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)

The first, I think, of the thousands of Wikipedia articles that I've read from beginning to end that I've learned next to nothing from. Holy crap, somebody who understands needs to rewrite encyclopedically. I think 3 undergraduate degrees may help understanding this article - I'm not so sure, though - in computer science, cryptography, and monetary economics.

154.20.65.60 (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you give an example as to what you don't understand? That would help me improve this article a lot. --☥NEO (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Another user who came to this article to find out what bitcoins really are. I am pretty technical capable and well versed in computer techniques. I have seen various explanations of bitcoin in the technical press in recent months, none of them really explained it properly. Sadly this article is in the same camp, technical jumbo mumbo leaving me even more confused. Seeing as the financial media is now picking it up there really does need to be a concise explanation of it for the man in the street instead of things understood just by the bitcoin clique. THEN add the details for those who can understand them. Dsergeant (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

When does the article begin to leave you confused? What part is hard to understand? I am not offended nor do I doubt you because this is a consistent issue that I intend to resolve in any way I can. We all know it's a digital currency that is based on a peer-to-peer network. What do you not get? --☥NEO (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Last night I re-read Steve Gibson's episode on Bit Coin (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-287.pdf) which did at least explain things fairly clearly. It has still left me confused as it seems pretty hard to buy bitcoins unless you have the processing power to generate them yourself or you get folks to 'donate' them to you. Presumably it also relies totally on the bitcoin network, if that goes down for whatever reason, gets seriously hacked, or the software gets virus attacked, you are kaput. I still can't get round the fact that in reality this is just computer nerds playing games with their machines and bitcoins are totally fictitious. You may be so involved with it yourself that you are overlooking the questions of the wider world that is left totally perplexed. This article delves far too quickly into deep technical discussion before the casual reader has got a grasp of what it is all about. Dsergeant (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to give you a hint why this article is bad. I believe that an average reader is totally not interested in how transactions are carried out in this currency. I might even say that it is somewhat irrelevant. What an average person is interested in are two things: (1) How can she get 1 bitcoin initially and (2) What gives its value. What the article says is just that bitcoins are continuously put into the system, but it is not clear to me (not even sure if it is written at all) who actually gets them, and what determines how much they get. I looked and it seems to me that there are websites that give you bitcoins in exchange for something for them. If that is so, it is clear how the user gets the money: she works for it. Now how do these sites get the money? And how much do they get? How do they decide how much is the job that the user does worth for them? Plus, an economically trained (and interested) reader asks the question: where is the real value behind all these. Based on what do people value it in terms of US dollars?

Once these things are clear, the reader can leave the article with the feeling that she understood what this currency is about, knowing that the rest of the article is about the details of how clever CS people figured out a way to do transactions safely with this currency. Instead, as of now, the first section is titled "Transactions".

Hope, this helps. Neruo (talk) 11:42, 7 April 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)

I must agree with SPECIFICO. Wired is not an authority on economic and legal issues. I would ideally look for a peer reviewed and credible journal. If not that, then at least a mainstream financial/economics newspaper. Lazulilasher (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I have since cited The Wall Street Journal and Fox Business for the currency claim.--☥NEO (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

NEO, I don't think the Wall St. Journal piece supports the currency claim. With a US Dollar price increase of around 1100% since the beginning of 2013, Bitcoin has been behaving like a speculative asset rather than a currency. At this point, it's fair to be very concerned that this WP article might give undue support to the currency claim, possibly to the detriment of casual researchers who accept the currency claim and buy in at unsustainable price levels. SPECIFICO talk 21:53, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Most sources are calling it an "online currency", "digital currency" or "virtual currency". Even the FinCEN documents from the Department of Treasury call it a "virtual currency." Is it really within Wikipedia policy to change the accepted definition of a term as a public service? Is Wikipedia responsible for how people interpret and act on information even in an objective, rudimentary form? --☥NEO (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100609853 Look how CNBC plainly spells it out. The current way it's described is in the mainstream. Until it's widely reported that bitcoin is something other than a currency, we can't change the definition without violating WP:UNDUE/WP:FRINGE. --☥NEO (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

NEO, that's not really what's meant by WP:FRINGE. Until merchants price their goods in bitcoins rather than accepting bitcoins at the current dollar exchange price, it is not functioning as a currency any more than gold is a currency or for that matter US Dollars in Paris, even though Merchants will take them and dispose of them for Euros. SPECIFICO talk 00:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't contest that fact. In fact, I encourage you to report on such arguments in the proper place on the page. However, this discussion isn't about whether or not bitcoin is a currency but if Wikipedia should use common terminology from most mainstream, significant publications or from smaller, argumentative sources. I would happily change the definition of a bitcoin to "a speculative asset" if the great majority of secondary sources claimed it was only that and not a currency. Currently, that is not the case. --☥NEO

(talk) 00:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that quite addresses the problem either. I have no opinion as to what it is. It may be a digital game of some kind. However for our purposes it is an set of accounts which is being promoted as a currency. That's what it is, although I'm not familiar enough with it or the secondary sources to find properly sourced content. Personally I find its complexity exceeds my level of interest, so I am not the one to make edits here. How did you first happen to find out about this and learn so much about it? I presume you've made a bundle being in on the early days. Congratulations. SPECIFICO talk 00:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I found it on Slashdot years ago. I emailed the creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, about its security. Very formal guy, unfortunately, so I never really got to know him. After figuring it out, I thought about implementing bitcoin as an anti-spam system in email systems, in digital games among other things. Through that, my knowledge on bitcoin became pretty comprehensive. As for my ownership in bitcoins, I currently own less than $10 of the stuff. Most of my capital is in other places, mainly my business.

Anyways, I see that our styles are a little different when it comes to sources. I tend to look through Google News for bitcoin material and what I am seeing is pretty consistent. I've tried finding more academic material but it's pretty sparse. --☥NEO (talk) 00:44, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Not many sources? Perfectly understandable. Like "synthetic CDO's" before 2008. SPECIFICO talk 01:18, 4 April 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)

There's a less awkward way to word that sentence though. What about:

The longest chain of records (called blocks) serves not only as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but also as proof that it came from the largest pool of computing power.

E123 (talk) 03:39, 8 April 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)

While I can see where this is coming from, I don't think Bitcoin's current state is an appropriate description of it as a whole. Just because its passed some currencies up now in some ephemeral metric doesn't really have much to do with the article or what we should focus on. (Though I believe some current context to be useful, such as its monetary base or value in USD. Just not the main focus) --E123 (talk) 04:00, 8 April 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)

It's only difficult if you believe that it is - lovely slogan for a self-help blog, but wildly inaccurate. It's *very* difficult to explain complex subjects simply and clearly and accurately and completely, very difficult indeed. That's why Wikipedia has so many badly done articles about technical topics. The fact that Wikipedia has so many well done articles about technical topics is a testimony to a googol personhours of effort and the wide skillsets that have edited here, but it's no reason to downplay the complexity of the task. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:48, 3 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 customer, 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 with the exception of Coinbase. 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)

Bitcoin Crash

This section is reserved for the impending crash in Bitcoin values. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.103.80 (talk) 01:15, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Please don't give in to fear mongering. E123 (talk) 03:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Terminology?

What the article calls wallets are actually clients, and they don't "interface" with bitcoins, they "interface" with wallets (which could more appropriatly be called keychains since they hold keys and not money). The actual bitcoins are stored everywhere a copy of the longest valid blockchain is present. --TiagoTiago (talk) 03:49, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

The keys or "wallets" that authenticate bitcoin balances might as well represent bitcoins, right? What else makes a bitcoin balance besides the key that authorizes a shift of balances in the ledger? Anyways, thanks for the heads up. The terminology as it stood wasn't clear. I made it simpler. --☥NEO (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

1 Billion USD ?

The 1 Billion USD valuation of a bitcoin is dubious at best and should be marked as such if not removed entirely. 96.253.92.14 (talk) 15:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I have at least two major financial publications to cite in regards to this. Right now it is cited by the two main financial statistics sites for bitcoin. The pricing doesn't lie and neither does the network. --☥NEO (talk) 18:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, it's not for "a bitcoin" but all bitcoins or the entire monetary base of bitcoin.--☥NEO (talk) 18:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit/Source Request: "major vulnerability" in the protocol or just the implementation?

No sources are given. https://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2010-5139 seems to imply a mere implementation specific vulnerability. Please change "On 6 August, a major vulnerability in the bitcoin protocol was found." to include a source or to "On 6 August, a major vulnerability in one bitcoin implementation was found." otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.179.46.23 (talk • contribs) 06:43 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The protocol and implementation are the same. There are sources. --☥NEO (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Mt.Gox

There's an unsourced stub at this title. I've found it while stub-sorting, and don't know whether it merits expansion or deletion, so here's a heads-up for editors in the area. Have redirected the existing Mt Gox from this article to that stub; the editor creating it over-wrote the other redirect from Mtgox. It gets a mention several places in the Bitcoin article but without much description - I've linked it from 2010 history, first occurrence, and in the image caption. PamD 09:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Great response, whether from this message or elsewhere - it was a stub of 416 bytes when I wrote the above, and is now at 5772 bytes with input from four people and two bots! Thanks, all. PamD 13:49, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Instawallet halts service

• http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/03/bitcoin-instawallet/
• http://venturebeat.com/2013/04/03/bitcoin-wallet-instawallet-hacked/
• http://arstechnica.com/business/2013/04/in-wake-of-bitcoin-spike-mt-gox-under-ddos-instawallet-shuts-down/

Conrad T. Pino (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It also made the front page of CNN today: "Major Bitcoin exchanges hit with cyberattacks|". - SudoGhost 19:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The service itself isn't particulary notable. DDOS attacks aren't too notable either. However, if there were any major losses through the break-in of the site, it can go in the theft section. --☥NEO (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep, not seeing anything worth mentioning here. Again, if there are any significant monetary losses, they can go into the thefts section along with the rest of them. The loss of this service is not notable unto itself. It's not clear if many people used it. --☥NEO (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The Criticism Section has been removed

In July, 2011, there was a section of the article listing criticisms. Based in the principle of CITOKATE, it was a rather important feature. Its removal smacks of boosterism or some other self-interested scouring of bad publicity. It should be restored and updated. Mhuben (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It's been replaced by "Reception" that contains positive and negative reviews on bitcoin. "Implications" contains an objective view on its affect on the world as well, good or bad. --☥NEO (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The current "reception" section is largely vacuous and includes casual statements by self-interested, non-expert, and ill-informed individuals. A serious reception or criticism section should be a high priority for this article. For starters, let's get some of this content out of the article. SPECIFICO talk 20:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Serious criticism can be added to Reception. I removed the Alex Jones blurb. However, financial analysis by all accredited parties should be welcome. --☥NEO (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

claims of Bubble

Bitcoin's value has been repeatedly labeled a "bubble" by various members of the financial press at different times. Examples:[1][2][3] Should this be pointed out somewhere? Shawnc (talk) 22:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It's pointed out in the Reception section but it's speculation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Until it actually "pops", I think it shouldn't be a featured topic in the article. When and if it "pops", these claims and the event will go into the History section.--☥NEO (talk) 00:32, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Despite Wikipedia not being in the business of financial forecasting, I think the readers should have the facts regarding mainstream media analysis of the currency's stability. Nonetheless, I'm not sure how substantive the mainstream media claims are. In addition to Shawnc's cites, NPR called it a bubble on the Planet Money show. They blame the price rise on the Cyprus bank account restrictions. But the reporter's main research was by "talking to my little brother" and posting an unanswered question on reddit. May not be factual or accurate, but the claims are indeed noteworthy and come from credible sources. It's a relevant and interesting historical fact that news media currently labels Bitcoin a fad or bubble. Hobsonlane (talk) 00:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The "reception" section, where things like this seem to have ended up, needs a lot of love overall. Maybe a rename too? I'm having trouble coming up with a better name for it ATM, but I don't think "receptions" accurately describes what we want to put there. (Concerns like this and speculation on long-term viability from different parties, from what I'm seeing) E123 (talk) 03:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

acceptance, brand, popularity, reliability, reputation, public image ? Hobsonlane (talk) 06:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Permanence

As far as I can make out from this article, Bitcoins only 'exist' as computer records of some kind in a decentralised P2P network. The question therefore arises whether they can have any permanent (or even very lasting) existence, since computer records are inherently ephemeral. Of course, much of our 'money' now exists primarily in the form of bank balances which themselves exist mainly in the form of computer records. I have seen it claimed somewhere that Bitcoins are actually 'safer' than bank balances because the Bitcoin records are held on thousands of different computers, while a bank will have only a few centralised data stores. This may be true, but it is only part of the story. A bank is a legally established entity with responsibilities to keep adequate records. There will probably be several backup records in different locations. When the bank's computers or data stores are replaced by new models, care will be taken to transfer all current data. Key records will also be backed up on paper. Moreover, bank customers will themselves usually have paper records in the form of statements, etc. (I certainly keep all my own bank statements for several years.) And if anything goes wrong, you know who to sue. In the case of Bitcoin, in contrast, you are entrusting your 'money' to a group of largely anonymous individuals, many of whom are probably criminals, and none of whom have any legal obligation whatever to maintain records for your benefit. And even if there are thousands of computers holding the records of your Bitcoins, it is unlikely that any of those computers will still be working in 10 years time. So what, if anything, is built into the Bitcoin system to give Bitcoins any permanence?109.158.45.112 (talk) 13:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)