Talk:Monero

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Monero article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 3 months

There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article. If you've come here in response to such recruitment, please review the relevant Wikipedia policy on recruitment of editors, as well as the neutral point of view policy. Disputes on Wikipedia are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote.

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article Monero, along with other pages relating to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

With respect to any reverting restrictions:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Cryptocurrency Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptocurrency, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cryptocurrency on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptocurrencyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptocurrencyTemplate:WikiProject CryptocurrencyWikiProject Cryptocurrency
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Mass surveillance Low‑importance

	Monero is within the scope of WikiProject Mass surveillance, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of mass surveillance and mass surveillance-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.Mass surveillanceWikipedia:WikiProject Mass surveillanceTemplate:WikiProject Mass surveillanceMass surveillance
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

David Latapie (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (Disclosed here.)
Nemesis0618 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (Promotional SPA percontribs)
Fluffypony (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (Disclosed here)
RentaCat (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (Promotional SPA per contribs)
Amoebatron~enwiki (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (Promotional SPA per contribs)
SamsungGalaxyPlayer (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (Promotional SPA per contribs)
92.203.154.11 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (Promotional SPA per contribs)
Jleiman (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (Promotional SPA per contribs)
Verifiedaccount (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. (Promotional mostly-SPA per contribs)
Fireice (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight. (Disclosed here)

The following Wikipedia contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest and neutral point of view.

Antanst (talk · contribs) This user has not edited the article.
‪Throat0390 (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

Unnecessary inclusion of the criminal activity source.

Regarding the third paragraph - "It is used in illicit activities such as money laundering, darknet markets, ransomware, cryptojacking, and other organized crime."

How aren't other cryptocurrencies and fiat currencies also used in illicit activities? 173.246.209.202 (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with this point. I checked the source, and it was also a dead link. So i removed it for now. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtbobwaysf: This isn't a valid point, it's just the usual whataboutism we always see with cryptocurrency articles.

Being a dead link is not a justification for whitewashing the article, per WP:LINKROT, but just as importantly, WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. The article already has a lengthy section on #Illicit use, where this is already explained with multiple sources. As always, the lead is merely a summary of the body of the article.

Further, the sentence immediately after the one you cut no longer makes sense. You can cut the dead source if you want, but you do not have consensus to remove this content from the lead. Grayfell (talk) 09:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not my WP:ONUS to find dead sources. Maybe you can find it if the content is important to you. We are not doing unsourced content in crypto articles, you are aware of that. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay closer attention to what I am saying. The sources are already in the article. That's what WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY means. Since you do not have consensus to remove this content, I am restoring the status quo wording. The onus is on you to change the status quo. You could do this by explaining why sources used in the #Illicit use section are inappropriate, or why you think that wording was not an appropriate summary of the body. As I said, being a dead link doesn't even make a source unreliable, much less justify ignoring multiple other sources already cited in the article. Grayfell (talk) 04:14, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block reward isn't completely fixed

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I request changing | block_reward = XMR 0.6 to | block_reward = XMR 0.6 ≥

Because Monero has dynamic block size, which makes block reward is not always 0.6, sometimes it can be less.

More detailed explanation of dynamic block size: https://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/11283/can-someone-help-me-understand-the-dynamic-block-size-in-monero Throat0390 (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you find us a WP:RS that discusses this? In the case of cryptocurrency articles, it would be a book, a mainstream newspaper (fortune, wsj, bloomberg, etc), and cant be a contributor news piece, a blog, reddit, etc. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, here's my findings:

https://web.getmonero.org/library/Zero-to-Monero-2-0-0.pdf#subsection.7.3.3 (page 64, section 7.3.3)
https://masteringmonero.com/book/Mastering%20Monero%20First%20Edition%20by%20SerHack%20and%20Monero%20Community.pdf (page 139, section 5.5.3.2)
https://www.binance.com/en/research/analysis/monero-hard-fork (section 2.1)

First 2 sources may count as contributor sources however its also possible to verify this fact using a blockchain explorer, for an example:

Block 3102996 has 0.599978 XMR block reward while block 3154914 is exactly 0.6 XMR

Another example from 2017:

Block 1355956 has 6.756 XMR while one block earlier has 6.967 XMR - 0.211 XMR less than full reward because of dynamic block size and penalty system.

Throat0390 (talk) 00:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done by myself Throat0390 (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources you provided are WP:RS on cryptocurrency articles. We are only using mainstream sources, such as wsj, nyt, bloomberg, etc. Crypo-zines, binance, etc are not RS. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Hi, there's no way (or near to no way) to WSJ, NYT and Bloomberg would publish article about Monero has dynamic block size algorithm. Please be realistic.~~

I also provided sources from a blockchain explorer that everybody can verify it. You can also use different blockchain explorer service or use your own.

Edit: Just saw @Matthew.kowal added source from Yahoo Finance, it mentions about dynamic block size but it doesn't explain how it exactly works, I think we can include both primary and secondary source. (Like the book added before.) Throat0390 (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to reliable sources, which in this case will also be independent sources. Use reliable, independent sources to determine what needs to be explained. It is okay to leave out parts which are not mentioned by reliable sources, even if they seem obviously important to you based on your experiences or opinions.

This is a general audience encyclopedia, and over-relying on primary sources to provide technical details is unlikely to help readers get a better understanding of the larger topic.

Also note that Yahoo! and MSN often republish work from other outlets, including unreliable outlets. Being republished in this way doesn't make a source any more reliable. Grayfell (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is current source doesn't mention block rewards can be less than 0.6 but it mentions dynamic block size (which is about block reward).

How we can fix this issue? That's why I wanted to add this technical details in addition to the secondary source. Throat0390 (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Throat0390: I noticed above on this talk page that you implemented a change that you had also proposed. I think due to your COI you should probably wait for another editor to do that. Next, relating to this content in question, we can simply remove it. We dont need to have everything about Monero on this article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block reward is one of the important property of cryptocurrencies, I think we shouldn't remove it. Also I noticed other cryptocurrency pages doesn't include citation, is that problem? Throat0390 (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its non-controversial content. I was just noting you probably should wait for others. Not a big deal on that edit in question about block reward. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Information and Historical Clarification

I have noticed a significant gap in the background information of the Monero article. Furthermore, there is a misrepresentation regarding its origins.

The current text states:

> "A Bitcointalk forum user "thankful_for_today" coded these ideas into a coin they dubbed BitMonero. Other forum users disagreed with thankful_for_today's direction for BitMonero, so forked it in 2014 to create Monero."

This wording is misleading as it suggests that BitMonero was an entirely new creation. In reality, BitMonero was a fork of Bytecoin, which was the first implementation of the CryptoNote protocol (sometimes referred to as one of the first, despite being created two years before any fork, three if you count development before genesis). The critical point is that BitMonero was not coded from scratch but was based on Bytecoin's codebase. Ztdwiki (talk) 01:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the text mentions:

> "The protocol is open source and based on CryptoNote, a concept described in a 2013 white paper authored by Nicolas van Saberhagen."

This is somewhat inaccurate. The original concept of CryptoNote was described in version 1.0 of the white paper in 2012, while the 2013 reference corresponds to version 2.0. Ztdwiki (talk) 01:58, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done - changed to: based on CryptoNote v2 Throat0390 (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

partially done by adding to info box like I added to Litecoin. Throat0390 (talk) 21:47, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extend Kraken's delist

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

[1] Throat0390 (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither Reddit nor Cointelegraph are reliable sources. Grayfell (talk) 08:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, I already included better resource needed template, all the information is verifiable from Kraken's official website however they didn't include information about when they delisted.

If current proposed changes are not OK I can rewrite without dates included. In this case only Kraken would be used as source.

What do you think? Throat0390 (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to reliable, independent sources. If something is not explained by reliable sources, it may not even belong in the article at all. Grayfell (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mining

The following addition to the Mining section did not seem particularly relevant. It references a arbitrary point in time and over generalizes a specific yet anecdotal case. It also lacks any references. I have removed it, but would encourage more content regarding mining.

Mining is not very profitable at June 2024 prices. However, the consistency of the payouts for an XMR miner are clear. Examine the graphic, "Monero XMR Mining Profits", for an example of a five computer P2Pool cluster mining XMR with one of the machines hosting the full Monero blockchain and a mining pool daemon (P2Pool). These older consumer model systems are almost paying for their electrical needs in a quite predictable manner.

Matthew.kowal (talk) 05:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. The chart is visual spam, also. Any info on mining would, as always, require a reliable source. For this topic, that would also be an independent source. Grayfell (talk) 08:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Added benefit of the publicity section

The newest entry in the publicity section is 4 years old, and I don't see an added benefit of attempting to include the occasional news article which is related to Monero. There are countless numbers of articles, opinions, and events regarding the currency which has existed for over a decade now and selectively covering a few of them seems impractical and irrelevant to the article's purpose of providing an nonspecific overview of Monero, as well as allowing the introduction of bias through selective inclusion of events. Wunpun1 (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]