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)

Why not use a testnet address? These addresses are only valid on the special bitcoin test network with test coins and are invalid on the production network. There would be no chance to accidentally send coins to it. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 14:29, 15 June 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)

"Tender" is a verb. A "legal tender" is an offer of payment that must be accepted by law, and originally was used on US Treasury notes to say, "This note is a legal tender of one dollar of gold." - meaning it had to be accepted the same as gold if offered in payment of a debt, as per the " Legal Tender Act" of 1862.

Unless otherwise prohibited by law, any two people can agree to exchange one type of good for another - this is called "freedom of contract". Therefore, Bitcoin does not require any kind of government stamp of approval. If someone agrees to accept it as payment, there is nothing illegal about that unless it has been specifically outlawed in a jurisdiction. Cadwallader (talk) 21:37, 11 June 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)

As mentioned, the rate of creation is adjusted by the nodes of the network (difficulty increasing/decreasing as a function of previous weighted average rate). After a fixed set of blocks the number of coins generated (mined) is halved. The halving is a binary shift such as 1000 to 0100 to 0010 to 0001 to finally 0000 (zero). This is fixed in code, incredibly simple, and verified by ALL nodes in the network. It is only centralized in the sense that one human programmed the algorithm two years ago and it would be incredibly difficult (impossible) to change by consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexgenaud (talk • contribs) 12:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a forum for discussion of bitcoin "fairness" or even a discussion of what you think cloud computing resources should be used for. 24.130.82.66 (talk) 03:57, 3 June 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)

Bulwersator has placed a POV notice on the article with an edit summary "no mention about bubble (common opinion) in the lead, violating wp:UNDUE)". This is somewhat perplexing to me, the lead of the article makes no mention of the economics or "value" of bitcoin. The only parts of the article that do is the section entitled "Outcome", and his concerns are addressed there. It would be editorially infeasible to elevate a even handed discussions of the economics of bitcoin into the leads but promoting the concerns of an asset price bubble without that context would almost certainly create exactly the undue weight Bulwersator is concerned about. Perhaps this highlights the importance of separating bitcoin-the-technology (which is now seeing some independent use outside of bitcoin proper) from bitcoin-the-currency. This is all made more complicated by the lack of reliable secondary sources on any of the economics aspect of it, mostly the available information on that aspect of it appears to just be weakly informed speculation.

Any other views on this? I don't think Bulwersator's demand is a reasonable one. The outcome section could use a lot of improvement but demanding particular coverage in the lead seems like undue weight to me.--Gmaxwell (talk) 04:42, 31 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)

I marked the word infinitesimal as being contradictory, since that would imply that generating a block is infinitely unlikely to happen. Such an event would never occur, but generating a block I understand happens about once every ten minutes. 88.195.165.87 (talk) 23:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Your eventual change to 'very low' is fine. The number is a rational (~1/2436822202603624 right now) which tends to 1:2^256 (which may reasonably be argued to be uncomputable directly) as the overall computational rate of the system increases in order to keep the expectation to one in ten minutes. Thanks for the correction. --Gmaxwell (talk) 02:28, 13 June 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)

As 108.6 points out below, it's centrally possible to short bitcoin— just like any other commodity that people trade. I'm insulted that you characterized my view as being that declines in the rate being "fundamentally temporary". That isn't my view at all, nor is my view especially relevant to the article. If you attack the people that you're talking with like it makes having a civil discussion quite difficult.

Google news is not a good fountain of reliable citable sources. Mass media is generally highly contaminated with speculation, rumor, and exaggeration. Worse, they usually fail to disclose when their information is gleamed from random anonymous speakers on IRC vs being the product of careful research. There are basically no professional consequence for journalists who make errors, and even overt intentional lying is lawful (at least in the US). Ideally we want peer reviewed secondary sources. Obviously there is sometimes a shortage of this and we have to make do with media commentary, but I strongly object to the statement of the fodder on google news as an ultimate high quality source. --Gmaxwell (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

108.6 Is fundamentally wrong in his statement about goint short (please see my comment below). So your statement that 'people can currently make money by manipulating the bitcoin exchange rates in either direction' for the moment doesn't hold. Before commenting on your 'being insulted' by 187.143, I'd very much like to see you explain why 'people can currently make money by manipulating the bitcoin exchange rates in either direction'. Without any reference to 'going short', as it was obvious that this was not possible at the time you wrote this and 108.6 had not made his post about it yet when 187.143 'attacked' you. (OldCar (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC))

" I think it is highly relevant that the exchanges for bitcoin have no proper method for shorting them." - why is this relevant? cash markets are difficult to short because you need to find actual lenders of bitcoins, and given the volatility, the margin would need to be 10-1 and the interest rate to pay to borrow bitcoins would be astronomical. Also, if you are "long" USD then you are "short" bit coins and visa-vera. Furthermore, "shorts" in a market are the only natural buyers, so the assertion that not having shorts is somehow keeping prices high, is not correct. On a side note, I have been actively shorting Bitcoins, i do this by borrowing from "#bitcoin-otc" members. "#bitcoin-otc" is an over the counter exchange in IRC chat. Once a futures exchange is started, shorting will be common as each futures contract has a long and a short. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.29.190 (talk) 05:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Being 'long' in USD is nowhere near of going 'short' in bitcoins. Your side note doesn't contradict 38.106's statement either. Also 'the assertion that not having shorts is somehow keeping prices high' has not been made (by 38.106). It is a relevant statement, as it shows the motive of people adding criticism cannot be: go short -> add criticism -> close. So it doesn't really 'go both ways', as Robert Horning suggests. (OldCar (talk) 09:47, 17 June 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)

I cant find anything about EFF bitcoin donations at the EFF link provided (https://www.eff.org/helpout#bitcoin). This is notable since the article mentions EFF granting legitimacy to the project by accepting Bitcoin donations. I didnt remove the link though since I dont know why the bitcoin donations have been removed. Gnurkel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC).

The bitcoin option does appear to have been removed recently. It's still visible in this Google cache copy. I'll remove it from the article until evidence can be produced that they do in fact still accept them.--Eloquence* 06:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It should not have been added without a reliable source. [4][5][6] The amount of unpublished material on this article amounts to undue weight being given to this, admittedly cool, technology. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 20:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

EFF accepted BitCoin donations, but was removed because of legality concerns. I'm gonna add a section about it. Gnurkel (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC).

Historic time-line

What are the sources for this section? Do we have a reliable independent source that establishes this timeline and the relationship between the various elements? --Nuujinn (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Recent Media Attention

It would be nice if this article could mention the recent media, as well as gov. attention that BTC has been getting... particularity the various Senators trying to "crack down" on illegal sales through Bitcoin. Kevinslemons (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Out of curiosity.... do you have some sources for this kind of government attention? An official press release from some senator's office or a news story from even a local media outlet would be an excellent addition to this article, even if it is negative reactions to Bitcoins in this manner. --Robert Horning (talk) 11:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Bubble? Ponzi scheme?

Here's the price graph for the last 90 days.[7]. That just screams "Ponzi scheme". The Wall Street Journal raised that question on June 2. [8] --John Nagle (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Bitcoin does not pay interest on deposits and therefore does not meet the definition of a Ponzi scheme. 76.169.229.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC).

First of all: We need to add that wall street journal article as a reference. It solves the problem of only being able to cite forum posts about these allegations. Secondly, bitcoins DO pay an interest on your deposit. The price graph clearly show that the value of your deposit would have increased over time just like for a succesfull speculation in stocks, which ponzi schemes may camouflage as. It has been argued (in forum posts who's links we repeatdly add and remove ;-) that this is a development engineered into bitcoins because it follows from the diminishing supply of new bitcoins over time. In effect economic deflation. EverGreg (talk) 12:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Could someone just provide a standard exposition, in English, on what it is and how it actually works?

I've been looking into this for about an hour and normally that would be enough to understand the rudiments of how it works. This is supposed to turn into a widespread medium of exchange, right? That would suggest that you don't need an engineering Ph.D. to use it. However, the language with which the Bitcoin community defines and introduces the subject is impenetrable. There is a lot of talk about how it can't inflate, can't be controlled centrally, or can't be traced, but next to nothing about what it is. That is also true of this article. I'm certain that it's not just me being dense. Besides, even dense people should be able to understand this.

Fifth graders -- third graders! -- usually have no trouble understanding the rules of money as a medium of exchange ("how it works," if not where it comes from and what makes it money). That would seem to be necessary in any scheme that purports to also be money.

Therefore I urge prospective authors of this article to think like someone who has no idea about Bitcoin, get out some simple metaphors and primer language, and answer simple questions for the uninformed:

What is it? How is it money? Would it be correct to call it an electronic community currency? If so, how does it work without a central log of who owns a given "coin" in real time? How can I just open up unlimited numbers of accounts ("wallets," if I've understood it)? Does news of a bitcoin's transfer somehow travel through the full network, so that the spender can't use it again? Does the file representing a coin somehow get erased when I spend it? Since it's a file, why can't that be stored in multiple locations, like any other digital information? What is the issuing authority? If the answer is none, then how does that work? Is there a program running somewhere by some algorithm that just issues Bitcoins on a schedule? Who gets those? How can it be "mined"? What is this "puzzle" you solve while "mining" and what makes that a legitimate means of creating a currency? Who are these people who will exchange Bitcoins for other currencies. How is one supposed to know that what they're giving their dollars/euros for is a "real" Bitcoin? The article fails to answer most of these mostly-simple practical questions.

Thanks in advance to anyone who can communicate it in English.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.229.14 (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

To better understand how Bitcoin works, you need to know a bit about cryptography. I'll try to answer your questions without going into too much detail.

"What is it? How is it money?" The word "Bitcoin" means many things. The current consensus is that "Bitcoin" refers to the software and network which arises from using it, and "bitcoin" for the monetary units themselves. It's money because it's verifiable, divisible, and fungible. Unlike almost all other money, however, it's not fiat (decreed by some authority), but rather completely voluntary. In that sense you could correctly call it a community currency.

"How does it work without a central log?" That takes some detail to go into; I'll describe it later.

"How can I just open up unlimited accounts?" An account is just a public/private-key pair, and you can generate as many of those to you heart's content, and don't have to announce it to the network until you want to send or receive money with them.

"Does news of a bitcoin's transfer somehow travel through the full network?" Yes.

"Since it's a file, why can't that be stored in multiple locations." It can, but a wallet is not the bitcoins themselves, but rather the keys that let you reassign bitcoins to other people. Copying the wallet is good for backups, and in fact is highly recommended.

"What is the issuing authority?" None, really. Bitcoins are issued by the mining process.

"Is there a program running somewhere...that just issues bitcoins on a schedule?" Sort of. It's not a single, central program, but rather the result of the distributed mining process. More on that later.

"Who gets those?" Whoever is lucky enough to find the solution to a hard mathematical problem first.

"How can it be 'mined'? What is the puzzle you solve...?" Miners try to create a block (a set of transactions) whose cryptographic hash sum begins with a certain number of zeroes. Cryptographic hash functions have the property that the output is essentially random, so miners just run the hash function while increasing a "nonce" value each iteration, until they find a nonce that makes the hash sum meet the criterion. Once found, they announce it to the network, each node of which verifies that the new block is valid. If a node tries to submit an invalid block (such as one without the required number of zeroes, or which has an invalid transaction,) the rest of the network will reject it. Another important aspect is something called "difficulty." Basically, as more computational power enters the network, it self-adjusts so that even more zeroes are required for future blocks' hash sums, so that on average somewhere in the network someone will find a solution every ten minutes. Whoever finds the solution is rewarded by allowing them to have a special transaction at the beginning of the block in which 50 bitcoins are sent from nowhere into an account; this is how all bitcoins have and will be issued. Miners also get optional transaction fees that users can include to increase the priority of their transactions. Further, the reward is set to halve every four years, i.e. 25, 12.5, 6.25, etc. (If someone tries to mine a block with a higher-than-allowed reward, the rest of the network will reject it.)

"Who are these people on the exchange/how you can be sure you have a 'real' bitcoin?" The community is mostly geeks/nerds/techies/etc., though that's beginning to expand now. You can be sure you have "real" bitcoins because the client keeps the record of all transactions, and won't allow any that are invalid/impossible.

If you want me to go into more detail about how it works, I'd be happy to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.255.132.66 (talk) 04:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have the same first question as him. What is it? How is it currency? The article and your explanation didn't help. Is it just an arbitrary token of nothing with no value? If that's the case, then how/why would someone give you money for it? Just because they feel like it? I don't get it. Someone who understands what an ordinary person's knowledge is like needs to take a crack at this article. Xezlec (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. My two cents: It sounds like a self-generating currency (?). What does that mean (bitcoins just accumulate as a program chugs away?), and from where does a bitcoin derive any actual value. Basic points imo that need to be clearly dealt with right at the start, before we get into cryptography and anything else. I'm an adult of high intelligence (*cough*) but I'm not reading into all of that. Harshmustard (talk) 04:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The basics of the crypto part are explained in the short and sweet Hashcash article: You spend some time to solve a puzzle. Checking your result is much faster than finding it, all cryptographic hash functions have this feature. For BitCoins the puzzles get harder over time, and the total number of puzzles is limited. –89.204.153.161 (talk) 10:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's difficult to understand the mechanics of Bitcoin. The problem is that it 'first' requires you to understand the basics of public-key crypto, which, by itself, is hard for the average person (certainly third graders!). And unfortunately, it's hard for people to learn public-key crypto from Wikipedia as well, since the articles thereon are highly technical. A blogger I read recetnly posted a link to this post, which tries to fill in that gap. It doesn't completely explain bitcoin, but it gives a layperson level intro to how the crypto works, leaving off some of the more complicated details. MrVoluntarist (talk) 16:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. I think 207.38 meant to say: update the article. Think this can leave the discussion page. (OldCar (talk) 17:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC))

I think everyone can agree on the fact that this is a geeky hype created by geeks for geeks, with no relevance for the real world. This clearly shows in the fact that some very basic and decisive questions about it have now been raised here three times, and every time, a cryptic, technical, and evasive answer has been supplied. If something is so complicated and incomprehensible that the most basic questions about it can't be answered by its advocates, then it's meaningless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.196.68 (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I just came here to post this exact same request. Knowing nothing about Bitcoin, I came here to find out what it is useful for and why it might interest me. This entire article talks about the mechanics of how it functions and why it may or may not be foolproof or secure or whatever. I might be interested in how it works after I understand what it does.

Removal of citations

In several revisions (e.g. [9]) perfectly reasonable citations to the official Bitcoin project documentation have been removed and replaced with citation needed notice. Please note that the bitcoin software is an open source project and that the formal documentation by its developers is often placed on the project's website, wiki, and forum and aren't inappropriate references for simple factual pieces of information.

I am more concerned, however, by the removal of citations related to bitcoin-promotional and bitcoin-deregatory comments. With citation these comments are simple statements of fact which we can reference and which readers can assess the validity of the statements. Without the citation these comments are a violation of NPOV. If the source was inappropriate for whatever reason, it is inappropriate to simply remove the citation, instead, remove the entire comment. --Gmaxwell (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If it helps you can use John Levine's blog entry as a reference in a future "criticism" section (like me he is certainly aware of the Hashcash roots in the BitCoins scheme): http://jl.ly/Money/bitcoin.html –89.204.153.161 (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Do be aware of WP:RS, esp. WP:SPS. Wikis and fora are not generally considered reliable. The project's web site is only reliable for non-contraversial claims about the bitcoin itself, and not for statements about how widely used bitcoins are, or how safe they are, or where they can be used. For those kinds of statements we need reliable secondary sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

But isn't that just what the template is good for? To give the reader a warning that the content is not 'proven factual'? And at the same time giving the writer the opportunity to fix things? (OldCar (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC))

I am proposing the removal of citation of 'Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System' and replace it by . Although it might have been referenced a lot (by the media), the current citation qualifies as WP:SPS. I won't immediately remove it, as it is so prominently in the article, but await some comments. (OldCar (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC))

I think that is a bit excessive. – Kaihsu (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Kaihsu. It is the founding paper of bitcoin, which makes it extremely relevant. That doesn't mean it should be blindly accepted, but, for example, when there is reasonable doubt about some contents of the paper, it can be tagged with and at the same time leave the citation. The article text can also be written in a way as to cast doubt in the validity of citations, when necessary. I really don't see the point of removing the link. Not to mention is does not seem to violate Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources (except maybe n. 5 "the article is not based primarily on such sources.", but that is usually only relevant when there is a risk of deletion). -David N.

I tend to agree about that one source, but I cannot help but note that many of the references in the article are simply not what policy requires as reliable sources. OldCar, the CN template is not a warning to readers, but rather an aid to editors to identify which statements appear to be inadequately sourced. If we doubt the accuracy of a statement, we use {{Dubious}} or {{fact}}, see template:cn for usages. You might also peruse Template_talk:Citation_needed/Archive_10#Wording_changes, as that was a discussion about it's usage, and you can get a good feel for how various editors approach use of CN. Now, the topic is getting coverage in mainstream press, so we should begin to migrate to those sources. I recognize that FOSS project can be a challenge to source properly, but we should not give in to the urge to document every little thing about Bitcoin--we're an encyclopedia, and not a substitute for the software's documentation. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed silver chart

That image has no place whatsoever in an article about bitcoins. It is completely irrelevant to bitcoin. It was obviously added by someone who doesn't like the labelling of the bitcoin bubble as a "bubble" and wants to say "see, other commodities rise and fall in price too!" Three problems: (1) Wikipedia is not a soapbox: you can't use this article to say "bitcoins r gud and u r dum". (2) The silver chart didn't have the same axes or scaling as the buttcoin one, so it's not a valid comparison. (3) The whole article is about bitcoin as a "currency", so why compare it to a commodity? Oh that's right, because bitcoin zealots pick and choose "currency" or "commodity" depending on which one casts bitcoin in a more favourable light. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 09:32, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I fully agree with the silver removal, without a reliable search the similarity is original research— yes, the lines were both squiggly but without careful analysis that similarity might just be superficial. I had attempted to remove it before but managed to revert myself by editing in the tab. I don't agree with your (3) though— by bulk most of the article is about bitcoin as a technology— which is as it should be because most of the monetary crap is pure speculation and hard to describe factually or neutrally. Fwiw, the interchangeable use of currency and commodity is well supported by our own currency article, but I think the convention is fairly strong that currency also means official and that commodity is more technically correct though I'm not sure how it should be handled in the article because the relevant sources go both ways. --Gmaxwell (talk) 09:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Making extensive use of today's market figures

The article had some over-reliance on up-to-the-minute market figures that I removed. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a Bloomberg Business News wire service. It's absurd that, here I was reading an encyclopedia article, and I was being exposed to facts, figures, and charts that were generated earlier in that same day, but that are already substantially wrong. --Cyde Weys 03:12, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

There are articles like "First Bitcoin Depression Hits"[10], so sources are starting to appear. The charts are showing a classic speculative bubble pattern - run-up for no external reason, followed by a crash. During June 2011, the price started around 10, ran up to around 30, dropped to around 11 yesterday, and today is showing big intra-day volatility. It's too soon to say how this will unwind. Let's revisit this in a week. --John Nagle (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

NPR now has a story: "Bitcoin goes haywire".[11]. Huge volatility today. The different Bitcoin to USD exchanges are showing 25% differences between them, and the Bitcoin-OTC market has far lower prices than the exchanges. By next week, we'll need a paragraph on this. --John Nagle (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Next week will be interesting. We just had a double top.[12]. Give the major media a week to catch up and we'll have some good sources. --John Nagle (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

So Bitcoin is basically World of Warcraft without the graphics and gameplay?

In WOW you grind mobs to get gold which you can trade for dollars. In Bitcoin MMO you grind hashes to get bitcoins which you can trade for dollars.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this. It looks like bitcoins are basically WOW gold except they can't be used to buy computer hats and swords for your avatar. Is this correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.227.254.193 (talk) 06:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

If you want a simplified answer to your question, I'd suggest using the Bitcoin forums for a response. How does this question relate to helping write or create this article? --Robert Horning (talk) 14:06, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

It would probably help if the forums were up, but I digress. 68.227.254.193's lack of understanding speaks to the overcomplexity of this article. It's a cry for help. I've intended to do some pruning and consolidating for a little while now. I'll get to it eventually, unless someone beats me. KLP (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's an article in The Atlantic which might help.[13]. --John Nagle (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Theft/Fraud

There's a story here about $500k worth of BTC being stolen, I won't add it in as it's very possibly a troll but if there's any more reliable coverage of this angle it should definitely go in the concerns section. -- Yablochko (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Aha, I now see there was a section on it and it has been removed. I would advocate reinstating it. -- Yablochko (talk) 22:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

To reinstate it would need reliable sourcing. The removal was referenced to the forum post you show, that is fundamentally an unreliable source. The other source was a blog, where the author isn't a recognised expert on the subject and was full of weasel words about as to if it's true or not and as to if it's true or not the "stolen coins" were passed on. It to fails to meet the required standards for sourcing. It'd probably also fail WP:NOTNEWS --82.7.44.178 (talk) 18:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

External links

There is a dispute over 2 links which have been added and removed to the External links section. One of them is to a message board with a grand total of 147 messages. The other is to a message board with a grand total of 20 messages. (In comparison, the official message board for bitcoin has 200,000 or so messages) There is no reason to add these low quality links, so I've removed them. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 09:32, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Message boards with even one message can be of more value than message boards crowded with people that are all parrotting each other. The mentioned board is censored, so there's all the reason for other boards to be mentioned. I'd hoped you would have first discussed before removing. Added again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OldCar (talk • contribs) 11:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with removing most message board links. There's now enough actual press coverage from reliable sources that we don't need them. --John Nagle (talk) 15:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Most message boards will fail WP:ELNO, the question isn't about "There's now enough actual press coverage from reliable sources..." if they aren't up to scratch they should never have been included in the first place. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 18:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Whether you personally like the official message board or not is irrelevant. Your comments about the board being censored and people parroting each other suggest that you have some axe to grind against the board, so probably you should not be involved in this issue. We don't want Wikipedia articles' external links sections filled with low quality links because of our editors personal issues. As everyone who has commented on this but you sees no value in these links, I've removed them again. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 04:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

That the 'bitcoin.org' board is cencored is just a fact. The remark of people parroting each other was meant as a general remark, not specific to that board. (Censoring makes parrotting more likely I think.) I hope we don't have to start accusing each other of 'personal grudges' here in order to win a discussion. However, I'll not revert the change again, but wait and see if there's more support. (OldCar (talk) 08:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC))

Another Concern: Malware

There are already some websites/blogs abusing their visitors for mining with Flash- or Java-based CPU-miners.

For example this one, http://radoff.com/blog/about/, embeds a java applet (by loading a javascript from http://www.bitcoinplus.com/js/miner.js) which generates 100% CPU load on every core of the visitor's machine. 92.76.152.192 (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted, I think they call it "covert mining". I will search some sources.--SF007 (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

taxing bitcoins

I wonder if anyone has discussed about how to tax the bitcoin economy? If so, we can add it to this article. Similar discussions has taken place about LETS. – Kaihsu (talk) 19:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

In most articles about bitcoin, the only thing writers mention is something along the lines of "Bitcoin is hard or impossible to tax". But since it is undergoing massive media coverage, it probably is just a matter of time until the tax issue is properly discussed... In this register.co.uk article it says "New Scientist recently noted (login required) the likelihood that tax agencies will want to get a handle on it, quoting Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs as saying that turning Bitcoins into currency could make transactions taxable." (which is interesting... but the juicy part is behind a paywall...) and this bit: "If traced by the Australian Tax Office, Bitcoins would probably get the same treatment as “barter” exchanges, with tax assessed on the value of traded goods or services." ---- There is also this one at intltaxcounselors.com (I have no idea how reliable that is) which basically just says "So, back to my question are they taxable income? Only if they are property which is transferable into U.S. dollars. Time will tell." Apart from that I have not yet found anything... But certainly this is an interesting and relevant topic to be included in the article. --SF007 (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Legality section

I've removed a section entitle legality [14]

This is mostly unsupported by the sources, the parts which are are not about legality of bitcoin.

e.g.

• article said : "US Senators have issued talks ... on possible regulation regarding BitCoin"

source says : two use senators have written to JD and DEA about closing down a recipient of bitcoin selling drugs.

The two of course are completely different.

• article said : "further underlining the tenuous legality of Bitcoin and its supporters."

sources say : nothing

That's just editorialising, failing WP:NOR and WP:NPOV

• article said : "...could be considered aiding and abetting a fugitive..."

sources say : nothing at all about legal status of those making donations, merely that donations have been made...

Complete WP:OR - not what the sources say but the legal inference from a wikipedia editor.

--82.7.44.178 (talk) 07:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• For the first part of the above I note the section Bitcoin#Conversion_to_and_from_real_currency contains a better link about that part of the subject so that maybe verifiable, as to if it warrants duplicate coverage in both sections is a different question. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 08:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest in content choices

Seems suspiciously convenient that nobody involved with this article had a problem with it containing information about Bitcoins' value in USD until a couple of days after that value plummeted, and then all of a sudden it became inappropriate for the article to contain that information. Seems obvious that there's some people with money invested in the currency manipulating the article in their own interest. 58.84.237.200 (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

We assume good faith here, and the uptick in press coverage attracts attention. Given the variability in value, we should confine our statements to general ones (and, of course, statements must be reliably sourced.) --Nuujinn (talk) 11:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a good place for short-term recent charts, since they don't get updated. Price of petroleum has had a similar problem. I've put financial charts into other articles, like Peak oil, but on the scale of years, not days. Once we have an identified permanent event, that may be worth showing on a static chart. Give the financial press about a week to catch up and provide more coverage of the crash. We may have a "Bitcoin bubble and crash of 2011" section at some point. --John Nagle (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)