Talk:Bitcoin

Merged articles

Potential sources

Bitcoin is Memory, Kenyon College

Regulating Digital Currencies: Bringing Bitcoin within the Reach of the IMF, University of Chicago

--KyleLandas (talk) 08:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

in the 'who is the creator' section....it does not once meantion the person most suspected of being Satoshi! (Max Keiser for anyone who doesn't know) No need to list evidence here, since there is too much of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.137.54.65 (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Here core bitcoin developer Jeff Garzik sheds some light on Satoshi Nakamoto's code and what work his team have been doing on the project. Thought this might be of interest under Satoshi Nakamoto part? "But in spite of being an excellent architect and designer, Satoshi’s coding practices were unconventional, says Garzik, adding that the original version of Bitcoin was Windows only, not very portable, and “a jumble of source code” with several half-finished projects." Bitkoof (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Potential For Bitcoin's Use in Fraud and Collusion By Corrupt and Opaque Governments Immense

So lets say 1 million companies develop a similar electronic currency along Bitcoin principles. I'd trust a PepsiCoin or NestleCOin or even (though the company is hateful GMO peddling) a MonsantoCoin more than this Bitcoin. What solid assets does BitCoin have? Nothing? Nothing to BURN DOWN if they disappear suddenly and the governments falseflag a 'too big to fail'? The collusive governemnts have already hammered the 99%ters with banks once, now they wil use the non-material, 'no solid asset to riot at' BitCoin. The governments and banks are just itching for fightback against the 99% after the bank riots worldwide.

No place better to hide criminals in than the internet eh? Well, the Banks might as well do a HSBC-Coin or BOA-Coin instead, I can't believe any honest government would want to accept a non-existent currency in the electronic world at all. Ridiculous. The next we know, they'll be digitising people and then pull a depopulation agenda while the 1% will doubtless get to keep their flesh and blood bodies with plenty of cadavers for use for replacement parts as well.

If we are not careful after electronic currency, humanity will be at 'Welcome to the year 9595' . . . the picture of any BitCoins worldwide on the net by the way are misleading, there will be no actual physical coins and these will not be of gold. The picture is very dangerous and much like Tungsten being used as Gold because that looks like gold. The physical world has a material parallel that does not lie, everything else is a lie, especially things in the electronic world. Give me government backed Precious Metals or even better REAL GOODS and REAL SERVICES anyday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.106.148.63 (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The Dollar isn't backed by anything physical either. And who is the "they" you are afraid will disappear? Bitcoin is open source and decentralized; it is quite hard to kill an idea. And Bitcoin can't be faked, meanwhile people get tricked into buying fake physical things all the time. --TiagoTiago (talk) 10:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Capitalized or not?

Is it Bitcoin or bitcoin? The article switches at random between upper and lower case - what is the consensus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.120.189 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if the article accurately reflects it, but there are two ways in which this word is used requiring different capitalizations. There is a proper noun Bitcoin, essentially the protocol and there are the units of currency/whatever, a singleton of which is called a bitcoin. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This is correct, example usage: "I installed Bitcoin software, downloaded the Bitcoin blockchain, and received 1 bitcoin after giving my Bitcoin address to my employer. I received 0.03 bitcoins as a tip." -mononymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.14.242 (talk) 13:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Article Quality

Please can someone re-write this article for the general Wikipedia reader.

It gets my vote as the most incomprehensible Wikipedia article to date.

E.g. - is Bitcoin 'real'; why can't it easily be 'forged', what's the basis of its value — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.106.181 (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The reason it can't be forged is very technical. The answer "because cryptography" is well within the scope of the article. The other two questions are meaningless without definitions/context, likely making them unsuitable questions for the article. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It is possible there is enough source material to split this into two articles: one covering the general aspects, utility, and economy; one covering the invention and technical aspects. DPRoberts534 (talk) 04:50, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

"There is also growing awareness of their usage in black market transactions, frustrating bitcoin's promoters." also the reference to Iran usage to circumvent sanctions Seem more like propaganda by leaving out other related information and implying a nefarious nature. Similar statements do not exist on the US Dollar page. Which is used in larger numbers in criminal activity than any other currency.

1. black markets exist in every currency.

2. Is the silk road reference still needed, is it still active? multiple alternative avenues exist in bitcoin to trade illicit drugs not just silk road.

3. sanctions are imposed by an external country's based on political means. The morality of Iran and american-Iranian relations should not be disputed on this page.

Is this encyclopedic information or just something to discredit bitcoin? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.172.27.2 (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request of 2013-10-17

Section Reception - Last bullet: Link to Executive Outcomes is stale and needs to be updated. Ektoric (talk) 18:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)j

Observation. It looks like the intended arms dealer is not the subject of a Wikipedia article and the Wikilink should be removed rather than updated. Plus, the content of those two sentences does not even appear to be relevant to the section it's in, "Reception." Much reorganization is needed. — RCraig09 (talk) 21:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done. The article does exist, but was linked to under an incorrect article title. I've corrected this and, as the company no longer exists, have changed to past tense. Thanks, Ektoric. --Stfg (talk) 09:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 October 2013

In August 2013 Germany's Finance Ministry subsumed Bitcoins under the term

should be

In August 2013, Germany's Finance Ministry subsumed Bitcoins under the term

comma missing after 2013 for proper grammar. 174.6.129.26 (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

 Not done: this is a common misconception. There is no requirement for a comma there unless the absence of one leads to a garden-path sentence. For example, "In August 2013 men went to market" would be ambiguous (August 2013 or 2013 men?) but here that problem does not exist. It's better style to avoid unnecessary commas. --Stfg (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on Reddit about this article

Thought some people here might be interested in this current discussion on Reddit about this article: Targaryen^{speak or forever remain silent} 15:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1opdua/wikipedia_bitcoins_have_been_associated_with/

I re-included a mention of criminal activities in the lede. There is much evidence for the notion that it is widely considered that Bitcoins are closely associated with activities such as money laundering. Fleetham (talk) 19:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• CNN Money calls Bitcoins a "shady online currency."
• Wired states that "The FBI sees the anonymous Bitcoin payment network as an alarming haven for money laundering..."
• The Financial Times states "Citing rules designed to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing, the US federal government has seized bank accounts belonging to... Bitcoin exchange[s]."
• The US Senate and New York State are investigating Bitcoins

A person in charge of the New York State regulator handling one of the two investigations stated that Bitcoins constitute "a virtual Wild West for... criminals."

• The Washington Post states that there is a "stigma" tying Bitcoins to illicit activities.
• CNN Money says that the U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission has "warn[ed] of scams involving virtual currencies"
• IEEE Spectrum reports on a "Bitcoin ATM [that] Makes Money Laundering Easy," and in the article the entrepreneurs involved in the venture freely admit that their machine aids money laundering saying, "it's basically like a money laundering person's dream."

________________________________________________________________________ Fleetham,

I had to warm up my trusty Wikipedia account to comment on this discussion here. I trust you are making this edit in good faith as you are a long time Wikipedia contributor, however I happen to agree with the folks on the Bitcoin sub Reddit. I could make the points they have been making, but since you have already read them, I'll save my breath and not reassert them all here again.

For the sake of consistency and neutrality though, I would point out that on the Wikipedia page on "Contaminated Currency" has many sources showing that that U.S. Dollars are widely used for and associated with "criminal activity" including drugs and money laundering. Text from article. Links below.

"In 1994, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that in Los Angeles, out of every four banknotes, on average more than three are tainted by cocaine or another illicit drug". See long list of "Drug Money" references below. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contaminated_currency

However when I go to the Wikipedia article for the U.S. Dollar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Dollar

I'm greeted by the below text that says nothing about the U.S. Dollar being used for drug money or criminal activity. I've been a Wikipedia contributor for a while and I think we ought to keep our standards consistent and neutral when ever possible. We can either change all the currency articles to include a mention of their role in criminal activity in the lead paragraph or we can remove the mention of "criminal activity" from the Bitcoin article in order to be neutral.

"The United States dollar (sign: $; code: USD; also abbreviated US$), is referred to as the U.S. dollar or American dollar. It is the official currency of the United States and its overseas territories. It is divided into 100 smaller units called cents.

The U.S. dollar is the fiat currency most used in international transactions and is one of the world's most dominant reserve currencies.[15] Several countries use it as their official currency, and in many others it is the de facto currency.[16] It is also used as the sole currency in two British Overseas Territories: The British Virgin Islands and the Turks and Caicos islands."

I'm not suggesting you aren't correct. There has indeed been much media attention and speculation about the use of Bitcoin in association with "criminal activity", however I don't believe it deserves to be on the lead paragraph, just as I don't believe a neutral description of the U.S. Dollar should focus on that fact (the U.S. Dollar Article doesn't even have a section about "Criminal Activity").

Can we compromise here and add language to the existing "Criminal Activities" Section of the Bitcoin article?

Thanks for your contributions to this this article, I hope we can figure this out together.

OrangeCorner (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

^ "Drug Money". Snopes. Retrieved 2008-07-23. Jump up ^ Abrahamson, Alan (13 November 1994). "Prevalence of Drug-Tainted Money Voids Case Law: Court cites findings that more than 75% of currency in L.A. bears traces of cocaine or other illegal substances". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2008-07-23. Jump up ^ Price, Debbie M. (6 May 1990). "Use of Drug-Sniffing Dogs Challenged;ACLU Backs Complaint by Men Whose Pocket Cash Was Seized". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2008-07-23. Jump up ^ Jenkins AJ (1 October 2001). "Drug contamination of US paper currency". Forensic Science Int. Retrieved 2008-07-26. Jump up ^ Ritter, Jim (26 March 1997). "4 out of 5 dollar bills show traces of cocaine". Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved 2008-07-23. Jump up ^ Sones, Bill; Rich Sones (19 October 1997). "Most U.S. bills contaminated with traces of cocaine". Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved 2008-07-23. Jump up ^ Siegal, Ronald (1989-06-01) [1991]. Intoxication: life in pursuit of artificial paradise. BD Dutton. ISBN 0-525-24764-5. Jump up ^ Wagner, Michael (16 November 1994). "Why There's Cocaine on Your Money". Sacramento Bee. Retrieved 2008-07-23. Jump up ^ "Cocaine Contamination of United States Paper Currency". The Journal of Analytical Toxicology 20: 213–216. July/August 1996. ^ Jump up to: a b Vinzant, Carol X. "The Secret Life of the Dollar". Money.AOL. Jump up ^ Egelko, Bob (25). "Supreme Court expands police search powers: Drug-sniffing dogs now have access to any car stopped". San Francisco Chronicle (online: SFGate). ^ Jump up to: a b c d e Tony Thompson (10 November 2002). "£15m of notes tainted by drugs are destroyed". The Observer. Retrieved 2008-07-27. ^ Jump up to: a b "UK Banknotes tainted with cocaine". BBC News. 4 October 1999. Retrieved 2008-07-26. Jump up ^ Richard Sleeman, I. Fletcher A Burton, James F. Carter, David J. Robertsb (4 November 1998). "Rapid screening of banknotes for the presence of controlled substances by thermal desorption atmospheric pressure chemical ionisation tandem mass spectrometry" (PDF). The Analyst. Retrieved 2008-07-26. Jump up ^ Rebecca Morelle (13 September 2007). "Drug taint links cash to crime". BBC News. Retrieved 2008-07-26. ^ Jump up to: a b c Laureen Veevers (1 October 2006). "'Shared banknote' health warning to cocaine users". The Observer. Retrieved 2008-07-26. Jump up ^ "Hepatitis C Virus Infection in Cocaine Users: A Silent Epidemic". Healthlink MCW. 9 October 2001. Retrieved 2008-07-26. Jump up ^ NIH (24–26 March 1997). "5. What Recommendations Can Be Made to Patients to Prevent Transmission of Hepatitis C?". NIH. Retrieved 2008-07-26. Jump up ^ "Who Is at Risk for Hepatitis C?". WebMd. 9. Retrieved 2008-07-26. Jump up ^ Andrea Mann, ed. by Helen Harris, Mary Ramsay (December 2006). "'Hepatitis C in England: The Health Protection Agency Annual Report 2006". Health Protection Agency Centre for Infections. Retrieved 2008-07-26. Jump up ^ Rebecca Morelle (10 January 2007). "Cocaine contaminates Irish euros". BBC News. Retrieved 2008-07-26. Jump up ^ "Cocaine traces on Spanish euros". BBC News. 25 December 2007. Retrieved 2008-07-26. Jump up ^ "German euros full of cocaine". BBC News. 25 June 2003. Retrieved 2008-07-26. Jump up ^ "Brittle euro notes baffle Germans". BBC News. 2 November 2006. Retrieved 2008-07-26. Jump up ^ "Drug use 'behind crumbling euros". BBC News. 13 November 2006. Retrieved 2008-07-26. Jump up ^ "'Money Magic" (PDF). Retrieved 2008-07-26.[dead link]

This isn't a discussion about US currency. If you feel that the article on the US dollar is lacking in some way, I suggest you take your argument to that talk page. The fact of the matter is, many reliable sources have suggested a close link between this so-called "crypto-currency" and criminal activity. You may feel that Bitcoins should be free from such a stigma, but that doesn't mean that Bitcoins aren't stigmatized as such. Fleetham (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

You are correct, this isn't a discussion about "US currency", but it is a discussion about "a currency" which is why I bring up another currency as a comparison. If you prefer a "cyprto-currency" I'll use Litecoin's Wikipedia article as my comparison https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litecoin, again no reference criminal activity. OrangeCorner (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that normal fiat currencies do not have such a close association with money laundering as Bitcoins, and that no reliable sources routinely refer to the US dollar as being linked to criminal activity—unlike Bitcoins. Does CNN call the US dollar a "shady currency"? Does The Washington Post say that there is a "stigma" associated with transactions made using cash? Does the Federal government routinely seize assets of entities simply because they facilitate transactions using the US dollar? The answer is no. But all of the above has occurred with Bitcoins. If you want to make the argument that "Bitcoins = Fiat currency," then please do so. If you simply want to prevent a lede mention of the close association between this peculiar form of exchange and criminal activity, please stop. Fleetham (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't agree with your assertion that "normal fiat currencies do not have such a close association with money laundering". In fact the physical form of U.S. Dollars is THE defining image people think of in popular culture when discussing money laundering (as anyone who watches Breaking Bad can bear witness to): http://pandawhale.com/post/6017/breaking-bads-pile-of-cash OrangeCorner (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

And may I point out the title of the r/bitcoin thread immediately above the one which prompted your defense of Bitcoins here on Wikipedia: "The Race To Silk Road 2.0 – Eight Sites Battle It Out To Become The Internet’s Go-To Drug Site." Are you of the opinion that most other message boards for currencies also routinely discuss how you can purchase illicits with their currency of choice?Fleetham (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

In fact that is exactly what I would assert. Every time there is a big drug bust or cartel taken down the inevitable next discussion in traditional media and social media is who will replace them (no one is naive enough to think the bust in question will end of the drug trade). OrangeCorner (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

First, where's the proof for all of this alledged money laundering going on? Some remarks by a bunch of boneheads in the media who literally haven's looked into the subject matter for more than one our? In fact, their main source is almost certainly wikipedia! See how this works? Seriously, if you use bitcoin for money laundering you are either very very tech-savvy or an idiot, cash is much much better. I really can't imagine a lot of money laundering going on with bitcoin right now. Second, why feel the need to include alledged illicid uses, but not all the gifts to charity etc.? ( https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Donation-accepting_organizations_and_projects ) Again, because the media doesn't talk about it as much? Well they probably would if wikipedia tells them that's what it's used for! I'm sorry but all of this is horribly prejudiced and biased, and I really don't understand where all of this hate comes from. -Alpaca Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.208.136 (talk) 08:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

And there is now another Reddit thread about this article: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1ovzzl/wikipedia_bitcoin_page_intro_contains_subjective/ Targaryen^{speak or forever remain silent} 12:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Criminal activity mention in lede

There have been several editors who removed a lede mention of Bitcoin's links to criminal activity. I have reinstated this mention per WP:LEDE, which states "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Fleetham (talk) 04:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

____________ Fleetham,

I think part of why you are getting this reaction by other editors is because the articles and sources you cite have a fundamentally incorrect understanding of how the Bitcoin Protocol functions. These articles falsely assert that "Bitcoin is anonymous" and can "operate in the shadows" thus a safe haven for criminal activity. In fact Bitcoin is an open and transparent public ledger and a copy of all transactions that have ever taken place on the Bitcoin network are stored in the blockchain. This is absolutely fundamental to how Bitcoin functions. From a technical perspective this is the reason "double spend" attacks are impossible, and thus why Bitcoin is capable of functioning at all. If I assert false things, citing ill technically informed media sources, that does not in fact make them accurate. OrangeCorner (talk) 20:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of whatever technical stumbling blocks make Bitcoin's facilitation of criminal behavior less than ideal, it is clear that this currency is routinely used in a criminal context. Fleetham (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

"this currency is routinely used in criminal context". Again that's the problem with your assertion, the same could be said about every currency in the history of mankind. In fact I've seen the analysis of the percentage of Bitcoin that has been involved in "criminal activity" (3% to 5% depending on the estimate) which is lower than the estimates I've seen for the U.S. Dollar cash based economy (7% to 10%). I could re-look up the studies if you really want to contend that Bitcoin has a quantifiably higher usage in criminal activity than other currencies.OrangeCorner (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

While it may appear that Bitcoins and a normal fiat currency have comparable levels of use by criminals, a large percentage of Bitcoin transactions are speculative, according to VICE Motherboard: "The majority of bitcoin volume as it stands is mostly speculation. A large portion is also devoted to grey market gambling."

I appreciate your intellectual honesty in acknowledging that, "Bitcoins and a normal fiat currency have comparable levels of use by criminals". However I don't follow the connection you are trying to make to speculation. Currency speculation is a sizable part of the dollar economy also. "According to the Bank for International Settlements,[3] the preliminary global results from the 2013 Triennial Central Bank Survey of Foreign Exchange and OTC Derivatives Markets Activity show that trading in foreign exchange markets averaged $5.3 trillion PER DAY in April 2013." http://www.bis.org/press/p130905.htm As for gambling that is a legal activity in many of the world's jurisdictions and I'm not willing to lump it in with criminal activities.OrangeCorner (talk) 23:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The sole reference I could find that relates percentage of transaction volume that is for expressly criminal purposes is a source that states 6% of all Bitcoin transactions made during a one month period in 2013 were at a single online drugs market. The Guardian reports that such drugs markets and online gambling are the two most popular uses for Bitcoins. And the above VICE Motherboard quote shows that speculative buying takes up the majority of transactions. So, if you add gambling, add transactions at other online drugs markets, and remove speculation, that 6% figure grows. By how much? That's hard to say. As a Bloomberg Views columnist recently stated: "one of the major alleged uses of Bitcoin -- though, of course, one can never truly know -- is buying illicit drugs." Fleetham (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Also, see this quote from The Economist regarding drugs purchases and speculation: "Its primary commercial use is probably to buy drugs... This suggests that the new users are buying Bitcoin as an investment, not as a means of exchange. For any currency to thrive it needs users, not just speculators." Fleetham (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

If that is meant to show that Bitcoin isn't a "currency" because it has speculators I would point out a rising number of customers are using Bitcoin for normal everyday merchant transactions. As evidenced by BitPay recently passing 10,000 Bitcoin accepting merchants on its system alone. http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/16/bitpay-10000-merchants/

And here's another academic source that states the percentage of total Bitcoin transactions that occurred on a single online drugs market was in the range of 4.5 to 9%. Fleetham (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Ars Technica says that 1/2 of transaction volume can be attributed to a single online gambling site. Fleetham (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

No, speculation is not a "a sizable part of the dollar economy also" as you claim. No one holds US dollars for the sole purpose of selling them at a later date for a higher price. Anyway, unless you want to do anything other than make the defense that "because criminal activity occurs with US dollars, Bitcoins therefore have a squeaky clean reputation as the currency used by ethical folks for purchases of pizzas and whatnot," I'd prefer to end this conversation. If you have reliable sources to support your assertions, I would be happy to see them. Fleetham (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by your statement that "no one holds US Dollars for the sole purpose of selling them at a later date for a higher price." Of course they do. I just showed you the quote from the Forex market about the volume of Dollars being traded on a daily basis. Some of that is for commerce, some is for saving. Currencies trade in pairs, lets take the example of the Argentinean Peso and the U.S. Dollar. In fact so many people right now in Argentina want U.S. Dollars instead of their local currency, the Argentinean government has put capital and currency controls in place. http://www.news.com.au/money/money-matters/argentina-cash-controls-and-weak-peso-bring-bargains-headaches/story-e6frfmd9-1226665997190 OrangeCorner (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

And I just calculated the velocity of money for Bitcoins since the first of July. It's 3 vs. 6.589 for the US dollar in Q2 2013. Velocity of money gives you a rough measure of saving and spending activity: a higher number means more spending and a lower one, more saving. As the number for Bitcoins is lower than that for the US dollar, this supports the idea that a larger amount of Bitcoin transactions are speculative. It suggests that people aren't sending their Bitcoins as quickly as you would with normal currency, and one explanation for this is that the Bitcoins were purchased as an investment and nothing more. Fleetham (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Also see this quote from a SEC filing made by an investment vehicle that speculates on Bitcoins: "Currently, there is relatively small use of Bitcoins in the retail and commercial marketplace in comparison to relatively large use by speculators." Courtesy a WSJ article on the matter. Fleetham (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Interesting calculation on the velocity difference between USD and BTC. Though I'm not sure it supports the point you think it does. I expect that BTC will always have a slower velocity than USD (even when their are BTC accepting merchants on every street corner) because if the value of your money isn't being inflated away, rational actors have more of an incentive to "save" that money. And there is a difference between the professional speculator and those simply choosing to "save" more of there money, often by spending it more conservatively. OrangeCorner (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I think we have each established, 1. Crime happens using BTC, at roughly the same level as other currencies. 2. BTC is used for many things from savings, to paying merchants, and yes professional speculators, just as other currencies are.

I'm happy to end this discussion as well (though I think it has been informative). Lets get to brass tax. You made a good point at the beginning about "The lead should ... summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."

So is the specific language you use to describe Bitcoin in the lead a fair description of the "controversy"? "CNN has called Bitcoins a "shady online currency,"[20] and its links to criminal activities such as money laundering have prompted scrutiny from the FBI, US Senate, and the State of New York." I would propose a more technically accurate description.

"Concern about companies utilizing Bitcoins operating outside of compliance with money transmission standards such as "Anti Money Laundering (AML)" and "Know Your Customer(KYC)" have prompted reviews by state and federal agencies.OrangeCorner (talk) 04:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Again, I'm happy to discuss this with an individual who is "willing to do the leg work" and provide some reliable citations. Sorry to be rather critical, but all I'm getting from you seems to be Bitcoin fanboyism. Perhaps you would like to make good on your offer of providing sources that show the Bitcoin ratio of legitimate/illegal transactions is lower than that of US dollars. As you said earlier, "I could re-look up the studies if you really want to contend that Bitcoin has a quantifiably higher usage in criminal activity than other currencies." It certainly has a higher percentage of critical mentions from reliable new sources! Fleetham (talk) 05:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

"Critics have accused bitcoin of being a form of investment fraud known as a Ponzi scheme.[119][120]"

"Critics have accused bitcoin of being a form of investment fraud known as a Ponzi scheme.[119][120]"

The provided references do not support this assertion.

The first reference, 119, links to an article where that claim is not made. Only the paragraph header states "'Bitcoin, a digital currency variously dismissed as a Ponzi scheme or lauded as the greatest invention since the Internet'.". The article doesnt substantiate it, doesnt say who dismisses bitcoin as a Ponzi, and the fact that claim is contrasted with another extreme makes it clear to me its not to be taken literally. I dont think the other part of the sentence is used as reference in wikipedia to support the claim that Bitcoin is the greatest invention since the internet.

The second reference, 120, also doesnt support the claim. It does say "Bitcoin has also been criticized as having the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme.". The supporting evidence for that claim is linked in that sentence, and links to a blog of someone no one ever heard off, who has no economic credentials and who even doesnt make that claim. He only critizes the fact that early investors get rich from it, which is no different as early Google or Apple investors. I also question wether theregister, and the author of the article who is a webdesigner by trade, are valuable enough sources to make such assessments. --Puppet727272 (talk) 21:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This source asserts that some feel Bitcoins are a Ponzi scheme. Fleetham (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Thats not a direct source either. An article stating that "it has been called" without even saying by who or providing any source. If that is how low the bar is on wikipedia, then we should make the same statement on every stock and stock exchange because "some people" feel that the stock exchange is one giant ponzi. Unlike the bitcoin articles, I actually have a source for that too: http://www.econmatters.com/2013/02/the-stock-market-is-giant-ponzi-scheme.html Puppet727272 (talk) 09:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

While I agree with your analysis, both sources are reliable; unless you can find a source that explicitly goes in-depth on how Bitcoin is not a Ponzi scheme, the cited passage is valid. We're unable to argue with reliable sources as that would be original research. m.o.p 22:01, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Even if the sources were reliable, they do not state what is stated on the wikipedia page. Neither of these articles claim that bitcoin is a form of investment fraud. One source uses it as figurative speech, and even if you take it literally, only claims that some others (who?) dissmiss it as a ponzi. The other source states that it shares some "properties" with a pyramid scheme, but those very same properties also apply to shares in Google or Apple.

As for proving that its not a ponzi, thats not the issue here. If actual credible sources would make the claim that bitcoin is indeed an investement fraud known as a ponzi, I have no problems with that being on wikipedia, even if that claim by itself is incorrect. But these claims are not made in either of the two quoted sources. As for it not being a ponzi, a ponzi by definition promises investors high, but non existent profits. Bitcoin does no such thing, no profits are promised whatsoever. But if you want a source, how about this complaint by the SEC in the case against an actual ponzi (which was bitcoin denominated):

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/2013/comp-pr2013-132.pdf

They state: Bitcoin (“BTC”) is a virtual currency that may be traded on online exchanges for conventional currencies, including the U.S. dollar, or used to purchase goods and services online. BTC has no single administrator, or central authority or repository.

A virtual currency is not a Ponzi. But BTCST was. Puppet727272 (talk) 09:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Lede

It appears that many editors are happy to remove any critical mention of Bitcoins from the lede, and would prefer an article that suits their personal beliefs instead of one that reflects the views of reliable sources. I would appreciate it if such editors would cease destructive back-and-forth editing and discuss what they desire the article to look like. We can work together to create a page that is much better than the one we currently have, and I'm more than willing to help with improvements beyond the inclusion of criminal activities linked to Bitcoin. Fleetham (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Orbixx: I agree with you when you say, "all I want to see is neutrality when Bitcoin is written about" and think you're idea of an equal distribution of negative/positive comments is a good starting point for coming to an agreement. Fleetham (talk) 19:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You are removing the "positive bias" and leaving in the negative bias. That is not neutral. Mrcatzilla (talk) 19:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The only thing I find objectionable is the wording. When you say "explosive growth," it really sounds like a marketing brochure. And while you may also be able to make a claim along the lines of "Bitcoins acceptance by legitimate vendors increased by 10,000%," this is just as misleading. The only reason you have "explosive growth" is because no one accepted Bitcoins until recently. Bitcoin acceptance is growing off of a very low base, so the growth looks "explosive." No one would argue that 10,000 additional outlets accepting US dollars as payment would constitute "explosive growth" because so many already do. Fleetham (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

That is a valid complaint, and you can edit out the offending wording, but do not remove the sentence altogether, considering it is backed with valid sources. I could not find a better adjective than "explosive", so I invite you to find a replacement. Mrcatzilla (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and changed the wording. Let me know if that's acceptable... I would also like to add to the lede that the primary use of Bitcoins continues to be for online gambling. There are several reliable sources that have stated this, and it appears that 1/2 of total Bitcoin activity stems from online gambling. Fleetham (talk) 19:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You have to keep in mind that there is a difference between volume and number of transactions. Which of the above are "activity"? Online gambling is a lot of very small transactions while real use is a relatively smaller number of higher-value transactions. Also, the "sources" that state this are already outdated as they are from pre-April bubble period (January 2013 is decades ago in Bitcoin-time). Mrcatzilla (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think it's important to be able to get some understanding of how Bitcoins are actually used. You say that "gambling transactions are many but small in value" and that "your source is too old--the state of Bitcoins six months ago is nothing like today." Please forgive me for being a skeptic, but my impression is that if you malign Bitcoins in any way, some fanboy will pop up and say "oh no, it's actually nothing like that--take my word for it." Unless someone can come up with reliable sources that contradict the statement made by The Guardian in March, that Bitcoins are primarily used in gambling and drugs buying, I think that's important enough to be given space in the lede. What could be more central to Bitcoins besides the way in which people use Bitcoins? Fleetham (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not disputing that it is used in online gambling - it is, and the use of Bitcoin for gambling is rapidly expanding because the "normal" financial system does not like gambling very much, so people flock to something the powers that be can't control. But you really need to quit asserting that Bitcoin is "primarily used for drugs". According to the analysis of blockchain data by The Genesis Block (http://thegenesisblock.com/analysis-silk-roads-historical-impact-bitcoin/), between February 2011 and July 2013 Silk Road sales accounted for just 4% of transaction volume. In fact I am going to go ahead and add it to the "criminal use" section. Mrcatzilla (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's basically my point: the "normal" financial system doesn't like gambling, drugs purchases, or money laundering, and a natural consequence is the use of Bitcoins. What interests me is the extent to which Bitcoins are used in this way. You say 4% at Silk Road, but another, academic source say 4.5--9%. I think that this source should replace yours simply because it's of higher quality (as WP:RS states, "news reporting from less-established outlets is generally considered less reliable for statements of fact."). . Fleetham (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

What does it even mean to say a financial system "doesn't like" money laundering, etc.? A great many banks do not like to scrutinize their clients' activities too closely. If the government didn't require they enact anti-money-laundering controls, they'd do nothing. Certain major investment banks are in the news recently precisely for this reason. --C S (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The current state of the lede looks great to me, I also have no problem with switching out the aforementioned source for that linked academic paper either. Cheers guys Orbixx (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Mrcatzilla (talk) 01:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request(s) on October 22 2013

In the "Implications>>Privacy" section it includes: "Bitcoin transactions are seen as relatively anonymous and are the medium of exchange used in the online black market website Silk Road."

"Are" should be "were," considering the Silk Road has been brought down. This is misleading.

Additionally, in the "Criminal activities" section it claims: "roughly one half of all sales made using Bitcoins are bets placed at a single online gaming website."

"Sales" should be replaced by "transactions" (as the source article never even uses the word "sale" and that word doesn't make sense in the context). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.86.148 (talk) 05:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

 Done I also split the first sentence which appeared ungrammatical to me. That paragraph's style could be further improved. -84user (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 October 2013

• Virtual Mining aggregate bitcoin news

Pollydee (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2013 (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. --Stfg (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Lies in the intro paragraph of the article

I have taken it upon myself to remove a statement in the intro paragraph, which is not just 100% unsourced but also a flat out lie, claiming that Bitcoin would no longer offer any incentive for miners to protect the network after all mineable coins have been found.

Whoever wrote this: this fact about the Bitcoin network is well-known, so you must be a liar or malintentioned FUDster. Rudd-O (talk) 21:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the politeness, Mr. Rudd-O. I actually don't know much about Bitcoin, but it appears simply logical that if the system is incentivized by new coins, there will be no incentive when all minable coins are distributed. And did you just make that up about transaction fees? Fleetham (talk) 02:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

And please don't revert but discuss first. I have no objection to the idea that transaction fees are an alternative to new coins as an incentive to continue operation of Bitcoin's transaction system. However, I get the feeling that you're simply speculating, and it needs to be made clear that this is pure hypothesis if that is indeed the case. Please provide a citation or add a qualifier or something to the prose. I ask you: will transaction fees be a replacement and has this been "part of the plan" from the very beginning? :) Fleetham (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You should check out common myths before editing this article. Mrcatzilla (talk) 17:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Um, the last sentence of this part is definitely not true: "However, new Bitcoins are created at an ever-decreasing rate, and once this reaches zero, the number of Bitcoins will remain static. At this point a transaction fee will be levied to continue operation of the system". It needs a reword, especially as the citation http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Brito_BitcoinPrimer.pdf does not claim this. I suggest "At this point the sole reward for miners will be the transaction fees." Transaction fees have been collected in the past and being collected now, following a rather complicated decision tree, one can see this in the blockchain yourself (example), or from various sources, such as http://bitcoinfaq.com/ and http://bitcoinfees.com/. Some transactions qualify for free, others attract fees varying from 0.0001 BTC upwards. -84user (talk) 04:37, 23 October 2013 (UTC) Add: Pages 6, 7 and 13 of the Mercatus reference should be sufficient to source this edit (which would still need copyediting) - both the existence of fees and the gradual transition of incentive from coins plus fees to solely fees (albeit in the distant future). -84user (talk) 04:49, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, "...the operators of these computers are rewarded with transaction fees and newly minted Bitcoins." is both truthful and sufficient for the lead. Getting into the motivations for mining is a fine topic for a sub-section, but it would have to be a subsection because it has so many angles. Many miners mine *today* at a financial loss for their own reasons. Miners are fanatical and pat themselves on the back for "helping to secure the network". They like the blinking lights and whirring fans. Meanwhile, transaction fees are already a decent motivation and will continue to be ad infinitum. Anyway, any deeper exploration of miner-motivation seems way too fine a detail to get into for the lead paragraph. Canton (talk) 16:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

"Speculators outnumber users" in lead

Earlier I deleted "As of 2013 the number of speculators outweigh the number of actual users" because it wasn't supported by the reference, http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2013/07/02/beware-the-risks-of-the-bitcoin-winklevii-outline-the-downside/ .

Fleetham added this back in without adjustment, so to avoid a delete/undelete battle I've adjusted it to reflect the actual veracity of the source:

"In July 2013, Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss asserted that "there is relatively small use of Bitcoins in the retail and commercial marketplace in comparison to relatively large use by speculators."

Now to be clear, I don't actually dispute that "speculation" outweighs "use in purchasing products and services" -- it jives with my belief about Bitcoin -- but:

1. Can we use some language that's more nuanced than "actual users" (which in my opinion is fairly meaningless in this context) and,
2. Let's find an ```actual source``` that reflects some research -- e.g. bitcoins transacted on exchanges vs. merchant services, and compare this with forex trading of traditional currencies -- not merely a quote from an interview

Canton (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

There are several sources that discuss a preponderance of speculators. The one cited in the lede comes not from the Winklevosses themselves and does not reflect a personal opinion. It's from a prospectus attached to a Bitcoin investment trust that the two are in some way involved in. I believe it does reflect actual research and/or an understanding of current market conditions. Other sources include:

• The Economist, which states, "Though an increasing number of legitimate businesses are adopting the currency—one Finnish software developer has offered to pay its employees in Bitcoin—it still has relatively few users. Its primary commercial use is probably to buy drugs from Silk Road, a sort of pirate eBay hidden in the “deep web”. This suggests that the new users are buying Bitcoin as an investment, not as a means of exchange. For any currency to thrive it needs users, not just speculators."

• Kiplinger, which states "speculators are having a field day... Speculators are driving the value [of Bitcoin]..."

• The New Statesman, which states "The best way to justify the exponential increase in the market capitalisation of Bitcoin would be to point to a similar exponential increase in people using the currency to perform their everyday lives, and that simply hasn't happened. Take-up is strong, but nowhere near the level it would need to be to explain a half-billion market cap. Whereas speculation – people buying Bitcoin low to sell high – does."

In addition, I believe I recently calculated the velocity of money for Bitcoins. Even without removing speculative Bitcoin activity, it's about half that of the US dollar, suggestinig that people aren't spending (or more accurately transacting) their Bitcoins. Why wouldn't you spend a currency? Because you're a speculator.

Fleetham (talk) 02:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

My mistake for sure -- I didn't realize the wsj blog entry was pulling from an S1 filing not just quoting the Winklevosses. In that case, what about using the S1 itself as a reference? Seems possibly more newsworthy than the WSJ blog. www.sec.gov. I still think it's better to use some language that's more clear than 'actual users' -- e.g. "Speculative trading of bitcoins on currency exchanges greatly surpasses use of bitcoin to purchase products or services." What do you think? P.S. I really appreciated some of the clarity / grammar fixes you (Fleetham) applied generally a couple days ago.

Canton (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I see no reason to link to the filing itself as it would simply bury the quote, which has been nicely picked out by a reliable source, WSJ. That means no wading thought a well-nigh incomprehensible primary source. I believe that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources--perhaps for this reason. I also don't really understand your insistence on dropping the reference to users. I would prefer the word "spenders," but that's poor prose. How about: "Few spend Bitcoins, and those that do are outnumbered by speculators"? Fleetham (talk) 04:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Possibly also my mistake -- I was assuming that the WSJ blog wasn't as good a source as a primary source, but if it's good enough for Wikipedia, it's good enough for me. :) As for Few spend Bitcoins, and those that do are outnumbered by speculators this seems like another step backwards, to being too vague and general again. What we agree on is that the volume of speculation is incredibly high, and dwarfs the volume of purchasing services and products. This is an important point for a lead paragraph. But Few spend bitcoins suggests a comparison of how many individuals use bitcoins in various ways, which is not at all supported by any of the evidence we've been discussing. I would not in fact be surprised if the majority of individuals using bitcoins are using it for purchases, inter-personal transfers, and donations. BitPay alone has signed up over 10,000 individual merchants. And if you include gambling as "spending" bitcoins, then I can guarantee you that the number of "spenders" dwarfs the number of "speculators".

What did you find objectionable with my earlier proposal, something like Speculative trading of bitcoins on currency exchanges greatly surpasses use of bitcoin to purchase products or services?

Canton (talk) 13:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You're correct that the source doesn't directly support the idea that the number of individual speculators is large. What about: "Few Bitcoins are spent, and speculators are by far the largest users of the currency." or "Few Bitcoins are spent, and speculation is the primary use for the currency" Fleetham (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm still unclear on how either of those are improvements to something that's accurate like Speculative trading of bitcoins on currency exchanges greatly surpasses the use of bitcoin to purchase products or services. You still haven't told me what's wrong or insufficient about this.

I don't see a reason to add in an easily refuted claim like "Few bitcoins are spent" -- that's too subjective, since many would consider hundreds of millions of USD worth of spending to be plenty significant. And writing that speculation is the primary use for the currency is just as true as saying that speculation is the primary use for the USD or Euro by looking at Forex trade volume alone.

My impression is that you're trying to present the idea that "Bitcoins aren't used to buy stuff, they're only used to speculate." But this simply isn't true. There's a thriving Bitcoin marketplace with many thousands of merchants and (presumably) many thousands of end customers. Are you aware of this? Canton (talk) 02:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to engage in a wide-ranging discussion about Bitcoins and Bitcoin activity in general but focus on what appears to be the point of contention: a single quote from a SEC filing. I think my most recent suggestions are adequate paraphrases; if "the primary use of Bitcoins is speculation," it is necessary that "few Bitcoins are spent (viz. not transacted for the express purpose of speculation)." The quote in question directly supports the idea of the former and, therefore, the latter. Would it appease you if the words "relatively" or "comparable" were employed? I'm not sure what your primary concern is, and I still don't understand why the original prose was objectionable. I feel that the distinction between a "speculator" and an "actual user" is not only easily grasped but one that aptly reflects the source, which asserts that there is much speculation and little use as a currency. (I think that the only alternative the source could be plumping for is that the amount of use Bitcoins see in retail transactions is "normal" and the amount of speculation is "excessive," which amounts to the same thing: much speculation and little use.) Fleetham (talk) 06:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay. So then just quote the WSJ blog / SEC filing: "Currently, there is relatively small use of Bitcoins in the retail and commercial marketplace in comparison to relatively large use by speculators.". Except use lowercase "bitcoins". :) And you must agree, this is in fact quite different from your original claim, "the number of speculators outweigh the number of actual users". BTC volume and numbers of individuals are not at all the same thing, and are possibly not even correlated (or are inversely correlated). Canton (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Cryptobank

There's an entry now for Cryptobank which seems appropriate to link into, although it applies to all crypto-currencies, not just XBT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.223.156.171 (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

hoarding has a negative or confusing meaning when used in common speech

It's correct when it's used in academic terms but not in common terms. When you talk to strangers or aquaintances you don't say. "I need to hoard up some money to buy a new computer". Instead you use the word save. Though if you try to mention the economic term 'hoarding' and talk about that ie: "hoarding was common when some resources were scarce" is appropriate. Logictheo (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)