Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

"Nobel" laureates etc

It seems this claim in the lead is not supported by the cited source by Yahoo:

"Bitcoin has been described as an economic bubble by at least eight recipients of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences."

There is no data about 8 recipients in the source.

There is also the questionable case of Robert Shiller. In the Yahoo source, he is quoted as follows: "Robert Shiller (2013) said 'it’s such a wonderful story. If only it were true.'". This doesn't indicate that he considers bitcoin a bubble.

Moreover, he is actually against calling bitcoin a bubble, as explained in this source.

I propose the following edition of the text about "Nobel" laureates:

Bitcoin has been described as an economic bubble by several recipients of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences[ref1]. Another recipient of the prize, Robert Shiller, argues that bitcoin is not a bubble, but belongs to a new category of speculative assets that don't suddenly cease to exist, but instead regularly decline and grow in popularity, like gold[ref2].

Thereisnous (talk) 12:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

See also the section 'Economic and legal concerns', which cites further sources regarding the issue. Possibly the lede needs rewording: it isn't normally required to cite content in a lede at all, since it should be summarising the article body. As for Shiller, I stand by my statement that I think your summary of what he said was questionable. Note also that we cite a 2014 piece he wrote for the NYT where he stated that Bitcoin "seems to fit the basic definition of a speculative bubble" [1] If he has since revised his view, maybe we can reflect this, but we need to do so accurately. Shiller seems to prefer 'epidemic' to 'bubble', but that doesn't equate to "regularly decline and grow in popularity". AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree, we can reword it. I also agree that it's a good idea to reflect the change of mind by Robert Shiller. The change is understandable, given how Bitcoin has changed in 9 years: from an experimental software to a mainstream financial asset adopted by governments, major companies etc. Please propose your version of the text. --Thereisnous (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

The source you cite is an opinion piece, written by a Booomburg editor, reporting on a discussion with Shiller. Rather than citing that, we would do better to reflect what Shiller wrote directly, in Narrative Economics. I don't currently have access to the book, but from a quick Google online, it appears that rather than Shiller having 'changed his mind' he has refined his arguments regarding the complex interplay between 'narrative' and market fluctuations. I can't see any obvious evidence that he suggests that Bitcoin has changed "from an experimental software to a mainstream financial asset", and accordingly we cannot cite him for such a claim. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:44, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I got a digital copy of the book and did a keyword search for the most relevant parts. One can summarize the new understanding of bitcoin by Shiller as follows:

Shiller describes a new economic framework for analyzing bitcoin, gold, and similar assets. The framework stipulates that the popularity of such assets is driven by a contagious spread of ideas which evolve over time and spread in a manner similar to biological viruses.(p.18) In particular, Shiller describes one of the societal mechanisms that sustain the popularity of bitcoin as follows: "[a Bitcoin] narrative, enhanced by regular news of exciting fluctuations in the price of Bitcoins, gives them value. It generates fluctuations in Bitcoin prices in terms of national currencies, and these fluctuations thrive on and produce contagious narratives." (p.10) --Thereisnous (talk) 14:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

So no, it says nothing to the effect that Bitcoin is "a mainstream financial asset" then. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I've mentioned the mainstream in my attempt to explain the change of mind by Shiller. I haven't claimed that he said that. Instead, the crux is, how to reword the part about the prize recipients. Given the info form the book, I propose to rewrite it as follows:

Bitcoin has been described as an economic bubble by several recipients of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences[ref1]. Another recipient of the prize, Robert Shiller, argues that bitcoin is a new economic phenomenon sustained by a contagious spread of ideas evolving over time[book ref]. Thereisnous (talk) 16:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

LEAD NPOV issues

emotive tone

@Grayfell:, i tend to agree with Thereisnous, this is emotive and undue in the LEAD in present formulation. The term substantial is subjective and speculative. I think the formulation before you reverted was more neutral and suitable for the LEAD. Presently more than half of the LEAD is attributed to fringe beliefs relating to the article subject and are undue in their current weight in the lead. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

We've already had this conversation in the past. See #I find your this to be biased heavily above, or revisit our discussion at Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 38#Greenhouse gas emissions statement in the lede, or any of the other times this has come up either on this talk page or at various other article's talk pages, or at various noticeboards. As I said then and maintain now, sources routinely and consistently define this as a crucial and defining problem for bitcoin, and downplaying this through evasive or euphemistic word-choice would be misrepresenting countless reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 03:17, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll also add that the timing of these recent attempts to whitewash bitcoin's environmental issues coincides with a recent, highly upvoted post to the bitcoin subreddit about this article. I would recommend any editors coming from there review Wikipedia:Canvassing and Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry#Meatpuppetry. Grayfell (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anything on reddit, not a platform I follow. Curious to read it, so if you could put a link to it here, that would be fine with me (or could also email it to me if you dont feel it is due in this discussion). Anyhow, reddit not a big deal to me, just curious. Promotion on reddit has gone on in the past, and I am sure it will continue. Key point in your statement is that the climate claims are the most common "problem" listed about bitcoin. However, problems dont necessary warrant the amount of coverage in the LEAD. The subject of this article is bitcion, not bitcoin's problems. I think we do have sub-articles that cover some of bitcoin's problems (such as price volatility, etc). Most articles contain some criticism components and we dont provide more than half the lead to cover those typically. The vast majority of bitcoin's coverage in the press is about the commodity (or asset's) price machinations. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Grayfell:, I don't think it adds to the article's value to revert a better and more neutrally worded version by Nacentaeons (with a more up-to-date study as a reference). Could you please elaborate beyond 'calling this "emotive" is not persuasive'? I understand that it might be a better course of action to first modify the relevant section of the article and then summarize it to the lede, but keeping it as it is seems like a bad idea if we have updated information to cite. Vgbyp (talk) 08:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Worth noting that 7% of the annual global CO2 tonnage is produced by humans breathing (yeah, 7 billion humans breathe a lot). Compare it with the 0.04% bitcoin figure in the lead. It would be rather strange to add "The environmental effects of humans breathing are substantial" to the article about breathing. And it's even more strange to add it to an article about a process that is producing 175 times less CO2 than breathing. Seems to be a clear case of undue weight. I see no problem with the 0.04% figure being in the main body of the article, but placing it in the lead and calling it "substantial" doesn't make sense.

I would propose the following rewording of the corresponding lead part: Bitcoin is associated with a range of environmental effects, including production of electronic waste, industrial-scale consumption of energy, and acceleration of the global transition to sustainable energy. --Thereisnous (talk) 15:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

An article lede is intended to summarise content presented in more depth in the body of the article. Nothing presently in the article even remotely supports a claim that Bitcoin is associated with "acceleration of the global transition to sustainable energy". AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:24, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

It's because the "env impact" section of this article is an incomplete summary of the "Environmental effects of bitcoin" article which is indeed covering the role of bitcoin in accelerating the global transition to sustainable energy. We should expand the summary to make it more balanced. --Thereisnous (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Utter bullshit. The Environmental effects of bitcoin article (and more importantly, the sources cited in it) doesn't remotely support any claim that Bitcoin is 'accelerating' any such thing. Instead, it documents in detail, citing multiple relevant and significant sources, the continuing negative environmental effects of Bitcoin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Comparing bitcoin to breathing is beyond parody, and mostly speaks for itself. I will, however, add that the multiple previously-decommissioned coal power plants which have been reopened specifically to mine bitcoin, or the recently announced tire-burning plant have made breathing just a tad bit harder for everyone. Grayfell (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the breathing comment was not really useful here. However, your source about consumption of tires and coal waste does seem like due content. There are obviously two sides to this, one that it is burning something, and other that it is waste disposal. Waste incineration is pretty common globally after all . Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

It was worse than "not really useful". Bitcoin has directly led to the reopening of multiple decommissioned coal power plants against the express wishes of the communities where they were located. Bitcoin apologists can argue, with effort, that the massive air pollution for no local benefit at least remediates some land near Panther Creek, but they cannot argue that it doesn't generate a lot of air-pollution that wouldn't otherwise exist. They also cannot make that claim for every other plant being propped-up by bitcoin demand, such as Greenidg, in Lake Seneca, which again exists despite the wishes of the local community. Grayfell (talk) 06:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The response and now your banter in response to the response is now veering off into WP:NOTFORUM and WP:RGW. There is nothing wrong with the source and burning tires and coal waste is interesting and DUE. We dont care about personal feelings here at wikipedia. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:12, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

failed verification tag on prize winners

I added and re-summarized the Robert Shiller text into the body rather than the LEAD. Seems to me there is excessive focus on the lead for all of this content. Bitcoin is subject to a range of opinions by nobel prize winners, and an undisputed expert on bubbles says it is not one, thus maybe we should be summarizing in the LEAD rather than pushing a POV.

@AndyTheGrump: In this edit you removed from the LEAD the opinion of another so-called expert, which had been added by Thereisnous. In principal I agree with the removal, but for a different reason in that I think probably we should be summarizing the LEAD rather than continuing to push new content into it to create some false balance. Generally we should summarize in the LEAD, and a more accurate summary is there are some who think it is a bubble and others who dont. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:52, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

As you have shown, Shiller prefers his more recent 'epidemic' analogy to the earlier 'bubble' one. If he is indeed an 'expert' on bubbles, we should be explaining what he actually says in the body of the article, and then summarising it in the lede. His 'epidemic' analogy is clearly more developed than the generic 'bubble' one, but it is grossly misleading to try to reduce his analysis of Bitcoin to a simplistic 'not a bubble'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I've added the relevant parts from the book. Thereisnous (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

We dont need to add his epidemic POV to the LEAD, nor add more individual theories in the lead. The lead summarizes and is not use to upweight pet theories by pundits. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

revert

@Grayfell: You reverted a large set of changes here. Certainly not against consensus as your allege. Any content you are particularly objected to, or are you trying to keep the LEAD dominated by a couple of topics and excluding summarizing the others? Please explain here. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

We've already had this conversation more times than I care to remember. Per your own above comments, you clearly dispute the consensus on the environmental harm caused by bitcoin, and this disputed edit is a violation of WP:FRINGE as it, once again, attempts to downplay that. There is certainly no prohibition on including statistics in the lead, and these statistics help to summarize the body. Further, you have combined the section on the environmental harm with one on bitcoin's status as a bubble, implying that these are in some way similar. I assume this is because they are both negative, but arranging content in this way is form of editorializing. Grayfell (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Grayfell: Then please arrange my changes in a way that you agree with. Dont just revert because you dont like it. You reverted and removed a lot of summary from the lead, which is not ok. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

That isn't how WP:BRD works. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

sure it is, we are in discuss (D) step now. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:10, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

You edited. Grayfell reverted. Grayfell explained why. 'Don't just revert because you dont like it' isn't an adequate response. And frankly, given the blatant editorialising in your edits, I'd call that a more polite response than was probably deserved. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

which diffs (there were many reverted) to the content changes i made do you and Grayfell object to specifically? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:26, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The ones reverted by Grayfell, for the reasons already given. You are clearly trying to downplay the scientific consensus regarding the negative environmental effects of Bitcoin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:27, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Many of the edits summarized other sections into the lead. Do you object to that? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

The only other changes I see are some vague editorializing about legality, and this stand-alone paragraph: "Bitcoin software is open source and the MIT Digital Currency Initiative funds some of the development of the mostly widely distributed version of software, called Bitcoin Core." There are multiple problems with this. One problem is that the mention in the body was not an appropriate or neutral summary of its source. I have adjusted the wording to more closely match that source. Since this seems like a point of confusion, MIT was not donating money to this initiative, it was accepting donations for this initiative (specifically for three developers).

Another way to look at this is that some donors, which "include companies (BitFury, Bitmain, Chain, Circle and Nasdaq) and individuals..."[2] (from an official blog post on this) spent money to be able to use the MIT name to support and impart legitimacy to work that was going to be done anyway. This is an unfortunately common practice in tech, and is especially common with blockchain and cryptocurrencies. But regardless, it's not important enough for the lead, unless your goal was also to impart legitimacy by name-dropping a prestigious institution. Grayfell (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

My goal was and is to attempt to summarize each of the sections in the lead. Do you object to that? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:51, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Are you joking? I have already explained my objections. Grayfell (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I have seen your response in relation to the MIT funding, and you have already changed that on the article. Should we just do an RFC on A vs. B? I dont see much discussion here of the content. Should I take it that you are opposed to all the diffs you didnt change or implement yourself? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Why do you think that an RfC would help? You made multiple changes to the article, making an 'A or B' binary choice inappropriate. More so when the article has been edited since. RfCs are for getting outside input on specific well-defined questions, not a means to vote on preferred old versions of articles. Wikipedia articles evolve over time, and specific versions can't be fixed in place through RfC consensus.

It would be a lot more constructive to discuss specific issues separately. Make a single proposal for a singe change, and give us something to work with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

diff list

Andy made a request above that I list the diffs, so they are as follows:

• #1 removes statistics from lead as we already have a sentence prior that states that effects are substantial.
• #2 reduces paragraphs to make room for more summarizing
• #3 adds in summary text from article that goes over mining. WP:LEAD summarizes
• #4 adds in key element of bitcoin which is blocktime, again summarized from article.
• #5 add summary from main article stating that bitcoin is pseudonymous, a key feature. again summarize article
• #6 summarize the country data. There is a large number of different positions in the article main content, so we need to do a better job to summarize that. Current wording is not neutral and this is an improvement and essentially should state 'legal status of bitcoin varies substantially from country'.
• #7 summarize and cleanup tagged comment that is tagged for failed verification.
• #8 add that it is open source and summarize content from MIT initiative.

This is the list of the reverts, most non-controversial. Reverts and above makes it appear that the editors are opposed to summary content in the LEAD as it might reduce the weight given to POV content. One of you two might want to un-revert and implement the non-controversial content before it goes to an RFC. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Once again, you have entirely missed the point of what I wrote. I said 'discuss specific issues separately'. Not list the lot, and unilaterally declare them as 'non-controversial'. That isn't your call to make. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure, lets discuss them separately, one by one. What could be more seperate? What objection do you have with each of 1-8 above? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:18, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

1. 'Substantial' is vague. Actual data is specific.

2. Running two paragraphs together 'makes room' for nothing. Instead, it combines two entirely different topics, obscuring the second.

3. Bitcoins are created through mining. That is why miners mine them. For profit. They also create a record transactions. As for 'misleading analogies', if this belongs in the article at all - which is questionable, since nowhere does the article discuss anyone being misled through analogy - it shouldn't be buried in a note. That isn't what notes are for, and it comes over as editorialising..

4. You object to statistics in edit 1, but add them here. And 'the network' isn't programmed, that's bad writing.

5. A strange use of the word 'pseudonymous', followed by further strangeness. Bitcoin addresses cannot own things.

6. Unless I'm missing something, tthe statement regarding Switzerland is incorrect - we have a source saying a single canton accepts bitcoin. You have also removed the statement regarding usage being low in El Salvador.

7. The source previously cited doesn't explicitly support 'at least eight recipients of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences', but it does however provide ample evidence of criticism from multiple Nobel recipiants. It merits rewording, not removal, since vague statemnents about descriptions are otherwise almost meaningless.

8. Name dropping.

In summary a collection of badly-though-out edits, many appearing to intentionally downplay negative aspects of Bitcoin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

So you are opposed to all the edits correct? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

" a collection of badly-though-out edits". AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:32, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

Not sure where to post this, but there's a typo for 'Bitcoin' in the 2020-present section: "...delaying decision on a proposed Bitcion Exchange-traded fund application...". Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SaveTheWhales (talk • contribs) 03:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

@SaveTheWhales: Hello. Thanks, I have fixed the typo.

In the future, edit requests should go at the bottom of the page. For more complicated requests, Wikipedia:Edit requests explains the details. For very simple requests like this, you can use Template:Edit extended-protected, or if you just posting a new comment on the bottom someone will likely notice sooner or later.

Again, thanks! Grayfell (talk) 04:52, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

lede

already in a petty argument above 2604:3D08:5E7A:6A00:ED32:E054:4CA0:5710 (talk) 11:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit request: typo

Second paragraph: “nine countries have. banned bitcoin use”

Unnecessary “.” after “have” 2A00:23C6:95CE:B401:70C4:9DA3:3DD4:9F0D (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I've fixed the typo. Thank you! Vgbyp (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, I’m new to Wikipedia and unsure if this is a mistake or intentional, but the last line of the first paragraph renders as this for me:

”when its implementation was released as open-source software.[7]:ch. 1”

“:ch. 1” should be removed? Or is this some layout thing I’m not aware of? 2A00:23C6:95CE:B401:70C4:9DA3:3DD4:9F0D (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

That's not a mistake. Such a notation means that the 'chapter 1' of the source is used in the citation.Vgbyp (talk) 12:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Please create a wikipedia login (free account) so you can follow the bitcoin page more easily (and anything else you might fancy). Its not mandatory, but we welcome more editors Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Typo

There's a typo in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the History section ("The word "bitcoin" was defined the original...") I was going to correct it, but the article seems to be locked. -Miskaton (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. The article is under extended confirmed protection due to a past history of spam, disruptive editing, and similar. Grayfell (talk) 05:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Need for Simplified Payment Verification clarifications and illustration

The language in Simplified Payment Verification (SPV) sections should be reviewed and made much clearer. SPV clients do not need to trust any specific node. They verify transactions by querying the network, which, when properly working, means that the their trust is distributed among several nodes qua the network by a best effort basis. Per Satoshi's example, this can then in turn further be improved upon by employing a specialized payment provider, that "blasts" the transaction out to well organized nodes . As a business, they can of course also potentially guarantee the safety of their customer up to a certain amount. 83.190.90.240 (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Could you assist us in find this in a WP:RS. Maybe an indepth book on this has covered it? We are not able to just implement comments from editors without sources. Maybe you could find it in google books and post a link here to the specific page and quote? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Edits

Thought I would create a section on individual edits. @A455bcd9: In this revert you stated that Satoshi creating the blockchain was in a history section. Can you please show me where that is, I could not find it when I read it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Nakamoto's innovation was their complex interplay resulting in the first decentralized, Sybil resistant, Byzantine fault tolerant digital cash system. [...] On 3 January 2009, the bitcoin network was created when Nakamoto mined the starting block of the chain, known as the genesis block. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

The key point is that Nakamoto created the first blockchain, that should be stated explicitly. This is in addition to this digital cash system. Bitcoin was both the first "decentralized, Sybil resistant, Byzantine fault tolerant digital cash system" and the first blockchain (the part in quotes being a bit wordy/jargony for my taste, but I dont know how else to say it). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf Feel free to edit accordingly. In any case this historical fact is part of "History" and not "Design". a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

My point was only that they could be merged, which you have done. Commentary on use as an investment (bubble or not) is descriptive of the investment use case. It might as well go in one section, which you have done.

Next, I'm not aware of any price manipulation investigations outcomes (or if there ever were really any investigations other than allegations and press releases). I do know that the SEC's core case was that the spot price is manipulated and that should be justification on holding off on a spot bitcoin ETF, but I read the courts didnt find that argument compelling and tossed that argument. So maybe the court case can be the closing of the investigation? Here is a barrons source for that (paywall sadly) and bloomberg without paywall here. Essentially the SEC disagreed that the spot market was manipulated and the futures market wasn't.

OK, I will try to word in the blockchain part. Its encyclopedic that bitcoin was the first blockchain.

Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Input requested at Bitcoin network

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bitcoin_network#Point_of_this_article?. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)