, but just seeking out RS's which cogently put forth those anti-bitcoin arguments which can be easily found on non-RS such as blogs, Quora, etc. Currently, the only point in the "criticism" section is about deflation; we should find sources for the points which have been removed (initial allocation, lack of intrinsic value, lack of liquidity/convertibility, and lack of stabilizing authority). 187.143.153.84 (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

And bubble Bulwersator (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Since I started this section, the criticism section has been removed entirely, without integrating that information elsewhere. I understand the sourcing issues, but the article as it stands is extremely biased, and could even be considered touting. 187.143.153.84 (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I think citing the Quora debate as evidence of criticism is fine, btw. I removed the quote from "an economist" saying Bitcoin is a scam because the quote came from a guy who seems to predict sport ticket prices rather than somebody who actually studies macro-economics. It's no more credible than somebody just saying Bitcoin will take over the world. The link to the debate was good supporting evidence for more general criticism or debate over the economic model. Why not make another attempt and perhaps include links to (for example) the legal analysis that was posted on the forums a while ago Mike Hearn (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

The problems with this article reveal deep problems with wikipedia becoming the primary research tool in our society. Journalists get information from wikipedia, and then pro-bitcoin people remove all information that hasn't been echoed by a journalist. I think it is highly relevant that bitcoins have gone up 100x in price over the last five months, and I think it is highly relevant that the "author" "Satoshi Nakamoto" has absolutely no web footprint and is doubtless an alias. I think it is highly relevant that the exchanges for bitcoin have no proper method for shorting them. I think it is highly relevant that bitcoins have many of the marks of a pyramid scheme (no intrinsic value, relying on increasing the base to increase the value of earlier adopters). Further, it is highly relevant that many technies are long a couple hundred bitcoins, and have a clearly vested financial interest in scrubbing the wikipedia article of negative information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.106.138.11 (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

An issue with reliable sources has been a major issue with this article from the AfD debates and practically when this article was started in the first place. The reason this article exists at all is due to the fact that reliable sources now can be found that at least mention Bitcoins and some of the key features... features that are independently verified and can be described by somebody with some technical expertise in computing sciences. We can debate what amounts to be a reliable source, and that debate is certainly reasonable here on this talk page.

As to the lack of a web footprint for "Satoshi Nakamoto", that is a completely irrelevant fact. The lack of something is not proof. I responded to more about Satoshi in an earlier section, so please leave comments there if you want to hit this bit of trivia a bit harder. Find the source and then the debate can move on with that issue.

As far as Bitcoin being a pyramid scheme or not, it would be interesting to see if a relevant "expert" thinks about the topic. Again, get some sources that debate the issue and bring it up. To suggest here on Wikipedia that it might be a Ponzi scheme or something of a scam is pure speculation and violating WP:OR guidelines unless those sources can be found. Suggesting that some SEC lawyer or even a well known market analyst who has studied Bitcoin in some detail has declared it to be a pyramid scheme is completely different. I would even say for this particular allegation that even an otherwise "reliable source" which only mentions that "some people" think it might be a pyramid scheme is not sufficient unless they nail down who those "some people" really are... or at least mention that for at least that source they used an "anonymous source" for primary source information and the person writing the article seems to have some credibility on that kind of topic. Again, we can debate individual sources as to if they are reliable, but lets try to get to that point first.

If you are worried about "cleansing" the Wikipedia article from negative information, it goes both ways on that. If paragraphs that have been deleted which are factual, verifiable, and sourced are being deleted (along with the source information), that is something which is of concern. I don't see that happening (too much at least) and what is mostly going on with this article is mostly pure speculation being deleted. That is precisely as it should be. --Robert Horning (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

At the very least, the fact that bitcoins have increased >100x (10000%) in value over the last eight months is a salient fact about bitcoins, which is continually scrubbed from the entry, always for very plausible reasons. It is also very relevant that betting on the future of the bitcoin economy (in mtgox) is the primary activity in the bitcoin economy itself (remember, bitcoins only register when they change wallets, so the transactions in mtgox only show up on the bitcoin servers when people leave mtgox). I have an emotional commitment to wikipedia, but no financial interest in Bitcoin, and it seems like a lot of work to get the details right, when people with financial interests are clouding the picture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.106.138.11 (talk) 14:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a separation from the technical description of what Bitcoins are and how they work and whether or not they are a good idea? I would like to see a neutral and accurate description of what Bitcoin is and then sections discussing the arguments for and against. 50.43.116.34 (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

This is really no different than just about any other subject in Wikipedia: Interested parties are more likely to pay attention. Also, the biases don't all align in one direction: people can currently make money by manipulating the bitcoin exchange rates in either direction. I agree with 116.34's above view that the technical and non-technical stuff should be handled separately. Bitcoin is an interesting, powerful, and useful technology independent of its use as a currency. The whole bound blockchain stuff (where other Nakamoto-chain distributed deed systems like namecoin are secured by sharing the same proof-of-work as bitcoin) means that bitcoin-the-technology may stay very important even when bitcoin the currency fad goes the way of the beanie baby. The Wikipedia article already gives a better coverage of the technology than most places. --Gmaxwell (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As such, I think we'll eventually have to split the Bitcoin article between at least two: one for bitcoin the currency and at least one for the Bitcoin network, its implementations, derivatives, and clients. Just something to think about for the future. KLP (talk) 15:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The assertion that people can make money by manipulating bitcoin exchange rates in either direction is totally unsupported. Since there is no way to be "short" on bitcoin, it would seem that this would be based on the idea that any dip in the value of a bitcoin is fundamentally temporary. When such an assumption is asserted as fact, it tells more about the one making the assertion than about bitcoin.

It is clear that this article suffers from a lack of critical viewpoints. (NPOV is about style and inclusiveness; critical viewpoints definitely belong here). But we cannot include them without reliable sources, and Quora (as high-quality as it often is) simply does not qualify. So, if you want to improve this article, search Google News for "bitcoin bubble" and find some reliable, citable sources. 187.143.153.84 (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

External links

Gmaxwell, I encourage you to look at Wikipedia:El#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. The two links you re-added seem to fall short of the requirements in #10 and #12. "Useful" is not a sufficient qualification. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hm? I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of the suggestion there— My longstanding expectation is that focus there is on third party resources (e.g. trying to promote your starwars wiki by linking to it on every wikipedia about startwars), and not the official resources for the article's subject. It would be weird to exclude official references for a subject merely because they choose to use, e.g., a wiki rather than a book. In this case the references are not overlapping with material we'd permit in Wikipedia, they're an official resource, no one appears to have a particular pecuniary interest in promoting them, and they'd be useful to readers of the article. I'm not following how the users of Wikipedia are anything but benefited here. --Gmaxwell (talk) 15:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

OK--the forum is run by the main organization, as is that Wiki, I see now--it's linked on their homepage. Then see Wikipedia:El#Official_links, which basically boils down to one is enough in most cases (and this is a typical case). In other words, we have three where one would do, because the other two are directly linked from the one. Drmies (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)