Talk:Bitcoin

Merged articles

Article Cleanup

This article is in really bad shape. Why? Because it always has been. The edit wars in the earlier pages really didn't help but the article started as a very technical diatribe which never set a path for a good user-friendly wikipedia article. It would be best if somebody just went through it all and rewrote it but I did my best to make it sensible for now through resectioning. --Neoconfederate (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Neo. I see that you've added a section which presents primary documentation from bitcoin. To someone reading about bitcoin for the first time, it may seem long, technical, and difficult to follow. As an alternative, do you know of any second-party summary which could be used as a source for this article? In particular I think most readers will fell that the functionality and operation of bitcoin is more significant than the technical approach to implementation. For WP purposes, that would be much preferred. I realize such a reference may be hard to find. I've added "primary sources" to the tag at the top of the article page. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I didn't catch this before. This will be a continual work in progress. Bitcoin is indeed hard to explain and all I have for now is the whitepaper. Keep in mind the technical approach is indeed how the system operates. Again, I will keep looking around. --Neoconfederate (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I get that this is a work in progress. I certainly don't really understand it. For example, the article says "there is no centralised issuing authority" but doesn't say who the issuing authority is other than vague talk about "the network". There must be an issuing authority since we know how many bitcoins are to be issued. I can't help but get the feeling that Bitcoin must be some kind of computer programme. 149.241.91.244 (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

"I can't help but get the feeling that Bitcoin must be some kind of computer programme." That's the feeling or information the article should invoke. I will actually incorporate those exact words. --☥NEO (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to use those exact words but I incorporated "Instead, bitcoin relies solely on its software and the peer-to-peer network it builds." To understand how the limits function without a central authority, click the peer-to-peer link. Thanks for your feedback. --☥NEO (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You guys, this article is about as clear as mud. I came here to find out what it is, but still have no idea after reading what is there. There needs to be at least a "plain english" explanation, that gives the complete concept, there is no explanation, economically or conceptually, that gives people some feel for what this is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.186 (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to remove that COI tag.

It may have been targeted at me. I am not sure. I've looked at the article and it includes all points of view in a balanced manner. --☥NEO (talk) 23:37, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Your_Lord_and_Master added it. I assumed that it was directed at you. Not that I agree, but I don't see whom else it could have been referring to. Wikidsoup _[talk] 01:07, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I see. I thought he might have been pointing at certain content he didn't agree with. It will be resolved in good time. --☥NEO (talk) 15:26, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I will ask over on his/her user talk :) Wikidsoup _[talk] 17:28, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Update - COI tag has been removed by User:‎Casascius with reasoning "Talk page doesn't state who the COI is regarding. Bitcoin isn't an organization to begin with, so it's hard to imagine who (besides perhaps its devs) a COI is even reasonably possible." I agree with this reasoning. No response from Your_Lord_and_Master at user's talk page. Wikidsoup _[talk] 19:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Re Casascius' point "it's hard to imagine who (besides perhaps its devs) a COI is even reasonably possible" I would like to add that people who have a lot of bitcoin currency would be the most likely to have COI. Wikidsoup _[talk] 19:23, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I missed that bus. :( I have a family to feed. --☥NEO (talk) 20:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 March 2013

Grammar - Third paragraph first line ... solely relies on a internet-based peer-to... should be ...solely relies on an internet-based peer-to... Cecilbadlands (talk) 10:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

 Done, thanks for catching that. - SudoGhost 15:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Satoshi

The concept of a .0000001 bitcoin called "Satoshi" does not seem to be supported by the referenced link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjcorliss (talk • contribs) 02:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

It is supported in section IV of the citation: "Another advantage of Bitcoins is that they can be divided down to fractions 1e-8 -- one hundred millionth of a Bitcoin. That fraction is called a "Satoshi", in honor of the "father" of Bitcoins. By allowing currency to be divided to finer fractions, buyers and sellers have greater flexibility in sales and bartering." --☥NEO (talk) 05:11, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Is the 'Ponzi Scheme' insinuation misleading?

This is my first time doing a wiki 'talk', so forgive any mistakes in protocol, but I wanted to argue to remove the line about how bitcoins have been referred to as a Ponzi Scheme. It is clear that the accusers either do not know what a Ponzi Scheme is, or they do not understand how Bitcoins work. Either way, it is a false statement. And while it is still technically and objectively true to say the statement "some have claimed it is a ponzi scheme", I believe that it has no rightful place in this article (especially not in the opening paragraph). 99.101.95.95 (talk) 04:32, 12 March 2013 (UTC)Steve R.3/12/13

I am sorry you believe it is factually incorrect. I do agree it is incorrect as well but it has been a significant criticism. --☥NEO (talk) 05:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Agreed wikidsoup _[talk] 17:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

On a related note, I've been wondering about the way this wiki article articulates the Ponzi scheme concern. This statement is:

• "Some have claimed that the currency is a Ponzi scheme since early users and investors can profit from bitcoin's limited inflation."

Neither of the two references makes this connection exactly. The reuters article states "there are no internal inflationary pressures to devalue it" ... but there are external forces that can (and will) cause inflation. I can't agree with the statement the way it is. Note that the previous version of the statement was:

• "Some have claimed that the currency is a Ponzi scheme since early users and investors can profit from the slowing growth rate of the bitcoin supply."

While this isn't perfect, I think it is more accurate than the new version. Could use improving though. Thoughts? wikidsoup _[talk] 17:19, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you on both counts. The current version is incorrect. The previous version did reflect what is said in the cited source. You should go ahead and reinsert the text about slowing growth rate, if you wish. The use of "ponzi" is unfortunate, particularly with the link to the WP article which does not relate to the bitcoin issue. SPECIFICO talk 19:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Does it work now with "declining supply"? The reason I keep changing it is because the language is often very convoluted although I see the intention in keeping with the citations. Wikipedia should be factual but also readable to most readers. --☥NEO (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Changed it again to something that is more or less identical to the prior revision. Thank you for your time and patience. --☥NEO (talk) 20:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

All good, we're getting there :) So now it is "the slow and limited growth of bitcoin's supply." I like the "limited growth" wording, as it captures the fact that growth will stop (which the "slowing growth rate" version didn't quite capture). But I'm not sure about saying "slow" regarding the growth. Who's to say that it's slow? The references don't say that. It's a pretty subjective description, and it doesn't convey that the growth rate is slowing (though we don't necessarily have to convey that at this point). In fact, I would say that an increase in money supply of over $1,000 every 10min isn't slow. But it depends how big the user base of the economy is ... So yeah, I guess I just think we need to say something other than "slow" wikidsoup _[talk] 20:22, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

As per your original edit: Slowing? --☥NEO (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm into that :) wikidsoup _[talk] 21:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Good work team

Electronics Weekly says here that, "Wkipedia [sic] has an informed, in-depth analysis of the currency." The spelling error only slightly detracts from the compliment :p wikidsoup _[talk] 22:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Found a complimenting comment in a Bloomberg comment section as well:

"Please read the full wikipedia article on it. I'm big on software development, web development, and networking. The technological concept of Bitcoin is actually ridiculously solid..." --☥NEO (talk) 09:05, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Another compliment:

"Gvvhg is right. All bitcoins and transactions are on a public record, and their distribution is regulated by the method of mining. Please read in on the system if you have any doubts :D Wikipedia is great." --☥NEO (talk) 09:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO just removed the Ponzi line.

I think that's for the best. It's stupid. I only added it for balance but the line before it is sufficient. --☥NEO (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Nah, it was just moved up a bit (which I like BTW SPECIFICO, makes sense with that paragraph you added it to). Although I would definitely support either removing it from the lead, or adding some of the part from later in the article that says, "a report by the European Central Bank, using the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's definition of a Ponzi scheme, found that the use of bitcoins shares some characteristics with Ponzi schemes, but also has characteristics of its own which contradict several common aspects of Ponzi schemes." wikidsoup _[talk] 23:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

If you have no problems with doing so, let's just get rid of it then. Now that I think about it, it's only going to cause controversy. --☥NEO (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Ponzi

Hello Neocon. If you are unhappy with the "ponzi" wording, I suggest you write text which better represents the cited source, but I would not remove it entirely. The source appears to state significant concerns and relates them to facts about Bitcoin structure which are described elsewhere in the WP article. Lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Please consider alternate text. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

But do you think it needs to be in the lead? It's already in the 'Implications' > 'As an investment' section. wikidsoup _[talk] 16:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't know that. Seems fine where it is, thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Pimpin Wiki to Give credit to Bit Coin

This article is being pimped to give credit to bit coin.

Where are the criticism of it, or any of the debates about it.

There are a lot of people, well known, quotable and notable sources calling it more like a Ponzi scheme, then a currency.

It's not a currency because no one is obligated to accept it. It's 90% speculation pumped up by people promoting it (And being verified by this Wiki page).

This Wiki page is going to cost a lot of people to get hurt. The negatives about BitCoin Deserve to be in the First Paragraph.

I'm going to revert the version stating: "some have claimed it is a ponzi scheme" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.36.3 (talk) 08:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

You are free, in fact you are encouraged, to find well-sourced statements concerning criticisms, debates, or other facts and opinions that you feel will make the article more balanced and informative. That is how these articles improve over time. SPECIFICO talk 14:21, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Silk Road Section Edit Request

The current text of the Silk Road text is misleading:

"Silk Road, a black market e-commerce website that sells and distributes illegal drugs such as DMT, LSD and Marijuana, exclusively accepts bitcoins."

This is misleading because:

1) Silk Road does not sell or distribute illegal drugs, it is a peer-to-peer marketplace
2) Marijuana is not an illegal drug in many states and countries

I would suggest updating the description of Silk Road to that used by the Silk Road wikipedia entry, with the qualification that it accepts bitcoins exclusively.

Silk Road is an online black market operated as a Tor hidden service, that exclusively accepts bitcoins.

Dcpar (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe the current revision reflects the citation and the website more clearly, as you have suggested. Thanks for your feedback. --☥NEO (talk) 00:07, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

An image should illustrate the subject. An abstract logo does not do this.

We already have the most prominent logo below the currency infobox. To add another one is purely cosmetic as what was recently done (since reverted). The current picture of the simple bitcoin client illustrates very clearly what bitcoin is and how it functions. I do not recommend putting another cosmetic, abstract image in its place. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform readers on the subject. Not represent it nor advertise for it as what was intended with the logo placement. --☥NEO (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Policy speaks against this as well:

"Mere collections of photographs or media files with no text to go with the articles. If you are interested in presenting a picture, please provide an encyclopedic context, or consider adding it to Wikimedia Commons. If a picture comes from a public domain source on a website, then consider adding it to Wikipedia:Images with missing articles or Wikipedia:Public domain image resources." - WP:NOTIMAGE

--☥NEO (talk) 20:53, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 March 2013

Section to edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin#Consumer-to-consumer_trade Suggested section content:

Bitmit, an online Ebay-like service, allows users to trade goods and services for bitcoin. Bitcoinrunner allows anyone to pay with Bitcoins at any online retailer by acting as an intermediary, Bitcoinrunner get paid using bitcoins and buy the required product using dollars.

Joecoldo (talk) 18:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Not an established website. If you get third-party coverage, feel free to add it. --☥NEO (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed the section entirely because it wasn't reliably cited. Wikipedia is not a directory nor a place to advertise. --☥NEO (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Need better sources for much of this article

I just happened to look at the citation for the beginning of the lede. "Arbitrage Magazine" is not a WP:RS for the cited statement. There are many other questionable sources throughout the article. Any editor who is comfortable with the current content would do well to find better sources for the statements here. Otherwise much of this content will not survive. Also, I don't see the justification for calling the dollar value of a bitcoin its "exchange rate." It's too soon to know whether bitcoin becomes a true currency or whether it's merely an asset that is sometimes used in barter and more widely used for speculation. The graph of its value fluctuating widely suggests more the latter. SPECIFICO talk 21:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Why is "Arbitrage Magazine" not a reliable source? Also, the sources will have to decide what terminology we use. It will be hard to go by the varying terms and expertise different individuals use. The majority of the sources will determine if bitcoin is a currency or not. --☥NEO (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Additonally, if you find statements that may not be properly sourced, please tag them with while retaining the questionable source next to it. I will promptly source them. I will be stuck in my home for some time. Time is of little cost to me. --☥NEO (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Look at Arbitrage magazine. It's a student publication. Are you calling that RS? It is not an expert authority to call bitcoin a currency. The position you state is not WP policy please review the policies on RS and RS in economics. We do not just take the majority of what may be published on a subject, willy-nilly. SPECIFICO talk 00:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

There are not many authorities on the bitcoin subject considering it's without authority. However, I will remove the student-based source. My point is if the majority of people with reasonable "authority" on the subject use the term, it's the most objective term we can use.--☥NEO (talk) 00:56, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

You need to find a credible authority for the assertions in the article. If the subject is notable there will be RS citations to be found. We do have instances of credible authorities saying that bitcoin is not a currency. This really needs to get sorted out. The same is true of much of the current material and sourcing in the article. SPECIFICO talk 00:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The two citations you inserted to replace Arbitrage are likewise not RS as to the statement that bitcoin is a currency. The Guardian writer says "best performing currency" -- which demonstrates she's using the term very loosely. The other citation is to a blog. SPECIFICO talk 01:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Wired is an authority on technology and software trends. They are one of the most popular and mainstream publishers in this genre. I can't think of a better authority on the subject of digital currencies. --☥NEO (talk) 01:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

In fact, I could probably source the majority of the content on this page with that magazine article. It's the most volumnous piece on bitcoin in existence. --☥NEO (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Look, there's no point you trying one citation after another and waiting for me to comment. Now it's Wired? I doubt that holds up as an RS as to whether bitcoin is a currency. The issues about whether it's a currency or a speculative asset like Pet Rocks is a matter of economics, finance and law, not consumer technology. You've put in a lot of effort here, so I think you'd do well to give a careful look at the policies and guidance about RS and RS in economics, then form a considered judgment as to the kinds of references you need. Good luck. SPECIFICO talk 01:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Under Economy -> Internet Services. Namecheap now accept bitcoins for domain registrations and web hosting Namecheap — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.139.5 (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:PROMOTION. This is an encyclopedia, not a phonebook. --☥NEO (talk) 15:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 March 2013

Article says an image is "The price for BTC/USD on the Mt.Gox exchange" but really what is pictured is USD/BTC. This can be confirmed by noting current Mt.Gox price is $80-90 USD per BTC. Zalfrin (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Your understanding of currency pairs is incorrect. Please read the Currency pair article for reference. --☥NEO (talk) 02:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 March 2013

Please correct the "not only/but also" grammer in the protocol summary... "longest chain of records (called blocks) not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but ALSO proof that it came from the largest pool of computing power." Mariettaguy (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think your grammar is correct either. I used "as proof" in the same fashion as the former part of the sentence. --☥NEO (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

"Digital 'bitcoin' currency surpasses 20 national currencies in value."

I thought about adding this content to the lead for context within the general currency market but I have a feeling it's going to be controversial for some, especially for those who do not believe bitcoin is a true currency. The source is significant being Fox News but I bet some others will want more coverage.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/03/29/digital-currency-bitcoin-surpasses-20-national-currencies-in-value/

Thoughts? --☥NEO (talk) 20:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

List of Bitcoin wallets is missing "Bitcoin Wallet"

• Website: https://market.android.com/details?id=de.schildbach.wallet (users) or http://code.google.com/p/bitcoin-wallet/ (developers)
• Software License: GPLv3
• Type: Mobile application for Android and BlackBerry OS

Goonie (talk) 16:19, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Article is Highly Technical, Lacks Sufficient Parallel Plain English Explanations

Wikipedia policy requires that its scientific and technical articles include parallel writing, wherever possible, in everyday common English that non-science / non-technical readers can easily understand. Inconsistent effort has been made to do that here. The result is a very self-absorbed and snobby overall article feel. Please remember that Wikipedia has a public service mission that goes beyond the technical elite.

Another issue: The article opening doesn't even bother to offer concrete examples of where bitcoins are actually used. This should be at the very beggining of the article, in line with standard good writing practices. 76.89.69.224 (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

April Fools! What this person actually meant to write is ... "Hey, great job on the detailed explanation of bitcoin! Could one of you dedicated contributors *please* help make the article a little more friendly to the less tech-savvy public? Thanks SOOOO much!!"

snacks _[talk] 18:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been attempting this ever so gradually. It is very hard to do make things easier to read when others add writing that is just as technical as it stands today. As much as I hate reverting edits, the writing on this page has to be carefully watched or it will degrade back to where it was in 2012. Yes, it's not anywhere near perfect right now but the art of taking something very technical and making understandable to everyone is very difficult. If you have any suggestions on places that need to be simplified, please tell me.

Additionally, adding services is difficult because everyone wants to be included. It turns into a big slap in the face of WP:PROMOTION. The fact is bitcoin is accepted where it is accepted. This article can't be a merchant directory. --☥NEO (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

NOT APRIL FOOLS. I wrote exactly what I meant-- the article is lacking in clear everyday common English descriptions and that is out of line with Wikipedia's stated mission. Also concrete examples in the opening of the article, of where bitcoin is actually used on a daily basis, are needed in order to make the article meet the most basic encyclopedic standards.

Sorry, but the following is also not true-- "the art of taking something very technical and making understandable to everyone is very difficult."

It's only difficult if you believe that it is. There is, however, a lot of good work here on the technical level. I'm sure it was a lot of hard as well. But the article needs the lay-writing dimension added more consistently and the lack of concrete examples in the opening weakens all the effort put forth later in the article. 76.89.69.224 (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I've mentioned that bitcoin is accepted by merchants and services. I can't make examples because everyone will want to be one. Wikipedia can't be an advertising platform. Besides, do you see Wikipedia mentioning specific merchants that accept the US dollar? --☥NEO (talk) 19:53, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, bitcoin is not a simple technology. Even if it was explained using only simple English and non-technical terms, it would be hard to understand by most people. --☥NEO (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy you actually can pick a couple of major commercial examples and use them. As a Wikiepdia editor you have no obligation to please everyone commercially (or personally) associated with the technology. If you have a personal stake in the technology that makes it hard for you to do so, then you shouldn't be writing here, due to conflict of interest (I'm not saying that you do, I'm just noting this, just in case that's why you are concerned about keeping everybody commercially or personally involved happy/keeping all feathers unruffled).

I'm not going to expend a lot of effort trying to prove to you that the highly technical writing here can be better translated, in order for the average reader to more easily understand it. Some people are better at doing this than others, which is not meant as a personal comment, just a general one. Also, the easiest thing in the world is to explain why something can't be done. Someone with the time and the ability will eventually come along who will be able / willing to do it. 76.89.69.224 (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate your time and I agree with you. I concede your point on the writing. It can be done to a certain extent. As for your point on commercial examples, I point you to this: WP:SPAMBAIT. We've had examples and it will turn into cancer. Everybody will want to add their service and I have to keep wasting time telling them "No" and removing the advertising. It's inefficient and requires too much maintenance. --☥NEO (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I see what you are saying about the "Spambait" issue. Although I don't think that always happens as there are many technical articles on Wikipedia that do mention a few major commercial providers as examples. Perhaps an alternative is to provide a concrete description (without mentioning a specific provider or customer) of what happens between online merchants, or merchant and customers, when a transaction occurs (that doesn't delve too deeply into the coding aspects of what is happening). This should occur early in the article. A deeper, more technical expansion could be left for later. I wish I had more time, but I don't.

I should also concede that you are right that there is a lot of good, hard work here in the article. Best of luck. 76.89.69.224 (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I just rewrote my last post, more points clarified/added. Thanks! 76.89.69.224 (talk) 20:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: Stop encouraging people to fall for scams

The "List of Bitcoin Wallets" section absolutely needs to go; including it without proper warnings is serious negligence, because "online wallet services" are an invitation to theft and fraud. I wrote this all the way back in July 2011 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=26260.0), before MyBitcoin ran off with everyone's money, and it's just as true then as it is today. This article came to my attention today, and I'm submitting this edit request, because one of the services on that list (Instawallet) was hacked today. The money might or might not all be gone, but seriously: telling people to use an online wallet service is Not Okay.

Jimrandomh (talk) 18:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I will remove Instawallet since it has been hacked. --☥NEO (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

There are no other online services on there. Everything else listed is a application, javascript or otherwise. Every piece of software requires trust in its source, even Satoshi's original bitcoin client. --☥NEO (talk) 19:36, 1 April 2013 (UTC)