Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

An address is a hash of a public key, not a public key itself

In several places in both Bitcoin and Bitcoin protocol, we say something along the lines of "a Bitcoin address is a public key". For example in Bitcoin#Wallets. we say "the public key functions as an address to which payments can be sent". A Bitcoin address is actually a hash of a public key. This distinction is important for numerous technical and practical reasons, and we should make sure to be accurate about that fact in our articles. Chris Arnesen 01:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You are entirely correct - bloody impossible to find references for howeverVinceSamios (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok so why encrypt the account number? presumably that can be decrypted? or is the reverse encryption considered impossible? sparky@navpoint.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.232.120 (talk) 18:47, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping the mercatus Bitcoin primer http://mercatus.org/sites/default/files/Brito_BitcoinPrimer.pdf would be a good reference, but alas they get it wrong, "the public keys for all transactions -- also known as Bitcoin addresses". Ditto for http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~smeiklejohn/files/imc13.pdf , "users generate at least one signing keypair and publicize the public key, or address." Everybody please keep an eye out for a reference that gets it right. @sparky, for one thing addresses can be created that require a combination of private keys. More info here https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Address . Chris Arnesen 20:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Kocherlakota removal

The "memory is money" paper is germane to Bitcoin. See this Financial Times' blog post and this working paper, etc. I also have difficulty understanding how some feel Yap's stone currency, which relied on an oral "block chain" isn't relevant. Just because you say "it's not" doesn't mean it is, actually, irrelevant. http://www.chyp.com/media/blog-entry/explaining-bitcoin-to-the-man-in-the-street-sort-of for one seems to disagree. I'm replacing the content. Fleetham (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

@Fleetham:. You're edit warring. Please read Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle. I find your recent Yap edit to be in extremely poor taste. You tried over and over again previously to insert the reference and you were literally the ONLY person who thought it was a good idea. I find it hard to believe that you don't remember this thread Talk:Bitcoin/Archive_9#No_one_likes_Yap. Please accept the consensus position and stop trying to put it back into the article. As for the "memory as money" idea, your reference was an opaque economic research paper from 1996. That's enough for me to know it doesn't belong in the main Bitcoin article. If you really want to write some words about "memory as money", maybe add it to the History of Bitcoin article. The ftalphaville link requires the reader to create an account, which I'm not willing to do. The "working paper" is another opaque economics research paper. Does "working" mean it hasn't even been published in a peer-reviewed journal? Chris Arnesen 18:13, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, here is a link that doesn't require sign up: Explaining Bitcoins to the Man in the Street. The author David Birth is a founding director of a consultancy on secure electronic transactions and has been interviewed by the BBC for a piece on Bitcoins. He thinks that "the closest analogy to [Bitcoin] is the stone currency of the island of Yap, in the South Pacific." Fleetham (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I trust you have issue with using the above to explain how Bitcoin works in a way most can understand? Fleetham (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Even the Director of the nonprofit Bitcoin Foundation, thinks Yap is a good way to explain Bitcoin. Also, a BBC radio show that ties together Bitcoin and Yap's stone currency. Fleetham (talk) 04:00, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

@Fleetham: I agree with both sides to a certain extent on this one, and in my mind the solution is to draft up an edit regarding Yap and how it specifically relates to Bitcoin - some of the edits have been a little bit anecdotal.VinceSamios (talk) 14:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Yap has been proposed here as a rhetorical device for explaining how Bitcoin works. It has no actual relevance to Bitcoin. Why would an analogy with an obscure ancient currency that nobody's ever heard of make it easier for the reader to understand Bitcoin? Yap is NOT common knowledge. "Oh it's like Yap, I get it now!" said no reader ever. I can only speculate as to why the folks in those interviews chose to mention the analogy. Perhaps to make themselves sound smart by mentioning an obscure ancient currency. This is an encyclopedia, not an interview. I suggest we stop wasting time arguing this point, which has already been proposed and squarely rejected, and instead work on writing up an accessible Yap-free technical summary.Chris Arnesen 15:44, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It does have actual relevance to Bitcoin because it works on the very same principle--a distributed record of transaction history instead of tokens. With Bitcoin you have a block chain, and with Yapese coins you had an oral history. Everyone knew which stones belonged to whom and when they changed hands.

I'll post a draft here soon. Fleetham (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm all in favor of finding ways to write about Bitcoin that make the subject more accessible, but I don't think it's really so difficult to understand that we need to resort to these analogies. I've read some pretty difficult articles here, some of which are Featured Articles (AdS/CFT correspondence, for example). If there was a blog post somewhere describing this theoretical physics concept using donuts and vacuum cleaners I would not advocate putting it in the article, even if it caused the light bulb over one reader's head to illuminate. It's just not encyclopedic, and it doesn't exist an any serious literature or journalism about the topic. --Laser brain (talk) 17:50, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm not beholden to Yap but am to accessibility. I do think the page as written does need increased accessibility, and while Bitcoin may not be a complex or difficult-to-understand system, but it is an unexpected one. The only currency our readers are likely to have encountered in their entire lives are token-based. If we don't emphasis and illustrate this fundamental difference, what is to prevent the reader from assuming that Bitcoin, which is touted as a currency, operates in any manner other than the sole principle they are familiar with? Fleetham (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

"Why would an analogy with an obscure ancient currency that nobody's ever heard of make it easier for the reader to understand Bitcoin? " - I've heard of Yap (and am not an economist), but then again I also comprehend how Bitcoin works from reading the actual explanation. So, perhaps Yaps make a useful analogy for those who don't need it?  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, perhaps. I think it could have its place in a larger section delineating the difference between memory-based Bitcoin and familiar, token-based currencies. I'll try to write up such a thing and see if it gets as roundly denounced as my proposed Yap analogy. Fleetham (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

bitcoin.org is the website of the Bitcoin reference client

We've struggled with what to call the bitcoin.org website both for the bitcoin "logo" in the infobox (see Talk:Bitcoin#A_better_Bitcoin_image) as well as in Bitcoin#External_links. For a while we wrote "The official Bitcoin website (logo)" then "The unofficial website (logo)". Since bitcoin.org is maintained by the same core developers that produce the reference client bitcoin-qt (bitcoind), bitcoin.org should really be thought of as the official website for the reference client. I'll rebrand it as such in the infobox and external links. Chris Arnesen 18:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

A message from Checkingfax : Chrisarnesen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.Chris Arnesen 16:22, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Categories

Why Bitcoin has categories which are already covered in its own category? IMO this is contrary to the Help:Categories. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 16:39, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done Agreed Chris Arnesen 18:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

 Undone Because none of these categories are parent categories of Category:Bitcoin. Checkingfax (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand. All of the categories listed on the Bitcoin article (besides Category:Bitcoin) also appear as categories listed at the bottom of Category:Bitcoin. Isn't that how parent categories are defined? @Checkingfax: Could you please reapply my changes or explain where me and Rezonansowy's understanding of categories is falling short? Thanks, Chris Arnesen 19:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@Checkingfax: As above. could you explain? --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 13:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done No counter-argument has been provided. Re-applying the edit ... Chris Arnesen 17:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Sheep Marketplace Heist

The article currently contains no reference to the 100,000 bitcoin sheep marketplace heist. This is a noteworthy event in bitcoins history especially consider much of that history is an involvement in illegal drug marketplaces. Although I'm concerned about providing a balanced view of bitcoin and not pandering to the "bad boy" image, this was a significant event.

Thoughts?

VinceSamios (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

If you have a source that covers the event then by all means go ahead and add it. Samwalton9 (talk) 22:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Decent sources here - I don't have time to edit the article at the moment and I think I'm on the naughty step for the next 24 hours (ref Thomas.W's comment above) -

VinceSamios (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Let's cover it! Important not only for the scale of the theft but also that the coins were tracked in real time by some of the victims, even through mixers. For me that was certainly the first time I understood what was meant when people say that bitcoin is pseudonymous. Chris Arnesen 18:16, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Only 5000 Bitcoins were stolen in the Sheep Marketplace, not 100000. It turned out the 100k coins belonged to btc-e. 86.144.55.203 (talk) 15:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Source? In fact the source we have in there states only that the site admin claimed 5400 coins but "some estimates" claim up to 100,000. So the prose that's there now is inaccurate and the source is full of weasel wording. Bad all-around. --Laser brain (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Technical 13 (talk) 20:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I spent some time looking into this. I'm skeptical of the 96k bitcoin number. The theft was covered by many different reputable news outlets, but every article that I could find was full of word-weasling along the lines of "some users allege that as many as 96k bitcoins may have been stolen". Furthermore, in every article I was able to find, the source of the information was http://sheepmarketscam.com/ and posts on reddit. It would be great if we could find a source in which the author independently verifies the redditor's claims. Chris Arnesen 20:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I speculate that this http://www.reddit.com/r/SheepMarketplace/comments/1s2upf/the_sheep_market_scam_address_does_not_actually/ is why 86.144.55.203 said that the coins actually belonged to BTC-e Chris Arnesen 18:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Major Thefts

We've already discussed adding the Sheep Marketplace Heist to the article - I struggled to find an appropriate place to put this portion so I've created a sub-section to "thefts" titled "major thefts" - I would like to expand this with historical major thefts. I'm also open to the passage about sheep market place being move to a more appropriate place, however my feeling is a major thefts section would be valuable. Thoughts? VinceSamios (talk) 11:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree Good idea, useful for most readers. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 15:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree that we should cover major thefts.  Disagree that there's a need for a dedicated subsection for the "major" thefts. We wouldn't cover the "minor" thefts so the distinction is redundant. I removed the "Major thefts" subsection header. Chris Arnesen 18:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Opening paragraph of Bitcoin#Transactions

@Mr.choppers: @Laser brain: @Chrisarnesen: How is the below as a proposed, accessible version of what's currently the header of the "transactions," section? I've tried to preserve as much information from what's there now as possible but increase clarity and accessibility.

Users send and receive payments using client software on a personal computer, mobile device or web application. Transactions do not explicitly identify the payer and payee by name. Instead, a Bitcoin transaction transfers ownership from one Bitcoin address to another. Because bitcoins do not exist as either physical objects or digital files, a transaction is nothing more than a record of ownership transfer. The shared public record of transactions is referred to as the block chain,[14] and the process of confirming and appending blocks of transactions to it is called mining. "Mining" a new block carries a 25 bitcoins reward for the first to do so, and specialized computers are often used in what has become an increasingly competitive task.

Fleetham (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

@Fleetham: Sounds good and is definitely a step towards accessibility, thanks! A few points / questions :

• "Because bitcoins do not exist as either physical objects or digital files". I understand this to be a statement, for contrast, of what Bitcoin is not. I think I get it and am mostly fine with the "physical objects" part (though just a couple paragraphs later we talk about "physical bitcoins"). What does it mean though for a currency to exist as a digital file? Don't bitcoins kind of exist as a digital file? I'm not sure what the thing is that's being evoked by "digital file". Is there a more precise way to describe the thing that bitcoin is not (presumably we're contrasting with fiat currency)? Chris Arnesen 20:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• "...mining. Mining a new block carries a 25 bitcoins reward for the first to do so." Let's try to avoid using the same word twice in a row. Also it won't be clear to the reader here what "first" means. First after what? Perhaps we can say in some way that blocks are chained together with each building on the last. Chris Arnesen 20:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• To where do you propose moving the statement "Bitcoins can be purchased at currency exchanges or from Bitcoin service companies, or obtained by mining or selling products or services for bitcoins." ? I think that should be in that intro paragraph, since that question seems to weigh heavily on the average reader's mind.Chris Arnesen 20:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Some important details have been removed in the proposal that currently aren't stated elsewhere in the body of the article (the example address, that mining is a proof-of-work system, that the target block creation rate is one per ten minutes). I'm fine with deferring some or all of these details to the sub-sections. This just a reminder that after we settle on a nice accessible header paragraph, we'll have to fill in the gaps.Chris Arnesen 20:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

@Chrisarnesen: To address your concerns:

• Instead of saying what bitcoins are not is is true to say that bitcoins don't exist outside of the block chain? This also removes the problem present by saying "there are no physical bitcoins" when a picture of one is no more than a few inches below.
• Yes, two mentions of mining in close proximity are too many. This should be changed.
• I don't think we even need to address "first" to mine a block or anything like that. Why not say something along the lines of "Mining a new block carries a 25 bitcoins reward, and specialized computers race one another to complete what has become an increasingly competitive task."
• The sentence about where bitcoins can be had doesn't really seem like something that really belongs to a section about transactions... especially because the rest of the section seems focused on how a bitcoin itself is transacted not bitcoin-for-fiat or bitcoin-for-goods transactions. Why not include it in the lede if it's something many are interested in?

Fleetham (talk) 22:36, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

@Fleetham:

• You're right, bitcoins don't exist outside of the block chain. I'd say that's an accurate reinforcement of "a transaction is nothing more than a record of ownership transfer."
• "Mining a new block carries a 25 bitcoins reward, and specialized computers race one another to complete what has become an increasingly competitive task." I still fear this simplification could lead to confusion. As a reader, I'd infer that blocks are being created at an ever-increasing rate.
• I'd support moving the "where to get bitcoins" statement (a simplified version perhaps) to the opening paragraph. Reader comments have shown that's one of the things people really want to know.Chris Arnesen 16:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's a rough draft incorporating suggested changes... let me know what you think.

Users send and receive payments using client software on a personal computer, mobile device or web application. Transactions do not explicitly identify the payer and payee by name. Instead, a Bitcoin transaction transfers ownership from one Bitcoin address to another. Because bitcoins do not exist outside of a public ownership log, a transaction is nothing more than a record of ownership transfer. This shared public record of transactions is referred to as the block chain,[14] and the process of confirming and appending blocks of transactions to it is called mining. Every ten minutes a new block can be mined unlocking a 25 bitcoins bounty, and specialized computers compete to complete what has become an increasingly competitive task. In this way, new bitcoins are created and fees kept low--payment processing work is primarily rewarded with brand-new bitcoins not fees paid by users.

Fleetham (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I posted a couple of these edits, thanks.

• As per Talk:Bitcoin#By_.22transaction_log.22_you_mean_.22transaction_database.22, "log" isn't a good noun for the block chain.
• I prefer "reward" to "bounty" because "bounty" in this usage is a secondary one meaning "reward".
• Prepare to have your mind blown. The block reward actually ENCOURAGES transaction fees. Inclusion of transactions in the block is optional. The chain actually has numerous blocks with just one transaction, the coinbase transaction that assigns the block reward to the miner. The more transactions that a miner includes in her block, the larger the block is. The larger the block is, the longer it takes for it to propagate to the rest of the network. The longer it takes for a block to propagate to the rest of the network, the more likely it is that another miner will be able to create an alternative block and claim the reward. The miner pays an opportunity cost for each transaction she includes in her block. So in fact the block reward disincentivises inclusion of no- or low-fee transactions. Chris Arnesen 00:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That's not exactly the story Matt Levine tells... is it wrong to say that fees are kept low because miners are paid with newly created bitcoins? Fleetham (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I read it several times. The author has both an incomplete understanding of Bitcoin, and also draws improper conclusions from what he does know.

To paraphrase/quote, "It's as if Visa transactions incurred no fee at the point of transaction but then at the end of the year the Federal Reserve printed $500 billion and handed it to Visa". For one thing the "cost" of currency creation is born by currency hoarders, not the people transacting in the currency, groups that the author improperly conflates. The creation of of new bitcoins only affects me to the extent that it reduces the scarcity of the bitcoins that I'm hoarding, if any. Merchants that accept bitcoin generally price their goods in dollars and immediately cash out received bitcoins for dollars. Such a merchant has ZERO exposure to the price of bitcoin and bears none whatsoever of the deflationary "cost" of the block reward. For that merchant, in no sense is the block reward a hidden fee.

I'd also reject a statement that the bitcoin hoarders are bearing a cost burden for the transactors. Last year bitcoin was pretty much the best investment a person could have made. The supply of bitcoins is preordained, well-known, and priced into the bitcoin exchange rate. New bitcoins are not a cost, they just are what they are. For another thing, the author makes it clear that he doesn't realize that inclusion of transactions in a block is optional. In his hypothetical Visa scenario, he imagines that Visa is bound by contract to process every transaction for free throughout the course of the year in exchange for the end-of-year payout from the Fed. In reality, miners need not (and indeed sometimes don't) include any transactions in the block.

So why do miners include transactions in the block? From a selfish economic perspective, they shouldn't. Morally though including transactions in the block is in some sense the "right" thing to do. I think the whole system operates far from what would be the economic equilibrium. So yes, I think is it wrong to say that fees are kept low because miners are paid with newly created bitcoins. I think fees are actually kept low mostly due to the generosity of miners who voluntarily include our transactions in their blocks, and the fact that currently fees are hard-coded into the reference client. Chris Arnesen 17:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Ahh... that's a lot to read. I'm not sure if I agree with the author but linked to it because his opinions draw on the idea that transaction fees are subsidized by the creation of new bitcoins, which supports my assertion that the system is set up in such a way as to keep transaction costs low.

But I don't think that my assertion is necessarily at odds with yours or that they are mutually exclusive. I think that what we might have here is a case of two opposing forces--the fact that bitcoin payment processing is rewarded by the system helps keep fees low, and the fact that each additional transaction included in a block is a cost to the miner helps keep them high. Such things often happen in Economics. For example, for a shopkeeper, rising incomes mean more spending (the so-called income effect), but rising incomes also mean consumers prefer to buy high quality goods (the substitution effect). So, will rising incomes mean the shopkeeper sells less or more? Obviously, which ever of the two forces is stronger will win out, and so with no other information it's impossible to tell.

Anyway, I still think like my rough draft with the last sentence included... do you think there's any way to incorporate the idea of each transaction being an opportunity cost for the miner and maybe we can simply present the problem of opposing forces instead of having to make a judgement on it? Fleetham (talk) 04:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@Fleetham: I realized that you linked to that article because it supports the assertion "that the system is set up in such a way as to keep transaction costs low". I worked so hard to tear apart the author's argument because I'm trying to disabuse you of that notion. Economic theory says that THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE. At first glance, this result is counter-intuitive, but to me the argument is convincing. The economic force of the block reward is to make transaction fees HIGHER because the larger the block reward, the larger the opportunity cost of including transactions in the block. Therefore I fundamentally disagree with the statement "the fact that bitcoin payment processing is rewarded by the system helps keep fees low". I first encountered these ideas in a gist post by Bitcoin lead developer Gavin Andresen https://gist.github.com/gavinandresen/5044482 . If you're able to point us to an article, blog post, anything that makes a convincing counter-argument, that the system is set up to keep transaction fees low, I'd love to read it. Until then I strongly oppose including any statement along those lines into the article. Chris Arnesen 17:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, let's leave it aside for now and focus on the rough draft of the proposed section header. Does anything need changing other than removal or change of the last sentence? Fleetham (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, other things need changing.

• "Because bitcoins do not exist outside of a public ownership log," : It's not a log!! Talk:Bitcoin#By_.22transaction_log.22_you_mean_.22transaction_database.22
• "a transaction is nothing more than a record of ownership transfer. " : We just said "a Bitcoin transaction transfers ownership from one Bitcoin address to another" in the previous sentence. Redundant language. This tidbit only adds that a transaction is ONLY that thing.
• "Every ten minutes a new block can be mined" : Makes it sound like there's a timer whereby a block gets appended every ten minutes like clockwork. In fact, sometimes blocks are just a minute apart, sometimes twenty minutes or more.
• "unlocking a 25 bitcoins bounty" : "reward" is a better word than "bounty"
• "specialized computers compete to complete what has become an increasingly competitive task" : As discussed at length in Talk:Bitcoin#Problems_with_the_opening_paragraph, mining computers aren't all specialized. So a qualifier is necessary, e.g. "often-specialized computers". "Compete ... in a competitive task". If they're competing, it's redundant to say that it's competitive. The modifier "increasingly" implies a continuation into the future and shouldn't be used, as per Talk:Bitcoin#.22Increasing.22_use_of_bitcoins_in_lede. You taught me that!
• "In this way, new bitcoins are created and fees kept low--payment processing work is primarily rewarded with brand-new bitcoins not fees paid by users." Let's leave that out for now as per the discussion above.

Here's a different draft:

Users send and receive payments using client software on a personal computer, mobile device or web application. Transactions do not explicitly identify the payer and payee by name. Instead, a Bitcoin transaction transfers ownership from one Bitcoin address to another. Approximately every ten minutes, a block of transactions is confirmed to a shared public record called the block chain. This competitive confirmation process known as mining carries a reward of 25 bitcoins per block.

Chris Arnesen 18:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's good. I won't remove what's up there just yet. I know you wanted to incorporate some of the more technical stuff that will get removed into other sections. Fleetham (talk) 03:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Cool, I applied the change.Chris Arnesen 16:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Merchants accepting bitcoin

Right now we say that there are "more than a thousand" brick and mortar merchants (based on this article) and "more than twenty thousand online merchants" based on the fact that the US-based bitcoin payment processors BitPay and CoinBase (neither of which, shamefully, do we mention by name in the article) claim 10k+ merchants each. We should find a better number and reference for the worldwide number of online merchants.Chris Arnesen 03:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Still looking for a better reference for the number of online merchants accepting bitcoin worldwide ... Chris Arnesen 19:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Changing reference to "more than thirty thousand" since now BitPay alone has more than 20k http://www.coindesk.com/get-paid-bitcoin-bitpays-payroll-api/ Chris Arnesen 18:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

New section : Bitcoin service companies

I propose adding a new sub-section about the service companies that have sprung up around the Bitcoin technology. The ones that come to mind are

• Blockchain.info : We link to their site in several places from our articles. When somebody says "check out this address" on a bitcoin forum, they almost always provide a link to it on blockchain.info. Similar for various other stats about the block chain, mining, etc. Developers use commonly use their API. And the information services they provide are just part of it. They just surpassed one million consumer wallets http://www.coindesk.com/blockchain-info-reaches-one-million-wallets/ . I propose creating a dedicated blockchain.info article and referencing it from Bitcoin.

Ok. This site seems to have useful tools and charts that are publicly accessible Silbtsc (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I created the article Blockchain.info. Chris Arnesen 21:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Coinbase : The easiest way to get bitcoins in the US. 750k consumer wallets, 10k merchant accounts, recently received $25 million in venture capital.
• BitPay : The largest BTC payment processor in the US. Recently surpassed $100 million worth of transactions processed. Propose new article BitPay

I would be opposed. These are mostly commercial sites. Maybe on a separate wiki page. Silbtsc (talk) 07:30, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is appropriate - we don't have a list of companies accepting USDVinceSamios (talk) 14:14, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Silbtsc and VinceSamios. Thank you for voicing your opinion. They are indeed commercial sites (both in the sense of "for-profit" as well as "concerned with or engaged in commerce"). So what? Those companies are a significant part of the Bitcoin ecosphere (here in the USA at least). Would you similarly oppose mentioning some of the largest Bitcoin exchanges by name? Similarly, are you opposed to how we currently mention companies and non-profits that accept Bitcoin payments? Those companies (OkCupid, Reddit, and Virgin Galactic) are simply accepting Bitcoin payments whereas BitPay, CoinBase and blockchain are building the infrastructure that will transform Bitcoin from a protocol and proof-of-concept network to a fully-formulated payment system. I'm sure you both have good reasons for your opposition. Please help us to understand your thought process. Chris Arnesen 15:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Chrisarnesen I have a few concerns - Firstly how do we define which companies are worthy of being listed? And would we be opening up the flood gates? What makes coinbase worth adding where MtGox isn't for example? Or BTC-e? BitPay is interesting as a solution to a problem, but it isn't the only such solution so does this mean we need to list every solution? I think the definition of what is/isn't add-worthy is critical to figure out. It *may* be appropriate to have "top wallet services" and "top exchanges" lists - although I'm not so sure.VinceSamios (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

That's easy. You use the guidelines in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If an organization is notable enough to have an article here, it is notable enough to be in the list. --Laser brain (talk) 20:21, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

In a separate article that lists Bitcoin service companies and/or Bitcoin exchanges, Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) would be both a necessary and sufficient condition for inclusion. The bar should be higher for inclusion into the main article. We'll establish consensus on a case by case basis. For example, BitInstant deserves its own article, but I wouldn't want to include it in Bitcoin. For my two cents, Blockchain.info, Coinbase, and BitPay are all sufficiently notable both for their own article as well as for inclusion on the main page. For bitcoin exchanges, volume is a simple metric we can use to draw the line. Mt Gox and BTC-e are two of the largest exchanges in the world. For me, they'd both make the cut along with Bitstamp and BTC China.Chris Arnesen 21:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a slippery slope either way. Once you start mentioning companies, people will be constantly coming out of the woodwork to add their favorite organizations and web sites. The only logical threshold for inclusion can be either a) any organization notable enough to have its own article or b) an organization for which we can locate independent sources that state they are actually more important than most others. It's just a invitation for COI editors to get involved—I speak from experience. --Laser brain (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, but I see your point and appreciate your experience on this matter. In fact I was already just pointed to the article Wikipedia:Single-purpose_account by Checkingfax and perhaps this talk section is why. There are too many Bitcoin companies to list on the main page, and your criteria b sounds like too much work to try to research and hold the line. So here's the modified proposal :

• An article for each company that satisfies Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)
• A "Bitcoin companies" list article a la Wikipedia:LISTCOMPANY#Lists_of_companies_and_organizations
• A "Bitcoin companies" category of which "Bitcoin exchanges" and "Bitcoin service providers" would be sub-categories.
• A "Commerce" subsection (or something like that) in Bitcoin that links to the list article and describes the commercial landscape without naming names. Chris Arnesen 22:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

This reminds me that I've already seen such slippage firsthand in this paragraph in Bitcoin#History:

In 2013 some mainstream services such as OkCupid, Baidu, Reddit, Humble Bundle and Foodler began accepting it as a form of payment.[47] Certain non-profit or advocacy groups also began accepting bitcoins including Free Software Foundation,[48] WordPress,[49] Tor Project,[50] and the Electronic Frontier Foundation.[51]

The "citation" for each and every one of those non-profit organizations is simply a link to the organization's website. Chris Arnesen 22:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

There's constant modification of the list of companies that accept bitcoin in the lede too. The above logic, which I agree with, dictates that we remove that list too. I'll make it so. Please revert and comment here if you disagree. Chris Arnesen 01:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

By this same logic, we shouldn't list individual alternative cryptocurrencies in the "See also" section, especially there's been some edit warring recently on that point. Chris Arnesen 04:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I created a new article BitPay. Are there any other notable Bitcoin companies that don't yet have an article? Chris Arnesen 21:53, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

By "rate of inflation" we mean "money supply"

In Bitcoin#Economics we say "Bitcoin's rate of inflation is predefined within the Bitcoin protocol and is decreasing as time goes on." That's not an accurate statement. From Inflation : "In economics, inflation is a persistent increase in the general price level of goods and services in an economy over a period of time." The Bitcoin protocol doesn't know anything about the price level of goods and services. If "the rate of inflation" were predefined that would mean that there are provisions in the protocol that say, for example, "In 2025 one bitcoin should be able to buy the following basket of goods and services". There is no such provision in the protocol. Instead the money supply is predefined : "In economics, the money supply or money stock, is the total amount of monetary assets available in an economy at a specific time." So the sentence should read "Bitcoin's money supply is predefined by the Bitcoin protocol."

We also say "At some point Bitcoin will become a deflationary currency as no new coins will be released. Since the rate of inflation is fixed it has been called inflation-proof, or more specifically resistant to uncontrolled inflation." The reference for those statements ( http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Bitcoin-Ready-to-Go-Mainstream-236507091.html ) has just one throwaway sentence on the subject, "Some in Silicon Valley are touting the digital currency as the future of how people will use and move money: inflation-proof, non-regulated and high-speed transactions at low costs." In my opinion, assertions about the future inflationary / deflationary status of Bitcoin are 100% speculation. WP:SPECULATION states, "predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included". I'd hardly call unnamed sources in Silicon Valley "reliable, expert sources or recognized entities". We'll need to find a better reference for our assertions about the long-term economics of Bitcoin, or remove them from the article. Chris Arnesen 17:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't read the whole post, but increases in the money supply do cause inflation according to the quantity theory of money. So, it's not really a mistake although you do have a good eye. Fleetham (talk) 08:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

And just to further emphasize the above: so, it's not as if increases in the money supply are a cause of inflation. Such increases are the cause. It's not like sometimes if you have too many weevils you'll get inflation and sometimes it's down to pesky increases in the money supply. There are other factors that may play a role, but Economists generally agree that inflation, persistent increases in price levels, is caused by increases in the money supply. Fleetham (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, but he's right - the reference is terrible and doesn't really support the claim. I'm removing it. We need actual economics analysis, not a throwaway line from a TV station. If bitcoin is "inflation-proof," then one bitcoin today would buy the exact same things as it would in 50 years. There's absolutely no guarantee of that. Gold is not "inflation-proof" either - the value is not pegged to anything, but is instead subject to trading and speculation. Gold's inflation-adjusted price has spiked and collapsed twice.

Bitcoin might be seen as a hedge against inflation, in the belief that it will retain value if dollar-denominated economies suffer significant inflation, but this is not the same as an economic certainty. No government will accept tax payments in bitcoins, which means that it ultimately has to be converted into other currencies at some point in the chain. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd imagine that "inflation-proof" is just a byword for "fixed supply." While I don't advocate re-adding it to the page, I don't think you can get much more inflation-proof than having only X number of bitcoins in existence, ever.

And an addendum to my prior posts: if people aren't actually spending bitcoins but instead speculating (and therefore hoarding), increases in the money supply may not cause inflation. This is a special case called the liquidity trap. ...but if this concept is relevant to Bitcoin, it doesn't speak well of it being a currency. Fleetham (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Can somebody add Category:Free Decentralized Software

Can somebody add Category Free Decentralized Software Teaksmitty (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done I've made the edit, however there's no such category, so added Category:Free software. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 14:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

External links

Why someone removed {{dmoz}} and {{github}} links? These templates exist to include them when main subject available. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 17:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

@Rezonansowy: I think I was the one who removed the dmoz link, though I can't find it ever existing in old versions of the article. I seem to recall that the Bitcoin entries on the "Open directory project" were pretty mediocre. Github would seem like a reasonable thing to link to since most Bitcoin software including the reference client is open source hosted at Github.Chris Arnesen 20:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Volatility and bubbles

These two sections actually discuss the same thing using two different names. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure you are correct. Volatility implies changes in price while a bubble implies that the asset is mispriced. You could look at the boom-bust cycle of a bubble and say, "there's some volatility," and you'd be correct. But when someone says "Bitcoin is a bubble," they mean something altogether removed from the idea that the price of bitcoins fluctuates. Fleetham (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I did combine the subsections on "speculation" and bubbles, as they are often related. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The Article Still Not Serving Many user's needs

Frequency of negative feedback that this article is far too technical and has a negative POV has increased in the last few days. I tend to agree that its technical and we can simplify this even more. The more I edit here, I realize Bitcoin is a very tricky subject. Its extremely technical, but people from the extremely non-technical side want to know what it is. Its money so it gets personal and there no easy way to say, 'believe in the Bitcoin math.' So, should we use a simplified analogy like Medium's explain like I'm a 5 year or 7 year old series. ? How do people feel about simplifying the entire lead section? Just wanted to gauge reviewer interest before going with a concrete proposal. Silbtsc (talk) 16:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I love when I start reading an article on Wikipedia and an hour later after clicking through layer after layer of Wiki-links, I've only read the first two sentences of the article I started with. It took me years to work my way through Internet. It's an encyclopedia. It's supposed to be technical, "explain it like I'm an adult" not "explain it like I'm five / seven". There are plenty of other efforts afoot to write simplified introductions, for example the links that Silbtsc provided. For example, the Bitcoin Foundation is about to publish a bunch of layperson-accessible guides to various aspects of Bitcoin. (Full disclosure : I just joined the all-volunteer "education committee" of the Bitcoin Foundation). Heck, Wikipedia itself even has a simplified version of the article https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin . I'd support us providing external links to some of those materials. So, I'd oppose TOO much "dumbing down" of the content. In light of all those reader comments, though I think you're right that we should make the lede more accessible. I just posted an accessibility edit to the opening paragraph. I hope you like it, but if not, as always, please revert, modify, comment as you see fit. Chris Arnesen 20:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

"...this article is far too technical and has a negative POV..." - these two objections are absolutely unrelated. Negative POV article cannot be amended by inserting less technical negative POV paragraphs. Similarly, positive POV paragraphs may be "too technical" for some readers. I think that the negative POV of the article is a worse deficiency than its technicality. It "paints" the subject as something fraudulent, unuseful, unworthy and/or illicit. It is not surprising that people using bitcoins state they are useful. It is also not surprising that people not using bitcoin do not find them useful. If I do not have a use for a thing then I should be expected to state the thing is unuseful. However, I shall not be surprised if I am not treated as an expert on the usage of the thing in such a case. Another negative example is a citation of a journalist stating that bitcoin has "no intrinsic value". I do not think it belongs to the article. A journalist surely is not an expert on bitcoins and his purportedly negative opinion is rather uninteresting as far as the wikipedia reader is concerned. To explain why, realize that "intrinsic value" is a contradictio in adjecto, since value is defined as a measure of the benefit that an economic actor can gain from it. This implies that value is extrinsic to the thing. No microscope or spectroscope can reveal it inside the thing, since it depends on the way how the economic actor uses the thing. Finding a good use for a thing is a significant invention benefitting the inventor and his followers. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia reflects points of view in a weight corresponding to their weight in mainstream thought. If the majority of mainstream reliable sources express skepticism about bitcoin and express the view that parts of the system are flawed in ways that reduce its ability to attract mainstream success... Wikipedia's job is not to ignore those views in pursuit of a false balance. The fact is that a number of mainstream economists have found fault with bitcoin's purported ability to serve as a significant mainstream currency. If this comes through in the article... well, it should.

Ladislav, the opinion of a financial journalist with North America's preeminent financial newspaper is a notable reliable source, whether any of us ever agree with it. Our personal opinions of intrinsic value should not and cannot enter into it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

"Our personal opinions of intrinsic value should not and cannot enter into it." - what I presented is actually an opinion of Ludwig von Mises, and he surely was not just some America's journalist.

"Wikipedia reflects points of view in a weight corresponding to their weight in mainstream thought" - Let me translate it: since bitcoin is not mainstream, and mainstreamers dislike it, the article shall be written as a "bitcoin hater's corner"...Ladislav Mecir (talk) 02:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Ludwig von Mises' view is just that: his view. We don't privilege it just because you think Mises was right. Lots of other people think Mises was wrong. That does not make him insignificant, but it does mean his name is not a magic talisman that overrides all other views.

There actually *are* things Mises had wrong (probability discussion contained in Human Action is nonsense), however, Human Action is a significant economic text that is not just an "opinion", it is actually a textbook, as far as I know. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Once again, Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. It's an encyclopedia project based upon verifiable information published in reliable sources. Those are founding policies of the project. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Once again, I never intended to "right great wrongs", I am pointing at the parts readers mey find as presenting negative POV. I do not mind if the article becomes a "hater's corner", in fact. I just wanted to point out that there are some insignificant parts that can be omitted without endangering the purpose of the article to explain what bitcoin is, while decreasing the negative pitch. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Need to focus back again. I think all your points are well taken. There is no need to ignore mainstream media and dumb it down too much. However, we need to offer a lay person a bridge into understanding this topic. So its more about accessibility and organizing the lead better.

Bend Some Rules

Bitcoin is a topic that has baffled many governments and even central banks (atleast for a little bit) - what about the state of general public? So, I would encourage article changes that ignore some of the rules according to WP:IGNORE. After a civil discussion in talk pages, we should be able to make a consensus on how to explain it to the common person that will help the wider audience while ignoring some Wiki rules (I suspect we won't break anything drastic).

Its possible to explain Bitcoin in a correct and simple way. The current lead is technical. Ask here is to consider moving that to para 2. In para 1, we make a simplistic description. I agree we can tone down the negative and yet provide NPOV (for instance, "illicit" is used twice in lede with no additional effect)

Most of the article can be technically correct but the first 2 paras or so must be very simplistic. Here are the things to cover in para 1:

0. Why we might need a system that works without a bank (Careful not to get into arguments about what's wrong about today's system)

1. What is bitcoin?

2. What is Bitcoin?

Its very difficult to explain Bitcoin without explaining why you might need such a thing system.

3. How to explain mining simply.

Silbtsc (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I really can't get behind explaining why someone might need a coupla bitcoins. Let's focus on the positive not the normative. Why you think you might need bitcoins could be far different than why I imagine I need them, and let's try to focus on the facts not opinions.

I agree with pretty much all else. If there is a way to explain things succinctly without using jargon or an excess of inter-wiki links, I'm all for it. Fleetham (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. Just to clarify, I agree, reasons for owning a bitcoin of no consequence in the article. Instead, I was referring to "Bitcoin" the system rather than the "bitcoin". First few thoughts are why does Bitcoin system exist at all when we have regular banking system is what I meant by "why you might need such a thing [system]" Silbtsc (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I think the condition of this article is largely a function of who's been editing it and what reliable sources are available. This article has been dominated for some time now by folks that have a strong domain knowledge of the subject—not a criticism, but leans toward a higher level of competency than the average reader trying to get a grasp on the topic. The complexity is compounded by the fact that you have to be fluent in a number of prerequisite topics to even understand the lead. Additionally, professional journalism on Bitcoin is still shitty. Just today I read a Yahoo article that used the phrase "favored by criminals". I mean, can we get past that already? I almost think we need this article to serve as an overview of all Bitcoin-related topics, and someone needs to write Introduction to Bitcoin where everything is spelled out to the lowest common denominator. --Laser brain (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah heck, let me vent just a little. A professor with a PhD in Economics claims in a well known online tech site: a hacker can intercept a transaction and steal bitcoins. Aigh! Either that or his Grad assistant has hacked his account's password. Silbtsc (talk)

Silbtsc Apologies for my prior comment. That actually sounds mean. If there's reliable sources detailing why some feel Bitcoin should be used in light of problems with things (central banks, I guess?), there's no reason why it can't be added. Fleetham (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

No offence taken. I do get useful info as above. I just needed to be clearer Silbtsc (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I should take care to be less rude. And I didn't see your reply before, but I did read it now. I do think that there's a place in the article for why such a system should exist. There's a good number of sources out there that link the rise in Bitcoin's popularity with the financial crisis of 2008, and that's probably as good a starting place as any. There are certainly people who feel that problems with current systems can be mitigated by use of something like Bitcoin, and there's really no reason to bar such opinions from the page as long as they are cited. Fleetham (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Sources on intrinsic value

I have removed two sources from the section on intrinsic value. The paper listed is a self-published ebook available only on Amazon, and does not appear to have significant coverage or discussion. The blog listed is a student blog from the University of Texas, and the posting is sourced only to a "Daniel," with no further identifying information. Both of these sources appear to fail the self-published sources policy, which states Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Unless there is evidence that either of them were produced by known experts, they are not appropriate as sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's an expert stating that bitcoin, like all fiducial currencies, has no intrinsic value http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/chicago_fed_letter/2013/cfldecember2013_317.pdf Chris Arnesen 18:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Replace category "Bitcoin exchanges" by broader "Bitcoin companies"

Right now Category:Bitcoin has two sub-categories, Category:Bitcoin exchanges and Category:Critics of Bitcoin. I propose replacing Category:Bitcoin exchanges with a broader category "Bitcoin companies". The problem this solves is that in some cases (e.g. LocalBitcoins) it's difficult to say whether the company is more like an exchange (in the sense of Digital currency exchanger) or more like a "Bitcoin service company" like Coinbase. Later we can always create "Bitcoin exchanges" as a sub-category of "Bitcoin companies", but for now I think a single category makes more sense. As always I welcome all comments for or against this proposal. Chris Arnesen 10:23, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Silbtsc (talk) 07:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It turns out the Wikimedia software doesn't make it easy to rename a category. See Wikipedia:Moving_a_page. So instead let's try to draw the line around exchanges. Here's some draft content:

"Bitcoin can be bought and sold for many different currencies from individuals and companies. On exchanges, participants offer buy and sell bids.[1] Other companies buy or sell bitcoin for local currency at market price. Fees vary by volume and services provided and are often payable in bitcoin. Since bitcoin transactions are fast and irreversible, sellers of bitcoin must take extra measures to make sure they have received the buyers' traditional funds."

Comments, edits welcome. Chris Arnesen 03:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Chris Arnesen 03:12, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Bitcoin grammar in lede

Is there any reason why the distinction between Bitcoin and bitcoins should be the second paragraph of the lede? I originally added that bit to the very end, but it somehow keeps moving on up.

Such a distinction can prevent confusion, but it's not really one of the most important things about Bitcoin.

I think that everyone can agree that if you go to read a wikipedia article a pedantic discussion of semantics is not really what you want to be confronted with first thing. I moved it back to the end of the lede and think it should stay there. Fleetham (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I moved it up to the top several times. The infobox, which is the top of the article on the mobile version of the page, uses both Bitcoin and bitcoin. The opening paragraph reads "Conventionally "Bitcoin" capitalized refers to the technology and network whereas "bitcoins" lowercase refers to the currency itself.[6] Bitcoins are created by a process called mining in which participants verify and record payments in exchange for transaction fees and newly minted bitcoins. Users send and receive bitcoins using wallet software on a personal computer, mobile device or on the web." The capitalization sentence comes directly before the first time we use bitcoins in the body. We've already said that "Bitcoin is a payment network and digital currency" but how does the reader know that "bitcoins" means the currency unless we say so. I also like it up at the top for another reason; it reinforces the idea that Bitcoin is a network and technology, and also a currency. It's an easy sentence to read and I think the distinction would help the layperson to understand everything that follows. One thing I'm sure of is that it looks silly having that capitalization sentence as a standalone paragraph at the end of the lede.Chris Arnesen 17:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what kind of confusion it would cause the reader if we moved the mention to the bottom of the lede. But if you like the fact that it reinforces the idea of a Bitcoin as a network and a currency, then we should take the pedantic grammar mention out of the paragraph that it's currently in, precede it with something that states that Bitcoin is a network and a currency, and make that its own paragraph. Fleetham (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are supposed to be pedantic! It's also a good rhetorical device, IMHO.Chris Arnesen 00:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I have no qualms about it being pedantic. What about preceding it with something like, "While Bitcoin is commonly considered to be a currency, it also refers to the network that supports and operates it."? What most concerns me besides its placement is the fact that it doesn't appear to have anything to do with the paragraph it heads up. By adding something in front, not only can we create a cohesive paragraph but I also feel it would minimize whatever negative impact I imagine having pedantry in the second paragraph causes. Fleetham (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said previously, "Conventionally "Bitcoin" capitalized refers to the technology and network whereas lowercase "bitcoins" refers to the currency itself." reinforces and refines of the phrase, "Bitcoin is a payment system and digital currency", framed in the context of a (perhaps pedantic) common point of confusion about Bitcoin (capitalization of the word). The recently added "transition" sentence, "Not only a currency, Bitcoin is also a network of payment processors and the various software that underpins the system." does NOT improve the article; it's redundant, possibly misleading, and somewhat incorrectly stated. Splitting apart the conjunction, "Bitcoin is also a network of the various software that underpins the system." The language is awkward ("various software") and there's no such thing as a "network of software". Chris Arnesen 18:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

That "transition" sentence also confuses the capitalization convention that we're about to state. Chris Arnesen 18:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, what would a better transition look like? Fleetham (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Where do I get bitcoins?

After the lede the first thing should be how average Jane and Joes obtain and use bitcoin? (Talk section raised from several reader comments on the article.) Chris Arnesen 04:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. Silbtsc (talk) 05:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

See Bitcoin#Wallets: - The four main ways to get Bitcoins and {{Bitcoin}} navbox - Markets section. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 00:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

We're almost there, but we left out one common way of obtaining bitcoins (at least here in the US): a company like Coinbase. Users can buy and sell BTC for USD at the current market rate, but only at the market rate. So it's not a currency exchange either in practical or legal terms. Does anybody have a good idea for what to call a service like that to distinguish it from exchanges? Also curious, is there similar companies in other countries? Chris Arnesen 05:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Blockchain.info, the worlds largest online wallet service, uses a third-party service https://cashintocoins.com where the user deposits USD cash into the company's account at Bank of America or Wells Fargo. Then they send the corresponding amount of BTC to the address you specified. These methods are distinct from "currency exchanges". Chris Arnesen 17:07, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

In addition to Wikipedia, I'm also contributing to educational materials published by the Bitcoin foundation. They call companies like Coinbase a bitcoin "brokerage"Chris Arnesen 21:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Changed the "Exchanges" section to Bitcoin#Buying_and_selling_bitcoins and added some of the details discussed above.Chris Arnesen 21:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

 DoneChris Arnesen 21:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Carbon footprint

A couple sentences were recently added without citations about the carbon footprint of Bitcoin. Those statements need references. I don't know if this is reliable, but it's something http://pando.com/2013/12/16/bitcoin-has-a-dark-side-its-carbon-footprint/ . Chris Arnesen 05:24, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Sentences were removed. I'll consider this as resolved until it comes up again. Chris Arnesen 15:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

No it's not resolved, we have source for it. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 16:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I've never heard of pando.com and can't vouch for its reliability. I'd tend to question the veracity of that particular article because I came across the link in this blog post http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/12/why-i-want-bitcoin-to-die-in-a.html, where the author says, "This essay has some questionable numbers, but the underlying principle is sound." Chris Arnesen 18:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I still think it would be good to cover this in a sentence or two if we can find reliable references. I'm extra curious now because the Ripple (payment protocol) page emphasizes its relatively low carbon footprint as an advantage over Bitcoin and other mined cryptocurrencies.Chris Arnesen 15:16, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav comments

"Commercial use of Bitcoin, illicit or otherwise, is currently small compared to its use by speculators, which has fueled price volatility." - this, in my opinion, does not belong to the opening paragraph, since it is controversial:

• Speculation is the practice of engaging in risky financial transactions in an attempt to profit from short or medium term fluctuations in the market value - there has been no research trying to determine how many bitcoin owners engage in bitcoin transactions to profit from short or medium term fluctiations of the market value to compare the share of speculators to the share of people engaging in transactions for other purposes.

• In the Speculation article there is also mentioned that " The role of speculators is to absorb excess risk that other participants do not want, and to provide liquidity in the marketplace by buying or selling when no participants from the other categories are available.", which means that speculators do not "fuel volatility", the truth being that they "absorb excess risk" and "provide liquidity"

• There is also an opposing opinion that volatility was caused by overregulation. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

"Bitcoin has been a subject of scrutiny due to ties with illicit activity." - this is like stating "USD has been a subject of scrutiny due to ties with drug dealing". The fact is that it is unrelated to bitcoin in the same way like a similar sentence would be unrelated to USD. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2014 (UTC) As such, it does not belong to the opening paragraph. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you get the idea that we can't mention controversial things in the opening paragraph. There are a massive array of reliable sources reporting on the subject of bitcoin speculation and price volatility, and it is trivial to demonstrate that there is far more trading of bitcoin on exchanges than there is use of bitcoin in consumer commerce. That a person who works for Moneero (a startup company involved in bitcoin wallet development) has a contrary view hardly refutes all of those mainstream sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there are sources mentioning bitcoin speculation and price volatility, but they contradict the Speculation article as I demonstrated, so either the sources on bitcoin are wrong, or the Speculation article is.

Re "it is trivial to demonstrate that there is far more trading of bitcoin on exchanges than there is use of bitcoin in consumer commerce" - that, however, does not prove that the ones trading for bitcoin on exchanges "attempt to profit from short or medium term fluctuations in the market value". No "trivial proof" is of any worth to prove that. Actually, there is a proof that many bitcoin holders do not intend to sell their bitcoins on an exchange. Such holders cannot be called "speculators" because they are provably not attempting to profit from short or medium term fluctuations in the market value. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladislav Mecir (talk • contribs) 02:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles aren't reliable sources. If the reliable sources are stating that bitcoin is the subject of rampant speculation (and the price volatility is, again, a factual statement based upon observable price fluctuations), we must report what those reliable sources are stating.

For me a source mentioning "rampant speculation" without spending any effort on trying to confirm his statement is unreliable, but I do not have any problem to ignore that even if I see it written in Wikipedia. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You appear to be drawing unsourced inferential conclusions from uncited statements in the lede graf of a Wikipedia article. Those inferences are interesting and might even be true. But they are also original research which we cannot use in articles. Everything on Wikipedia must be founded in reliable sources, and we must weight those sources in accordance with their weight in mainstream thought. See Wikipedia:Advocacy - our role is not to "right great wrongs" for ideas that have been criticized or discounted by mainstream sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

No, actually I am quite careful to not write any unsourced statements to Wikipedia. That, however, does not mean I do not intend to improve the text of the article lead knowing that it contains statements that are rather unrelated or unestablished. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I find the text: "The United States, however, is currently considered to be Bitcoin friendly compared to other governments." well established (I actually found a reference confirming it), however, I would prefer it to be moved to the paragraph mentioning legal status of bitcoin, instead of keeping such things in the lead (these are not defining bitcoin, they merely state some details that do not help to understand what bitcoin is) Ladislav Mecir (talk) 03:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I also consider the text mentioning speculation out of the lead since it does not help to understand what bitcoin is. Similarly, the text mentioning "ties with illicit activities" does not explain what bitcoin is. Also, the fact that bitcoin has been misused for illicit activities does not look like a sufficient reason to state that bitcoin had "ties with illicit activities". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead text: "Bitcoins can be stolen" - how exactly does that explain what bitcoin is? Any currency can be stolen. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it shouldn't be mentioned here. Just because the US Dollar article doesn't mention the fact that people use it to buy cocaine doesn't mean we shouldn't mention drugs markets in connection with Bitcoin, and just because the Mexican Peso page doesn't mention money laundering isn't a reason to remove mentioning it on this page. I know this can be a frustration for some who feel Bitcoins are "just like any other currency," but please try to understand that the rules of Wikipedia don't include standardizing the content of articles with similar topics. Fleetham (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks that I did not succeed to communicate what I mean. One more attempt to be more explanatory. The sentence "Bitcoins can be stolen" is true and I do not have any objection against such a sentence being present in the article. However, as written in the Wikipedia manual of style, "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." and I insist that the fact that bitcoin can be stolen is rather unimportant in that it is actually common with virtually every property. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I found one point that should be made in the lead, in my opinion. It is an opinion that is shared between both bitcoin opponents as well as between its supporters:

"Perceived failures of central banks (Cyprus, Argentina, ...) increase the popularity of Bitcoin."Ladislav Mecir (talk) 03:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

A wallet is a collection of private keys

People use the term "wallet" to mean two very different things.

• 1) A Bitcoin wallet is a collection of private keys. See, e.g. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Wallet
• 2) A Bitcoin wallet is client software, see, e.g. Bitcoin#Wallets or http://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet

I strongly feel that we should restrict ourselves to using the term "wallet" only in the sense of definition #1, a collection of private keys. Definition #2 already has a term for what it is, "client software", or more simply "client". That's the term that bitcoiners use, see e.g. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Software . In any of those clients, when you click a button labeled "create a new wallet", what they mean is "create a new collection of private keys", not "create a new bitcoin client". I don't know why bitcoin.org has decided to confuse the issue by calling client software a "wallet", except for that "wallet" is maybe a more consumer-friendly term than "client", also see digital wallet. If we use "wallet" to mean "client software" sometimes and "a collection of private keys" in others, then how do we disambiguate? If we stick with "wallet" meaning "client software", then what name do we give to "a collection of private keys"? Chris Arnesen 00:40, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed VinceSamios (talk) 14:16, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree, it should mean #1. Silbtsc (talk) 07:48, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

We're getting almost daily reader messages saying the article is inaccessible. I think the phrase "client software" is scary to some. I replaced several instances of "client" and "client software" in the article with "wallet software", as in software that creates and stores a wallet (collection of keys) and uses the wallet to sign transactions. I hope you'll agree that's both technically correct and more accessible.Chris Arnesen 16:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Misleading Translation

I removed the following translation of the name "Satoshi Nakamoto". Giving any translation is misleading and reflects a misunderstanding of how Japanese names are formed.

[...] the pseudonym "Satoshi Nakamoto" (a Japanese name that roughly translates as "Thinking clearly inside the foundation") [...]

Satoshi is a common Japanese given name and Nakamoto is a common Japanese surname. Suggesting that this name conveys a specific meaning is on par to claiming that the English name "Dawn Smith" roughly translates as "Working with iron in the morning".

Clearish (talk) 01:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that it's a misleading translation. While many Japanese last names can be translated, Nakamoto roughly means "right in the middle," I don't believe first names can or should be. And I have no idea how they came up with the translation they did. Fleetham (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed a similar translation discussion from History of Bitcoin.Chris Arnesen 21:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Remove irrelevant and doubtful pro-US sentence from introduction

It currently says

"The United States, however, is currently considered to be Bitcoin friendly compared to other governments.[10] In China, new rules restricted bitcoin exchange for local currency,[11] and the European Banking Authority has warned that Bitcoin lacks consumer protections.[12] Bitcoins can be stolen, and chargebacks are impossible.[13]".

1. The first sentence is irrelevant. After a factual statement that the FBI closed down a black market, we don't need to polish the image of the US by stating they are 'friendly', as the FBI-fact doesn't negatively reflect on the US. If we want to inform readers about dangers of Bitcoin, the lines about China and the European Banking Association suffice.
2. The first sentence is unsupported. The WSJ article contains no facts asserting the US is more friendly towards Bitcoin than most other nations. It's also unclear how such 'friendliness' would be measured. Most nations are considering whether, and how to, regulate Bitcoin.
3. The first sentence is not even supported within the article: a factual statements from the European Banking Authority warning citizens about dangers of Bitcoin does not imply the EU is 'unfriendly' towards Bitcoin. The same warning holds true for US citizens.
4. As a result, the introduction currently states something that is factually questionable and only seems to be there to appease supporters of the US. Removing that sentence improves the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.173.178.84 (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree that the statement about the US is irrelevant and somewhat doubtful. As such, it should not be present in the lead. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 03:26, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Lede changes

A recent edit to the lede was reverted, and I've posted my changes below in the hopes of reaching some consensus.

Proposed paragraph

New bitcoins enter circulation as a reward for those who maintain the system: the work of verifying and recording payments is done in exchange for these new coins (as well as transaction fees) and is called mining. Bitcoins can also be obtained in exchange for products, services, or other currencies.

Current paragraph

Bitcoins are created by a process called mining in which participants verify and record payments in exchange for transaction fees and newly minted bitcoins. Users send and receive bitcoins using wallet software on a personal computer, mobile device or on the web. Bitcoins can be obtained by mining or in exchange for products, services, or other currencies.

Please let me know what my edit was lacking, and I'll see if I can't correct it. Fleetham (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

"New bitcoins enter circulation as a reward for those who maintain the system". Typically when one says "reward for X", X is the activity being rewarded, not the recipient of the reward. It sounds like new bitcoins are a bounty on the individuals who "maintain the system", as in "Wanted dead or alive". Chris Arnesen 18:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

"maintain the system" is vague at best, even misleading. "maintain" implies passive upkeep, like Computer_maintenance. That belies the dynamic and competitive nature of mining.Chris Arnesen 18:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Improper use of colon (if anything it should be a semi-colon)Chris Arnesen 18:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

"the work of verifying and recording payments is done in exchange for these new coins (as well as transaction fees) and is called mining." Unnecessary use of parentheses. I'm not a fan of passive voice when a nice declarative alternative is available. Chris Arnesen 18:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

"and is called mining" is an awkward tack-on. The user has to go back and reparse the sentence to try to understand what it's referring to. Chris Arnesen 18:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Why would we remove, "Users send and receive bitcoins using wallet software on a personal computer, mobile device or on the web." It's a basic statement of how people actually use bitcoin. Chris Arnesen 18:55, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Well I guess there's no point quibbling over what are minor prose changes. Thanks for the criticism. Fleetham (talk) 21:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I tried to write up a short proposed lede. I don't think it can be done in 3-4 sentences or even paragraphs. It ends up being "wait! you give yourself coins?" I think if we have to make this lede accessible, we need two things:

1. Explain bitcoin using simple accounting (credit/debit/public ledger) and even simpler cryptography concepts (public private key, carefully use encrypt/decrypt).

2. We have have break the limitation that lede should be 3-4 paras and make it 5-6. Are we up for that? Silbtsc (talk) 06:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the two proposed suggestions above. Fleetham (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm unclear on what's wrong with the "Current paragraph" noted above. It seems very clear, and the right level of detail for a lede... no? -- HLachman (talk) 16:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Revision 592678732 - I still think it is inappropriate in there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladislav Mecir (talk • contribs) 02:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

"Alongside the full version, a portable version is offered which does not require installation.[15]" - if not put into an appropriate context, I have no idea what is this meant to communicate. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:58, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

More on intrinsic value

I see that the "intrinsic value" section was created in a recent edit (22:34, 12 January 2014‎, by Ladislav Mecir). I would like to comment on that here (and also respond to some comments above on this topic).

• Creating the "intrinsic value" section invites discussion and elaboration (both on the Talk page and in the article) on Bitcoin's relationship to the concept of intrinsic value (which is fine, if people think it's a relevant topic for Bitcoin; and, since notable experts have commented on this very question, it probably is relevant).
• By adding the "Austrian economists" statement, this section now actually addresses two questions: (1) what is Bitcoin's relationship to "intrinsic value", and (2) what is the meaning of the term "intrinsic value" (if any).
• For question (2), stating only the Austrian position is an NPOV issue. I'd suggest adding mention of at least one alternate position (from an expert of at least similar stature, and specifically in the context of money), and maybe a short statement that "intrinsic value" has various meanings in various contexts.
• Also for (2), I'm not sure the cited reference refutes intrinsic value "entirely", or just for "things" (it seems to be saying that there is intrinsic value in human action). Also, it's unclear (using the cited reference only) if this particular point is the Austrian School's position, or just Mises'.
• As for (1), to respond to the above comments about "negative opinion": saying that Bitcoin has "no intrinsic value" is no more or less "negative" than saying Diet Coke is sugar-free, or that gasoline is now unleaded. It could easily be argued that having no intrinsic value is a positive quality (not that it's the article's job to argue that), and that is why we have those kinds of currencies today, and that is also why it was a good idea to end the gold standard. Perhaps the "negative tone" (if there is any) can be lessened by pointing out that, on this particular point, Bitcoin is not different from the dollar or euro (which Hough actually stated).
• Jack Hough's article doesn't seem to say or imply that Bitcoin has no intrinsic value "because" it's not government-backed -- he made the two assertions without saying one causes the other.
• While Jack Hough may be a relevant source to cite, there are other more prominent people in the economic field who have weighed in on this, e.g., Greenspan and Krugman. Therefore, maybe they should be mentioned as well.
• Perhaps there is some confusion over whether we are talking about "Bitcoin" or "bitcoins" having intrinsic value. Even though the cited sources say "Bitcoin", I think they mean "bitcoins" (because the "intrinsic value" discussion is normally about whether a unit of currency has it, not whether the currency system as a whole offers value to society). So maybe it's fair, and clearer, to paraphrase those sources as discussing "bitcoins" (even if they said "Bitcoin").

If the above sounds reasonable, I can go ahead and edit the section accordingly. It should only be a few sentences. -- HLachman (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

" (it seems to be saying that there is intrinsic value in human action)" - that opinion contradicts the reference cited, in fact. "Human Action" is the Austrian Economics textbook which mentions that value is not "intrinsic".

"I see that the "intrinsic value" section was created in a recent edit " - Having observed the sentences related to "intrinsic value" to be spread across different parts of the article I tried to consolidate them to the "intrinsic value" subsection. However, when I moved the sentences to the new subsection, some of them were deleted, leaving the subsection incomplete-looking now

"Perhaps the "negative tone" (if there is any) can be lessened by pointing out that, on this particular point, Bitcoin is not different from the dollar or euro (which Hough actually stated)." - actually, I put the Mises' citation in there to communicate that his (and Austrian school) opinion made bitcoin not different from anything in this respect. ("value is not intrinsic") As for the "negative tone" - I think that the source intends to present it as "negative tone" to eventually scare people. For me it is ridiculous and telling more about the source(s) than about bitcoin.

" Also, it's unclear (using the cited reference only) if this particular point is the Austrian School's position, or just Mises'." - I think that it is unreasonable to cite all Austrian economists to support this. (not worth the effort, why shall we cite all Austrian economists?) It may be more efficient, then, to reformulate it as follows: "Ludwig von Mises, a prominent figure of the Austrian economics school refuted ..."

"* Perhaps there is some confusion over whether we are talking about "Bitcoin" or "bitcoins" having intrinsic value." - yes, indeed, the source is cofusing it

" there are other more prominent people in the economic field who have weighed in" - I think that Quiggin did Ladislav Mecir (talk) 02:58, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Again,

(1) Why is there a need to cite the Austrian school when the cited source article itself points out that bitcoin is just like fiat currencies in its lack of an intrinsic value?

(2) The Austrian School's refutation of intrinsic value seems to be a non-sequitur here, because the source article's usage of "intrinsic value" appears to be referring to its objective lack of a backing standard (such as gold), and not the philosophical (though widely accepted) question of whether anything has a true intrinsic value.

(3) The current wording in the wiki article completely misrepresents the wording of the original source. The wiki text says that Hough claims bitcoin has no intrinsic value due to its lack of government backing, but Hough made no such claim. Its lack of an intrinsic value and its lack of government backing are presented as two separate matters in the source article. 19:37, 26 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.99.174.195 (talk)

(1)Why cite Austrian school? To point out that bitcoin is not just like fiat currencies, it is like everything.

(2)"appears to be referring to its objective lack of a backing standard" - that is however not what the sentence in the article states, how it "appears" looks too far fetched.

(3) Aha, that may need a reformulation, then. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I revised the article as per the bullet items I listed above. I would like to respond to some of your comments:

• "that opinion contradicts the reference cited" - Let's look at the text of the cited source: "Value is not intrinsic, it is not in things. It is within us; it is the way in which man reacts to the conditions of his environment." I think this can be interpreted in two ways. One way is to take the first half of the first sentence in isolation, and that Mises really mean that there is never intrinsic value ever, at all. But then the question is, when he says, "It is within us", the "it" is "value", yes? And he is explicitly saying that it is "within" us. So the other way to interpret this that his first sentence was in the context of "things", which is in the same sentence. Note that the two halves of the first sentence are separated by a comma, not a period, so this might support the interpretation that the two halves are linked in meaning. If we use the first interpretation, that value is not intrinsic (which is, by definition, extrinsic), then it would lead to the interpretation that "it is within us" means "it is within us, and not intrinsic", or, "extrinsic value is within us", which seems contradictory. So I would lean toward the second interpretation, while also being open to the first. Since it seems certain that, in either interpretation, he is clearly stating that things do not have intrinsic value, I edited the article to reflect that. Also, I don't think this change weakens the effect of the point in the article, since the scope of discussion is coins, currency, etc., all of which can be regarded as things.
• "it is ridiculous and telling more about the source(s) than about bitcoin." - Yes, but WP:RS obligates us to quote "relevant experts", etc. (at least when there are any that have expressed a view on the subject matter).
• "Ludwig von Mises, a prominent figure of the Austrian economics school" - I left it as "Austrian economists", it seems to be accurate.
• "I think that Quiggin did" - I checked the Quiggin article already in the References list. It seems that on this point, Quiggin quoted Hough.
• "The Austrian School's refutation of intrinsic value seems to be a non-sequitur here" - I added a statement that the term is used in different contexts, so the reader can decide what is relevant. Mises was both a philosopher and an economist, so perhaps he was wearing both hats at the same time when he wrote that.
• "The current wording in the wiki article completely misrepresents" / "Aha, that may need a reformulation, then" - Yes, this is what I meant above ("he made the two assertions without saying one causes the other"). -- HLachman (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

" "it is within us, and not intrinsic", or, "extrinsic value is within us", which seems contradictory." - actually, it is not. It suffices to realize that it is a value of a thing (gold, bitcoin, phone). If it is not in the thing (gold, bitcoin, phone), then it is extrinsic no matter where it actually is. To explain it further, mass is intrinsic, since it quantifies how much of matter is contained in a thing, while beauty is extrinsic, since it quantifies how much we like the thing. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Mises would have supported your position better had he said, "Value is not intrinsic, it is not in things, it is not in us." Regardless, as I already said, I'm aware of your opinion, I also have one, and I edited the article to not promote either opinion over the other. -- HLachman (talk) 14:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, your edit is fine. With "it is not in us", that would be the same as saying "beauty is not in the eye of the beholder". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

So beauty, and value, are in us. They are intrinsic there. Case closed. -- HLachman (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I unidid the edit that followed up the Mankiw info with the statement that Bitcoin has been called a commodity. Since the Mankiw info hinges on his definition (money that would still be valued if not used as money), the added text was non-sequitur. Also, it was put in context of discussing the meaning of "intrinsic value", not in the paragraph that discusses whether bitcoins have it or not. I think the separation of the two questions is valid. -- HLachman (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Reception

The section is written in such a way that it looks like the reception by economists is more important for Bitcoin than the reception by merchants. In fact, the opposite is true. Reception by merchants is crucial, economists are unimportant.Ladislav Mecir (talk) 03:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it looks that way. However, both views need to be presented. How do you propose we do that so that both get equal weight? Silbtsc (talk) 06:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

A good place to start would be looking for reliable sources discussing merchants' views on why they are accepting or not accepting bitcoin. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

TigerDirect

TigerDirect has started accepting bitcoins as payment. Because of its reputation and fame I feel like it should be added to the list of "Acceptance by merchants". Wickex (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

 Done

I'm not sure who applied this change, but the reference was improperly inserted mid-sentence. Instead, multiple citations should be listed at the end of the sentence in a single ref block like I changed it to here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitcoin&diff=592971355&oldid=592970582 . Thanks to User:Fleetham who recently educated me on this point on User_talk:Chrisarnesen. Chris Arnesen 15:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Table: Acceptance of bitcoin in different countries

Hello,

want to point out there is a table which summarizes the legal status of bitcoin worldwide, and provides some sources:

http://bitcoin-ok.org/nations/

--84.135.43.195 (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice table, indeed. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not sufficiently well cited to warrant an external link from Wikipedia, but someone might find it useful for research. Chris Arnesen 15:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

WHAT IS BITCOIN?

Here's how the Miami Herald summarizes Bitcoin:

Bitcoin is an electronic payment system and currency allowing for peer-to-peer payments and financial exchanges without regulation by a financial institution or centralized bank. Started in 2009 by a person (or people) named Satoshi Nakamoto, the currency was originally obtained through a process called mining, where people use computers to essentially solve a complex algorithm and receive Bitcoin in exchange. With its recent spike in attention, and the growing difficulty and expense of mining, many are now obtaining Bitcoin by purchasing it with their own form of real money or by exchanging and selling goods and services.

Checkingfax (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

MH's description is not informative, in other words, if I had no knowledge of Bitcoin, it does not help add any substantial improvement to my understanding. If I remember right, it looks like slightly copied from few older versions of this Wiki article. Btw, why bring this up? Silbtsc (talk) 06:57, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, Silbtsc, indeed. @Checkingfax:, could you please elaborate on your point?Chris Arnesen 15:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Legal issues

The formulation "Certain nation states may feel that its use in circumventing capital controls and for gambling are also undesirable. " smells like unsubstantiated speculation (which states? do they feel or not?) Ladislav Mecir (talk) 02:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, China and Argentina come to mind. I'm sure sources are easily available at least for the circuvention of capital controls bit. Have you looked for some? Fleetham (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)