Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about Bitcoin. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Criminal activity

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The source for the "lack of mainstream use" does not support the formulation in the text. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 03:36, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Ponzi scheme

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

I am not opposed to put such a critic to the article, if supported by a reliable source. However, neither of the sources is reliable, the first stating "variously dismissed as Ponzi scheme", i.e., the author did not want to take the responsibility for stating it as her point of view, and the second stating "has also been criticized as having the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme", which means the author did not want to take the responsibility to state it as his point of view either. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Reuters, The Register, and the European Central Bank are not reliable sources? When did this happen? The sources support the claims given, that "Bitcoin has also been criticized as having the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme", which is word-for-word what is found in the source. Neither journalist is taking the view that Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme but rather pointing out that it has been criticized as such. You're under the impression that the journalists themselves must hold that viewpoint for the source to be valid? That's not how reliable sources work, so what about these sources are not reliable? I'll have to find it in the archives but there was a very, very lengthy discussion concerning this material and the sources used. - Aoidh (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

We have had this discussion many times. Bitcoin itself is not Ponzi scheme. You will need an enormous deal of evidence to support otherwise. Here are the reasons why:

1. If journalists defy logic, there is need to exercise caution to find equal weight on the opposition (journalists who oppose). If not, it just is negative POV. The previous archived discussion settled on this.

2. The edit you made left out the contradicting SEC statement that originally was used.

3. The articles referenced are dated in 2012, before all the media attention. Understanding of Bitcoin has changed significantly.

4. Register - Is written in a sarcastic manner. It hard to decipher view points from Register. There has to be few more references than Register.

5. Reuters article asks a question if its a "Ponzi" in its opening sentence. It does not cite any references and neither is the reporters opinion. Therefore that article is of no weight to claim of Ponzi.

6. ECB report is self contradicting on Ponzi claim (which is actually NPOV).

My opinion is we have have this article that is really in need of a useful and accessible description of what Bitcoin is. Everyone knows Bitcoin itself is not a Ponzi scheme. Rest of the discussion is just on the technicalities of Wiki guidelines. I hope energy is focused on lede.

Silbtsc (talk) 07:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It's strange that "we've had this discussion many times" but your account is a month old. Your argument is based on the supposition that the sources (and the article) say that Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme. They do not. They do however say that Bitcoin has been accused of being one. That is very different, and completely verifiable, therefore trying to use your own personal logic to refute reliable sources saying that Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme is irrelevant, because that's not what these sources (or the article) are saying (though there are journalists that outright say this as well). As for the concern that the references are dated and therefore no longer relevant, there are still sources noting these concerns as recently as yesterday. The ECB report is not "self-contradicting", it notes exactly what this article says it does. It doesn't make a judgement, only notes what others have said on both sides of the "is it a ponzi scheme" question, that's hardly self-contradicting. - Aoidh (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Please try to focus on the constructive. Attack on how long I have been here has no bearing on the discussion. My point is if journalists are "accusing" Bitcoin is a Ponzi Scheme, that is a third person's point of view. There has to be a balancing view from a different journalists on that view (unless Bitcoin is universally thought of as a Ponzi Scheme in any mainstream media). Regarding your Original Research reference, 'Bitcoin is not a ponzi scheme' is my personal opinion. My opinions are mine and based on my logic. I don't need a 'reliable source' for my opinions . If you see, I have not undone your changes. This talk page is for opinions. Wiki article is not. I feel it is relevant to air an opinion if there is a factual discrepancy. ECB view is NPOV as I mentioned. Finally, just because a reputable source says it is, does not mean it has to go in the article, Wiki WP:IAR allows for responsible ignoring rules based on discussion.

In my opinion, Bitcoin is a protocol. It simply cannot be a Ponzi scheme by itself (people have to be involved to make a Ponzi scheme). This is like saying people use Email to conduct Ponzi schemes therefore SMTP is a Ponzi Scheme. The 'bitcoin' - the unit of Bitcoin Protocol currency's value is what anyone is willing to pay at an exchange. What that value is in USD or EUR is of no consequence to Bitcoin's understanding. The article needs to provide a neutral view (that includes Ponzi and non-Ponzi reference) so that reader can make decisions on their own. Silbtsc (talk) 17:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Therein lies your problem, it is your opinion against reliable sources. In that situation, reliable sources always trump what an editor concludes from their own personal reasoning. Always. Citing WP:IAR when logic doesn't support your position is poor form; per WP:IAR does not allow WP:OR to trump WP:RS, especially based on flawed comparisons that don't even begin to address what the sources say. The sources do not say Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme. Period. The sources do say that people believe this and have criticized Bitcoin as such. If you're going to try to refute the sources, please by all means prove that nobody thinks this, because that is what the sources state. Reporting what is stated in multiple reliable (yes, mainstream) sources can't be removed just because you think they're wrong. Of course you think they're wrong, their opinion is just that, an opinion. When there are differing opinions there will always be people using their own personal logic to try to refute the other, but not agreeing with something doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it should be ignored; there are plenty of things that are flat out wrong that are reported by reliable sources and noted by Wikipedia. Now if the article said that "Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme" that would be a problem, but it doesn't and if it ever did I promise you I would be the first person to correct that wording. - Aoidh (talk) 00:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for the analysis and your pledge. In the interest of saving saving time and space, fine. Silbtsc (talk) 04:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Bitcoin is a defacto cryptographic botnet. Although the bitcoin code is not in itself malware, the concept of bitcoin mining is a simple brute force attack on SHA-256, which is in itself subvertible by merely submitting legitimate bitcoin transactions to the mining pool. The code itself is suspect due to its unknown origins and refusal of the bitcoin community to acknowledge the origins and owner.

The bitcoin protocol from a technical standpoint is in its entirety a complete disaster pointing to govt creation.

Its entirely possible that the US govt has invented or re-invented bitcoin for public use to crowd-source brute force cracking of encryption. Given the obvious opportunity it must be assumed that the US govt is using the bitcoin mining to brute force encryption.

Bitcoinnsa (talk) 12:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, the text proposed for insertion to the article is missing any reliable sources. Because of this, it looks inappropriate for insertion into the article. Also, it is unclear what text (if any) it is meant to replace or where it is meant to be put. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 16:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree, you'd need very strong articles to support this. Attack on SHA-256 means, a person can use the Bitcoin network to find the plain text corresponding to a digest of her choosing. Bitcoin mining does not allow choosing arbitrary digest. It only says the digest has "N" number of leading zeros. Further more, each mining node or pool, are solving this problem independently and are not taking orders from some central node so question of using Bitcoin network to solve one person's hacking work seems a little difficult to do (so need references if such a claim is made). Second, SHA-256(SHA-256()) function used in mining is not decryption, its just a hash (or thumbprint). Therefore claim/assumption that someone is using Bitcoin network for cracking of encryption is not quite right and would need quite a lot of proof to prove otherwise. Silbtsc (talk) 05:25, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Currency Conversion

Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

"Determining exchange rates has proven to be somewhat more difficult to handle than with other, more stable currencies, given that different exchanges offer different rates, and the buyer's geographic location and local currency does not necessarily have the same exchange rate as an equivalent amount of another currency. That is to say, a Euro converted in Slovenia need not have the same exchange rate for Bitcoin as an equivalent amount of USD,[75] or even a Euro in Western Europe. Financial websites tend to use the average exchange rate from the major Bitcoin exchanges as the exchange rate they present to users. These estimates are generally reliable, although given the rapid fluctuations in Bitcoin value sudden rises or falls are not uncommon, meaning that an estimate may not always accurately reflect the current value of your native currency vis-a-vis Bitcoin on every exchange, particularly in countries where Bitcoin has come under scrutiny and it has therefore become more difficult and costly to transfer and convert funds. Despite the barriers to entry this presents, Bitcoin has still proven to be a reliable a way to protect the value of one’s assets."

After a more thorough look it seems to me that the section is just a self-promoting ad, any thoughts on this? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I pasted the paragraph. Do you mean it's a self-promoting ad for Bitcoin? That's really just the last sentence, which should be removed. Chris Arnesen 15:58, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear, that is not what I meant. I meant that the paragraph eventually might have been a self-promoting ad to turn the attention of the reader to the page used as the reference. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah I see. Correct, blatant advertisement for converterhub.com. That reference is no good, should be taken out immediately. Good catch. As for the content, I think it's all true, though way too long-winded. I'm working on the "Exchanges" section at this very moment and I'll try to include a sentence or two about how the price of bitcoin can be so wildly different on different exchanges and in different currencies. With that, I'd support removal of the whole "currency conversion" paragraph. Chris Arnesen 17:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Done Chris Arnesen 20:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Chris Arnesen, so you've stated "I meant that the paragraph is a self-promoting ad to turn the attention of the reader to the page used as the reference" Blaming my article on http://www.converterhub.com/news or http://www.converterhub.com/bitcoin being an ad is outrageous. Allowing sites like fobes, mashable, etc... as a reference and don't consider them as an advertisement? My question, is this some type of small Wikpedia mafia that does not want good contributors and point fingers at them just because the ref site was not forbes or mashable, what kind of contributors are you guys? Joshua D Vayner (talk) 21:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You're quoting Ladislav, not me. I'm happy to discuss it though because I agree with him. The paragraph was well-written, thank you much. That site http://www.converterhub.com/bitcoin isn't a "reliable source" as described here Wikipedia:Verifiability#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source. There's no sign of editorial oversite. It could be written by just one person, and there's no indication that he or she is particularly an expert on the subject. The paragraph also was a bit long for the amount of content that it conveyed. Chris Arnesen 22:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

You have my apology, if the words I used were too offensive. Edited the text to calm down the tone of it, sorry again. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Chris, I'm new to Wikipedia and i do apologize as well. Yes, i notice a problem with Joomla CMS when adding recent articles into news section, its displaying my article as one paragraph since it should be three paragraphs. Example of an old article: http://www.converterhub.com/news/12-01-12/understanding-the-foreign-exchange-market Anyway, I'll try to get in touch with the developer to fix the following issues such as displaying Author and paragraph issue. I would like to ask you both Ladislav Mecir and Chris Arnesen if you believe the paragraph is well written, please reinstate my content and remove the <ref>, and i will get back to you on this TALK page when this site problem is fixed and i will provide you new cited reference link for approval. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.vayner (talk • contribs) 01:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Please remember to sign your posts on the talk page by writing ~~~~ at the end. As discussed here Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence, "Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." Since the verifiability has been challenged, we can only put that material back in once someone finds a reliable source. Cheers, Chris Arnesen 02:47, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Intrinsic value debate

Latest comment: 10 years ago56 comments5 people in discussion

(RFC tag removed; this is a placeholder for text to go with the RFC tag, if any.) -- 14:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

There has been some back-and-forth editing between myself and another editor (Ladislav Mecir) in the "Intrinsic value" section. In the interest of avoiding an edit war, I would now like to ask for opinions on what to do with the "Intrinsic value" section.

Background: Originally, the only mention of intrinsic value was a single sentence in the "Speculation" section (citing journalist Jack Hough). Then, Ladislav Mecir (who disagrees with the "no intrinsic value" quote that was cited -- see Talk page) moved this sentence to its own new section, "Intrinsic value", and added a statement that the term "intrinsic value" is meaningless (according to Austrian economists). Debating whether or not the term "intrinsic value" has any meaning in the Bitcoin article raises possible RELEVANCE, NPOV, and FRINGE issues. I decided to deal with it as an NPOV issue and added text to try to create balance (after first posting the issues on the Talk page). Following that, Ladislav introduced a statement (with no apparent relevance to the section) about Bitcoin being regarded as a commodity (apparently to create a presumption that bitcoins have intrinsic value), and some back-and-forth editing ensued.

This leads me to wonder: Was the "Intrinsic value" section created as a place to show what reliable sources have to say about Bitcoin's relationship to intrinsic value? Or was it created as a platform to launch tangential debates in order to discredit the Hough article as being either spurious (by proving that "intrinsic value" has no meaning) or wrong (by proving, indirectly via definitions, that bitcoins have intrinsic value)? My position is generally to assume good faith, but I also wonder why the article should be concerned with tangential terminology issues, and why my last edit was reversed without explanation (see REVEXP).

Chronology:

22:34, 12 Jan.: Ladislav moved the sentence about intrinsic value from "Speculation" section to new "Intrinsic value" section, with the addition of "Austrian economists" position (that "intrinsic value" has "no meaning").
22:55, 22 Jan. (Talk page): Ladislav expressed disagreement with the only cited reference (Hough article) as being an unnecessarily negative POV and suggested removing it, while also presenting his "no meaning" argument (which led to extensive debates on the Talk page involving Ladislav, NorthBySouthBaranof, 220.99.174.195, and myself). NorthBySouthBaranof reaffirmed that the Hough article should stay in (which I agree with).
22:47, 25 Jan. (Talk page): I posted several issues about the "Intrinsic value" section. Some discussion followed.
19:37, 26 Jan. (Talk page): 220.99.174.195 explained why saying "intrinsic value has no meaning" is a non-sequitur. I agree with that (for the same reason why it would be a non-sequitur to cite a famous author who said "there is no such thing as crime" in the "Criminal activity" section, which would definitely raise RELEVANCE, NPOV, and FRINGE issues), but I decided to try to balance things out rather than remove the text.
13:48, 27 Jan.: I edited the section as per my suggestions (e.g., adding a mainstream definition of "intrinsic value", citing Mankiw). I think this moved the section towards balance, but I felt that there was still possibly undue weight on what may be a fringe, or at least non-mainstream, position ("intrinsic value has no meaning").
14:46, 27 Jan. (Talk page): I posted that I had edited the article, and responded to various comments (including a continuation of the "no meaning" debate).
20:54, 27 Jan.: Ladislav edited the section to add citations of sources that refer to Bitcoin as being a "commodity". This, again, seemed to be a non-sequitur (and although this section was being actively discussed on the Talk page, there was no explanation there why this was added to the section). If this was an attempt to prove, in a roundabout way, that bitcoins have intrinsic value (by linking to the word "commodity" in the Mankiw definition), then this introduces issues of RELEVANCE, NPOV, NOR, and maybe even GAMING.
21:47, 27 Jan.: Considering the above, I undid Ladislav's "commodity" edit (with explanation on the Talk page, 22:07, 27 Jan.).
21:51, 27 Jan.: I also removed the mention of "commodity money" (from text I had originally added) so as to discourage more debates on the meaning of terms like "commodity". I felt that this edit did not detract from the substance of the Mankiw citation, as the main point is still effectively stated without introducing terminology.
21:59, 27 Jan.: Ladislav re-added his "commodity" text to a different part of the article (which I have no opinion about).
02:01, 28 Jan.: Ladislav re-added my "commodity money" text to the "Intrinsic value" section, effectively reverting my 21:51 edit, without explaining why (again, no mention on the Talk page even though the section was under active discussion, and the edit summary merely says, "more accurate formulation", regardless of the fact that re-adding the term "commodity money" doesn't add accuracy). So this is also a REVEXP issue.

Question: What should we do with the "Intrinsic value" section?

(A) Leave it alone.

(B) Undo Ladislav's 02:01 edit.

(C) Remove the paragraph discussing the definition of "intrinsic value".

(D) Undo all of the above edits (i.e., get rid of the section and have only the one sentence under "Speculation", as it was before 12 Jan.; although I would recommend keeping the refs to Greenspan, Krugman, and DeLong, in addition to Hough)

(edited:) Or if "Speculation" isn't the right place, put the sentence somewhere else, maybe "Reception".

(E) Do something else.

Please share any opinions on the above question. My inclination is (D), as I think it says just as much in fewer words, but I'm open to any result. Thanks. -- HLachman (talk) 14:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(two comments were moved down here from above, for readability)

this summary is rather inaccurate, I put in there also the Velasco and Medina reference, which I found in another section, but it was erased later. Do you think the section should not exist? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you think that the "tangential terminology issues" shold be erased? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(B) do you think that the text distorts the cited source somehow? If it does, it should be corrected.

(C) yes, that is reasonable alternative if there is a will to do that

(D) this looks inappropriate, since the text looks rather unrelated to the subject of the "Speculation" subsection Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

(E) and what about just leaving out the discussion of the "intrinsic value"? (Austrian POV and Mankiw's POV)? (now, when Greenspan, Krugman and DeLong are cited, it makes sense to keep the section, in my opinion) Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Please do not intersperse your comments within mine. It makes it harder for people to tell which comments are mine.

(B) That's not the relevant issue. The issue is that I made an edit for good reasons (as stated), your reasons for reverting my edit are unknown (but appear to be as I speculated), and reverting my edit without explaining why is a REVEXP issue. (B) is justifiable on that basis, but I raised the issue here first per AVOIDEDITWAR and also to see if we have consensus to eliminate tangential debates (like "intrinsic value has no meaning") or even simplify the whole thing by doing (D).

(E) Your suggestion is the same as (C).

(D) My answer for all of your remaining questions above is that my recommendation remains (D) (which I just updated above, in italics).

I invite anyone interested to comment on the above question. Thanks. -- HLachman (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think everyone should refrain from edit warring and that HLachman should be more careful about WP:NPA. Intrinsic value has a place in this article if only because it is something that appears in reliable sources discussing Bitcoin. I kinda like the section that's currently in the article, but do you think we could find some sources that state Bitcoin doesn't need to have any intrinsic value outside of acting as a medium of exchange to work? Would that help with whatever perceived NPOV issues? Fleetham (talk) 04:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you who commented. A few responses:

"HLachman should be more careful about WP:NPA". I agree we should be careful. I hope it's OK to point out things happening that may be inconsistent with Wikipedia policies, and to express my reasons for thinking so. That was all I was trying to do, and I apologize if I offended anyone.
"Intrinsic value has a place in this article". Agreed, and that's why all of my suggested revision alternatives preserve some mention of it.
"sources that state Bitcoin doesn't need to have any intrinsic value". The existing text points out that the dollar and euro also don't have any. I agree that this point is worth preserving.
04:31, 29 Jan.: Wording in the first sentence of the "meaning of intrinsic value" paragraph was changed from "noted economists have had different things to say about it" to "noted economists have at times disputed its very existance" [sic - misspelling]. I disagree with that edit because it results in a paragraph whose introductory sentence gives weight to only one position (which was arguably the fringe position to begin with).

Considering all of the above, and with appreciation for the feedback, I have revised the article per suggestion (D) above, in a way that addresses (to my knowledge) all suggestions and objections noted above, while retaining the essential points of the previous wording. I tried to word it in a way that shifts the focus from terminology debates to the essential question of what supports the value of bitcoins (and therefore put it in the "Economics" section instead of "Speculation" or "Reception"). I also added a citation to the chicagofed paper (suggested above by Chris Arnesen). I hope this is satisfactory. -- HLachman (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I see the present state as unsatisfactory, reasons are:

The opinion is presented as the most prominent information (the first sentence) in the [Economics] section
The presentation contradicts the NPOV policy - no alternative/opposing opinion(s) are present Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, unfortunately, the edits weren't based on consensus. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. To respond:

"The opinion is presented as the most prominent information (the first sentence) in the Economics section". Admittedly, I was unsure of where to put it. I had to put it somewhere, and it seemed right to keep it somewhere under "Economics" (which is where the subsection was, previous to my edit). I decided to put it in a prominent position because numerous prominent economists have commented on this. And, seeing how much they like to focus on this question, I surmised that people interested in economics might want to see that question dealt with first (this being the "Economics" section). But I could be wrong. I'm interested to know where people think it should be, and why. But I'm not in favor a section titled "Intrinsic value" since that's just one term in one aspect of the overall discussion of the economic question at hand ("what supports the worth of bitcoins"). That is why I made the suggestion of (D) in the first place.

"The presentation contradicts the NPOV policy - no alternative/opposing opinion(s)". I'm not sure that's true. Looking at WP:NPOV:

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."
"The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Wikipedia editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered."

If there are other opinions about what the worth of bitcoins is based on (other than what is stated, "people's willingness to accept them in trade"), then I think that can be added... "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."

"the edits weren't based on consensus". Well, I proposed my edits in advance of making them, rather than just making them (in contrast to the creation of the "Intrinsic value" section, which was not discussed in advance). I made it clear what preferences I had in mind, and my reasons for them. I invited feedback (and am still open to further discussion). Your only objection to (D) was about putting it back in "Speculation", and I agreed with that. Fleetham was concerned about losing some essential content, so rather than going back to the original wording (prior to 12 Jan.), I chose a wording that preserved the points in question, to try to satisfy that concern. These are the efforts I made to support WP:CONSENSUS.

It is said that "Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia". If you see the present state as unsatisfactory, then it would be perfectly reasonable to propose solutions and continue the consensus-building process here. -- HLachman (talk) 19:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

My problem is that the responses generally opposed your (D) alternative, but you went through to implement it. Nevermind, I prefer to be constructive. My proposal:

write a new subsection called "Fundamental analysis" (I see the name as uncontroversial).
put into it the opinion of "no intrinsic value" as the first paragraph (prominent)
put into it the opposing result(s) of fundamental analysis documented by reliable sources Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:19, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

"the responses generally opposed your (D) alternative". I don't see where the opposition was, other than your concern about "Speculation" and Fleetham's concern about not losing essential facts (which would have been lost in the (D) proposal, to use the pre-12Jan wording). And I don't see how the resulting edit didn't satisfy those concerns. Not sure what else to say. Thanks again for the feedback. -- HLachman (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Since the "intrinsic value" information has been erased inbetween, I rather restored it to the new paragraph as proposed. There is a chance to make adjustments. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring the text. I don't know how it got deleted. I don't mind so much that is has moved, but I had put the "Jack Hough" sentence at the top of "Economics" for good reasons (as given above), and still prefer it there. I wish we could get some consensus on that, one way or another (that placement can be seen in revision of 15:21, 29 Jan.).

Also, I did notice that my wording (which was developed after some consensus-building effort) was subsequently changed without prior proposal or consensus. So I changed it back. For further changes to the "Jack Hough" sentence, I request that you propose them here and see if there is CONSENSUS.

As to the wording in question, I prefer my original wording for two reasons, (1) because your revised wording gave the impression that their reason for saying "the worth of bitcoins is based solely on..." is because of "no intrinsic value" only, when really, they are saying that because of "no intrinsic value AND no government control". It is the two criteria together that lead them to their conclusion ("solely..."), not just one, and my original wording is meant to convey that clearly and concisely. (2) Adding "no intrinsic value" at that point in the sentence is sort of redundant since it is already mentioned (in the parentheses). In short, I believe my sentence accurately reflects the cited sources (in an aggregate way). If there is a consensus that this is not true, then let's fix that.

I don't mind adding a section on "Fundamental analysis" as long as the purpose is not to pursue tangential terminology debates. But I'm not sure the "Jack Hough" sentence belongs in "Fundamental Analysis", assuming that section's topic is the value of bitcoins (note that Jack Hough and the others never said bitcoins have "no value", so there does not seem to be any disagreement on that).

I welcome any further opinions and discussion. -- HLachman (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The notable men mentioned the notion of intrinsic value of bitcoin as the signal that they performed their fundamental analysis of bitcoin and came to the conclusion that it has no intrinsic value at all. They stated it pretty decidedly. To achieve a neutral point of view I cannot help but represent a reliable source presenting a fundamental analysis resulting in a different fundamental value of bitcoin. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC) (please note that intrinsic value or fundamental value is something completely different than market value)Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I was hoping not to get into terminology debates. Nevertheless, I will comment:

It seems that you are using a definition of "intrinsic value" from finance, not from monetary economics. It could be that this is the source of your persistent objections.
The conclusion you mentioned ("no intrinsic value") would not be newsworthy by itself, because having no intrinsic value is the norm in today's widely-used currencies (although not in the past). Journalists would call that a "dog bites man" story. But if there's a new currency with no intrinsic value AND no government support (and it is becoming widely-used), that's very unusual when compared to all widely-used currencies present and past; and that's what gives rise to the second conclusion ("based solely on people's willingness..."), which is newsworthy because it's unusual. Journalists call this a "man bites dog" story, and that's why a journalist like Jack Hough would report on it, and that's why this is the proper point of focus in the "Jack Hough" sentence.
Earlier (22:55, 22 Jan., see above), you had said that the "no intrinsic value" mention gives an unnecessarily negative slant to the article. I actually agree with you on this particular point (if that phrase becomes a focus), and that is another reason why I shifted the emphasis away from that term in my edit.

That is my POV and my reasons. If I have said anything false or unfair, please point it out to me. For now, I still believe the current wording of the "Jack Hough" sentence is appropriate. As for where it appears in the article, I don't have as strong an opinion about that. Thanks. -- HLachman (talk) 01:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I took out the sentence "Their finding being that bitcoin has no intrinsic value." because:

It was not grammatically correct.
It conflicts with the reasons I expressed above for shifting the focus away from "intrinsic value" and toward "worth of bitcoins" ("based solely on people's willingness..."). I am not aware of anyone refuting those reasons.
There was no consensus for that edit. I have repeatedly asked for consensus-building prior to making edits on this "intrinsic value" topic and my requests are being ignored.
I also made a very specific request for consensus-building on the "Jack Hough" sentence. Putting in what appears to be a subordinate clause of that sentence as if it were a separate sentence does not respect the spirit of my request. My request now is for consensus-building prior to edits relating to the "Jack Hough" article and its conclusions ("intrinsic value", "worth of bitcoins", etc.).

I have been trying my best to discuss my edits here and get feedback before making them. May I ask that others do that too? PLEASE? Thank you. -- HLachman (talk) 02:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Financial journalist Jack Hough, notable economists Alan Greenspan, Paul Krugman and John Quggin have found out that bitcoin had no intrinsic value. This finding obtained significant coverage by reliable sources. I propose that it shall be covered in the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC) (I found out that this information has been recently erased and therefore it is currently missing) Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I understand your comments, and I believe I have already commented extensively on these concerns in my 3 latest comments above (timestamped 02:25, 01:11, and 21:24). I don't know whether you agreed or disagreed with those comments. In addition, I will try to respond again here:

I agree that it is reasonable for the article to include the point you mention. I took this into account when I edited it.
I disagree that it is not currently included. The current wording makes it clear that the basis for the "worth of bitcoins" is "solely on people's willingness..." and that this is "as opposed to" money that has either "intrinsic value" or government support.
I disagree that "no intrinsic value" should be the given the most weight among the three key points (all of which are clearly connected in the cited sources): (1) "worth of bitcoins is based solely on people's willingness...", (2) "no intrinsic value", and (3) "no government support". Point (1) is the more noteworthy conclusion, from an economic standpoint, than the other two conclusions, and my reasoning for that is as I explained above ("man bites dog"). Points (2) and (3) are also worth mentioning, that is, in support of point (1), because the two happening together is what gives rise to (1) ("solely..."). I believe that this is the right balance for representing these points, and that the article as it stands now accomplishes that.
I am aware that point (2) may get more visibility in the articles that are out there, possibly because the phrase "no intrinsic value" makes better headlines, and/or some of the people who originate these statements are "trolling" (Krugman has been accused of that for titling an article "Bitcoin is Evil"; however, he doing that in "opinion pieces", not in scholarly papers). Wikipedia is meant to be encyclopedic and I don't think it would serve the reader to give undue attention to media sensationalism or to make some effort to support or discredit opinion pieces, no matter how tempting that may be. (For example, we don't see Bill Clinton's Lewinsky issues, or Britney Spears underwear issues, or expert opinions on what bad people they are, represented in Wikipedia as being the most important things you need to know about them -- even though these things get overwhelming visibility in the media.) The Hough article provides a more or less balanced treatment of the subject (arguably more balanced than Krugman's "Bitcoin is Evil" opinion piece), and it was also quoted by Quiggin, and I think the Bitcoin article as it stands now is a fair representation of the salient points.
As I mentioned before, at one point in the past (22:55, 22 Jan., see above) you felt that there was undue emphasis on the "no intrinsic value" characterization of Bitcoin. For the reasons I have stated here, I too believe it would be undue weight to focus on that, and I believe that my edit has served to shift the focus away from that characterization (in fact, the exact phrase "no intrinsic value" no longer appears in the article). So I'm at a loss to understand why you went from wanting to remove that emphasis to wanting to increase the focus on it.
I still believe that the "Jack Hough" sentence, as it stands now, is a fair representation of what the cited sources say about the "worth of bitcoins" issue in the context of monetary economics. My preference is that it remain as it is, as a sentence, and as a standalone paragraph. I don't think it's necessary to add material with the specific purpose of refuting that material. My suggestion is that if there are other reliable sources that have something to say about the "worth of bitcoins" in the context of monetary economics, it's perfectly fair to add other sentences (I would prefer to say other paragraphs) to present what those sources have to say (without necessarily having to focus on "that's why those other guys are wrong"). Also, if you have reliable sources that discuss "worth of bitcoins" in the context of financial valuation, that's a different but related topic, and can also be presented as well. But I disagree with characterizing the two contexts as being undifferentiated (which is what seemed to be happening in your comments above, 22:33, 29 Jan.). This is also why I'm not sure the "Jack Hough" paragraph belongs under "Fundamental analysis", but I'm open to finding out the consensus on this.

I'm open to any opinions and discussion, but as I've stated, some of this feels like tangential terminology debates ("no such thing as intrinsic value", mixing definitions from finance and monetary economics, etc.), and I was hoping we wouldn't do that. Also, I would like to point out that I've made a huge effort to explain my points and reasons, and I am doing so again now (including a lot of repetition of my prior points), and I have been open to hearing contrasting opinions (in fact, specifically soliciting them), and I still don't know if you disagree with all of what I said, some of it, or only certain specific points. If there is some disagreement, it would be helpful if you could point out which sentences of mine on the Talk page you disagree with, and your reasons why. (It would also be helpful if other editors came in to comment, but it seems they mostly haven't been inspired to do so, unfortunately.) -- HLachman (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Consensus reached:

HLachman wrote: "I'm open to any opinions and discussion..."
Fleetham wrote: "Intrinsic value has a place in this article..."
Ladislav Mecir wrote: "...I propose that it shall be covered in the article."

Proceeding to restore the information that the notable people found bitcoin to have no intrinsic value as established by reliable sources. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

"Consensus reached". I disagree that a consensus has been reached, for the following reasons:
"HLachman wrote: I'm open to any opinions and discussion". I did say that, but I disagree that this implies that I automatically agree with any specific proposal under consideration. It only means what it says, and I am, in fact, open to a good-faith discussion for the purpose of consensus-building. But I have to wonder if that's what we have here or not, when you take my statement to mean I'm giving blanket acceptance to whatever you propose. My statement certainly does not mean that.
"Intrinsic value has a place" / "propose that it shall be covered". I agree that it has a place, and I disagree that it is not already included. It is. This is explained in my 14:10 post.
"notable people found bitcoin to have no intrinsic value". You are referencing (via the link in your comment, and in your 22:33 comments) "intrinsic value" in finance which is different from "intrinsic value" in monetary economics. I have already explained that these two are different things (for example, cash counts toward the valuation of a company, but cash still has no monetary intrinsic value). I have explained this distinction, and that mixing the two would be a misrepresentation. I don't know whether you ignored that, disagree with that, or just didn't read it. You haven't said.
In fact, I still don't know which comments of mine you disagree with or why. I suggested above, it would be helpful if you would point it out and give your reasons. I don't know why you won't do that. I think that it is very difficult to build consensus when someone disagrees but won't say what they disagree with or why. In fact, I'm basically exhausted.
"Proceeding to restore the information". I request that this not be done, due to lack of consensus, and I have stated here why I see this situation as a lack of consensus.

Please note that I created this section in the Talk page in the interest of avoiding an edit war. I don't think that proceeding to restore the information (as you say), in this particular situation, is consistent with that interest. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. -- HLachman (talk) 16:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

HLachman wrote (TL): "I disagree that it is not currently included." - the information that the pundits established bitcoin to not have intrinsic value is not present in the article. I understand that you insist that a reader can imply that information from your wording, but:

the infromation is notable as presented by reliable sources
why should the reader be forced to imply something that is well sourced and well established

Regarding the consensus: I consider the 2/3 majority a reasonable consensus. Much better than the 1/3 minority "consensus" "established" for the variant D) above. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think that both of the major participants should hold off editing this particular section while a consensus can be reached. I'm having a little difficulty following your conversation. Maybe instead of continued debate both of you could quickly summarize what you feel should and should not be on the page? From there we can work out a draft on the talk page and finally post it to the article itself. Fleetham (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

In short: in the "Fundamental analysis section" should be the current contents plus the information that Hough, Greenspan, ..., said: "bitcoin has no intrinsic value" restored. Howgh. (short enough?) Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. Here is what I think should and should not be in the article (suggested edits in bold):

Keep the "Jack Hough" paragraph as it is. It represents the source accurately and concisely, and helps to show the essential points in context (see above, "I believe that this is the right balance").
Although the media may give it undue emphasis (see above, "headlines"), "no intrinsic value" doesn't need more weight. It's not hidden, just shown in its meaningful context (see above, "dog bites man"). Note that the sources also said bitcoins are not government-supported... we don't need a separate sentence for every fact.
We should cite sources that say "bitcoins have intrinsic value", but only in proportion to the prevalence of those views among relevant, reliable sources. If there aren't any, then let's not represent the point as controversial.
If there are reliable sources that estimate a financial valuation for bitcoins, that can also be included, as it is now. But the wording "As opposed to that," should be removed, as it creates the impression of controversy when none exists.
The "Jack Hough" paragraph should not be in a section called "Fundamental analysis". Maybe that title is appropriate for financial valuation (e.g., calculating the value of something), but the "Jack Hough" article relates more to economic theory (e.g., identifying the basis for value).
Finally, the article should not contain any other ways to create Bitcoin controversies that don't exist, e.g., citing famous authors who say there is "no such thing as intrinsic value" (any more than the "Criminal activity" section should cite Clarence Darrow who said there is "no such thing as crime"). That also means not representing intrinsic value in the monetary sense as being the same as in fundamental analysis.

Thanks. -- HLachman (talk) 20:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

To respond to the practices above I have to list specifically:

There should be an information mentioning that (listed pundits) said that bitcoin had no "intrinsic value", I do specifically disagree with the above information deleting tendencies trying to replace this finding by a bitcoin (article subject) unrelated note about gold

A statement saying "bitcoin has some fundamental value" is an opinion balancing the "has no intrinsic value" opinion; without it the "has no intrinsic value" opinion would stand unbalanced in the same way, as the "is a bubble" or "is a refutation of..." opinions are unbalanced in the "Speculation" subsection

I see "Fundamental analysis" as a well fitting subsection title, especially when the goal is to identify the basis of a value disregarding the present market price

finally, I must express my will to oppose the tendency to present unbalanced opinions as facts

Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav: I see that the article section relating to the above discussion has been edited. I strenuously object to these edits being done at this point in the discussion, completely ignoring my repeated requests to establish consensus as well as Fleetham's proposal to "work out a draft on the talk page" before making edits. Also, the edits you made directly conflict with points 2 and 6 in my above list. I feel that, throughout this entire discussion, and also in your editing actions, you have ignored my input, have not explained what parts of my positions are wrong (and why), and have not respected my requests for consensus-building. I ask now, one more time, and politely, please respect the consensus-building process. Please also revert your edits affecting the material under discussion (that you have undertaken since Fleetham's above consensus-building attempt), refrain from further edits relating to the material in question, and return to the discussion. Your kind consideration of my request is appreciated. Thank you. -- HLachman (talk) 12:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, if everyone could just not edit that section for a while. If you come across anything else you feel should be included, feel free to edit your above post of things you like to see in the section. I'll try this weekend to write up a rough draft that takes into consideration both of your views and post it here. Fleetham (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: To all involved editors: Please do not edit any of the disputed material until consensus has been reached. It will be considered unconstructive and will be dealt with accordingly. Thank you. --Regards, MrScorch6200 (talk · contribs) 20:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. Just a few comments:

Please note that my input (of 20:33, 30 Jan.) is relative to the section as it stood at the time of the "hold off editing" proposal (see article version of 17:02, 30 Jan.). It's a lot simpler for me if I don't have to reformulate my input to account for the subsequent changes that were made. For simplicity, I ask that we all consider our changes in this discussion as relative to that 17:02 version rather than the live version (which still contains all subsequent edits, and may still get edited by anyone not reading this thread). I take it we can regard the 17:02 version (30 Jan.) as being the "default" version in case no consensus is reached.
My specific proposal for the article, based on my input above (see 6 points), and relative to the 17:02 version, is to remove the wording "As opposed to that" (point 4.), and, move the "Jack Hough" paragraph (and only that) out of "Fundamental analysis" (e.g., to the top of "Money supply", while also renaming that section "Monetary economics analysis") (point 5.). Aside from that, I ask only for consideration of the 6 points I listed (and I'm open to any feedback on those 6 points in the meantime).

Thanks again. -- HLachman (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed section:

Value of bitcoins

While it's possible to view the volatile price of bitcoins as a debate over their true worth, journalists, financial professionals, and economists have also weighed in with comments and analyses of the value of bitcoins. The fact that this is purely based on the willingness of people to accept bitcoins in trade makes it a somewhat slippery subject. (How the number of people who use bitcoins has an effect on their value can be shown through a simple application of the quantity theory of money. This states that the value of a monetary unit, a token, is determined by the number of tokens per person with the value increasing when there are fewer tokens and a greater population.)
One analysis done by a Bank of America employee placed the upper limit on the value of a single bitcoin at $1,300.^[1] Comments made by prominent pundits and economists highlight the idea that the lower limit on the value of a bitcoin is $0.00. Bitcoins lack intrinsic value meaning that if or when the Bitcoin system starts to fray, the tokens will be worthless. (That is to say, bitcoins are not a commodity money.)

Please let me know what needs changing in the above. I didn't cite most of the stuff, but that will be added later. Fleetham (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the proposal. I would like to raise the following issues:

The question of "what is it that supports the value of bitcoins" (i.e., the monetary economics question) is a separate question from "what valuation estimates for USD-per-bitcoin have been produced" (i.e., the valuation (finance) question). Arguably, these are questions from two different fields (economics vs. finance). Considering the two together as if they were one "value of bitcoins" topic introduces the possibility of confusing the reader in a variety of ways. For example, if we are to say or imply that there is some controversy, or issue, or lack of clarity (which the above proposal seems to be saying, e.g., "debate", "slippery subject"), then the reader might wonder: is there disagreement among reliable sources as to "what supports the value of bitcoins" (if so, which sources disagree on that?), and then also wonder, is there disagreement among reliable sources on the financial valuation question (if so, which sources disagree on that?). Solution: keep the two topics separate (preferably separate subsections -- and still, one might wonder why the finance question is under "Economics", even thought the layperson might not notice this discrepancy).
I had suggested earlier to give more noteworthy points more emphasis than less noteworthy points (see above, "man bites dog", etc.). I posted this rationale more than once, and still, nobody has made a case against it, so I still maintain that position. Adding to that, let me make this illustration:

How many people use a currency with no intrinsic value (dollars, euros, yen, Bitcoin, etc.)? (Maybe in the billions?)
How many people use a currency with no government backing (e.g., digital gold, American gold dinar, Bitcoin, etc.)? (Maybe in the millions?)
How many people use a currency "solely backed by people's willingness to accept it in trade" (Bitcoin, etc.)? (Maybe in the thousands?)

Of the above 3, quality #3 is the most noteworthy because it's the most unusual. I see that #3 is emphasized in your proposed text, fine. But, relative to the 17:02 text, your text elevates the "intrinsic value" point (#1, above) and completely removes the "government backing" point (#2, above), which is arguably (according to the 3-point comparison above) a more crucial difference between Bitcoin and other currencies. For that reason, my suggestion is that whatever elevation we give to "intrinsic value", we give as much (or more) to "government backing".
I'm fully aware that the "no intrinsic value" point may have been emphasized in the media. Is "degree of media emphasis" the driver behind our emphasis? Or should it be economic significance (after all, this is the "Economics" section)? Before anyone says, "well, there are no sources focusing on the government-backing point", let's make a comparison:

Bloomberg.com (relatively new news organization owned by a billionaire): puts "without intrinsic currency value" in a headline. (sure makes a good sound bite... but the fact is, billions of people use currencies like that... slow news day?)
Hough article (WSJ, arguably the world's most-trusted financial newspaper -- but still for-profit): emphasis on the various points is more balanced (and none of the 3 points is used in the headline or the lede)
WSJ (quoting Jamie Dimon): mentions govt backing only, not intrinsic value
The Telegraph (highly-respected UK newspaper, founded 1855): mentions govt backing only, not intrinsic value
NPR (widely-trusted, non-sensationalist non-profit education-oriented news source): mentions govt backing only (in the lede), not intrinsic value.

I present the above as evidence that emphasis on "intrinsic value" goes down when you look at sources that are more established and especially more education-focused. Solution: give "government backing" as much (or more) emphasis than "intrinsic value". And, if the "media spin" is a noteworthy issue, let's make a separate section for that.
Proposal (using the 17:02 text as a starting point; addressing my above-mentioned issues; addressing the objections that we were over-emphasizing gold and hiding the intrinsic value point; and, changing "Fundamental analysis" to "Valuation" because it's more widely understood by non-experts and also because fundamental analysis is merely a tool that produces the final result which is a valuation estimate):

(under Economics section)

Monetary economics view

Financial journalist Jack Hough[ref] and various economists[refs] have commented that the worth of bitcoins is based solely on people's willingness to accept them in trade, noting that this is because bitcoins not only lack intrinsic value (which dollars and euros, for example, also lack), they also lack government backing (which the major currencies have).

Valuation

Bank of America's FX and Rate Strategist David Woo's analysis led to a maximum fair value of bitcoin of $1,300 and a maximum market capitalization of $15 billion.[ref]

(under Reception section)

Media spin (optional)

Economist Paul Krugman, who is also a New York Times columnist, in an apparent jab at Bitcoin advocates, titled a blog post, "Bitcoin is Evil",[ref] resulting in being accused of trolling by the Huffington Post.[ref] Also, some media outlets[Bloomberg ref] have chosen to substantially highlight quotes from economists about bitcoins having no intrinsic value despite the fact that this quality is not unusual among today's major currencies (dollars, euros, etc.).[Hough ref]

Please let me know if you have any feedback on this proposal (note that, to me, the "Media spin" section is optional... just put it there because it seems that these media behaviors are what's caused this whole debate in the first place). If you disagree with any part of my reasons, please let me know where and why. Thanks. -- HLachman (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

This proposal is entirely unacceptable. It reduces the reliably-sourced opinion of one of the most notable economists in the world to that of "media spin" while deifying the opinion of a single Bank of America employee. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:07, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments (NorthBySouthBaranof). I think I understand the concerns you've specified (07:07) and I hope this revised proposal fully addresses your concerns.

Proposal. Note: As in all my previous proposals (since the "hold off editing" request timestamped 17:03), this proposal is relative to the 17:02 text, although this proposal can also be considered as relative to the current 01:27 text, which has a new section about currency rates (which might be a good place for the valuation estimate, assuming we are keeping it). I also think "Money supply" can be consolidated with "Monetary economics view" into one section (as per my 00:25 proposal above, I don't know of any disagreement on that point). So the effect of this proposal is to add a one-sentence paragraph to the "Currency Conversion" section (which should in this case be renamed to "Currency exchange rate") while replacing the sections now titled "Money supply" and "Fundamental analysis" (and its subsections). Proposed text:

Currency exchange rate (renamed from "Currency Conversion")

(keep the existing text in that section, and add a new one-sentence paragraph...)

As for valuation estimates against USD, Bank of America declared a maximum fair value of $1,300 and a maximum market capitalization of $15 billion.[ref]

Monetary economics view (replaces "Money supply" and "Fundamental analysis" and its subsections)

Financial journalist Jack Hough[ref] and various economists[refs] have commented that the worth of bitcoins is based solely on people's willingness to accept them in trade, noting that this is because bitcoins not only lack intrinsic value (which dollars and euros, for example, also lack), they also lack government backing (which the major currencies have).

(... followed by the paragraph now in "Money supply")

Again, please let me know if you have any feedback (either positive or negative -- I'm assuming we need some expression of agreement in order to achieve consensus). This is still based on the rationale points I gave in my 23:59 post (minus the "Media spin"). I will continue to assume that those rationale points are OK unless there is some dissent. Also, note that [refs] above includes Krugman, Greenspan, and others (as in current article as well as 17:02 version). Thanks. -- HLachman (talk) 08:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussing the "Value..." section proposal as presented above by Fleetham. Before going futher, a question: do you propose your above "Value..." section to be used in place of the current "Fundamental analysis" section? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

At least in part. It's only a rough draft and may need things added or subtracted. Fleetham (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Here are some of my notes to the text:

The section name change looks acceptable to me.
"While it's possible to view the volatile price of bitcoins as a debate over their true worth..." - this looks like referring to the market value of bitcoins. (Do I understand it correctly?) Because of that, it may not be the best start of the section, taking into account that the section should be related to some "true value" established by other means than by exchange.
"(How the number of people who use bitcoins has an effect on their value can be shown through a simple application of the quantity theory of money. This states that the value of a monetary unit, a token, is determined by the number of tokens per person with the value increasing when there are fewer tokens and a greater population.)" - this looks problematic, are you sure there is some reliable source for it? (I even doubt it is true, I do not oppose it, but it looks rather unlikely to hold. Example: suppose that two states having the same number of inhabitants use two different currencies NCA and NCB. I understand your text so that it alleges that NCA and NCB shall have the same value if the total quantity of NCA is the same as the total quantity of NCB. I do not think economic theory does agree with that.)
"The fact that this is purely based on the willingness of people to accept bitcoins in trade..." - this sentence is well established as the mainstream (orthodox) opinion supported by a list of reliable sources. However, it is incompatible with David Woo's finding (more below). Just to explain why for now and in short: if I agree that David Woo's analysis correctly forecasts a "true value" of bitcoin (for the sake of argument) then I have an incentive to buy (if bitcoins are cheaper than the forecasted "true value") agreeing that my profit shall be equal to the difference between the forecasted "true value" and the current market value. I do not need to base my decision on the willingness of other people to accept bitcoins in such case. On the other hand, if I trust John Quiggin that the "true value" of bitcoin is zero then I have disincentive to buy bitcoins, knowing that my loss will be equal to the current market price. (this is what your formulation "makes it a somewhat slippery subject" expresses as well, if I understood you well).
"Comments made by prominent pundits and economists highlight the idea that the lower limit on the value of a bitcoin is $0.00." - that is unrelated to and contradicting David Woo's analysis. David Woo used a couple of different scenarios (sets of assumptions), not just the one giving him the "maximal true value" mentioned in one source, but also a different set of bitcoin uses leading to smaller possible "true value". Nevertheless, even the smallest valuation from the Woo's analysis is much greater than zero, so it contradicts John Quiggin's exact zero "true value" and it is a misinterpretation of his analysis to mention that zero "true value" is somewhat related to his findings.
"Bitcoins lack intrinsic value meaning that if or when the Bitcoin system starts to fray, the tokens will be worthless." - This looks like the mainstream opinion. I separated the two findings "zero true value" and "nonzero true value" into distinct subsections named "Mainstream (orthodox) opinion" and "Minority (heterodox) opinion" to not mix them up, since they do differ. I still propose that such a distinction be made to make sure the reader is not misled by thinking that, e.g., David Woo found zero to be a "true value" of bitcoins in some of the scenarios he proposed in his analysis.
"(That is to say, bitcoins are not a commodity money.)" - this is your (somewhat logical) conclusion, but would need a source. For example, I do not think that bitcoin is a commodity money for a totally different reason. However, that does not mean such a conclusion would not need a reliable source. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay to address your concerns:

How about opening the section with something like "While the true value of bitcoins is determined by markets..."
Yes, if you need a source for a simplified quantity theory of money explanation, one can be found. And yes, Economic theory very much agrees with this. Ceteris paribus, NCA = NCB.
About David Woo and the mainstream view v. not-mainstream one, I agree that a separate section should be created for minority views.
And I don't believe I need a source stating that bitcoins are not a commodity money. Commodities exist in the "real" world. There's no such thing as a "virtual commodity" unless you consider something like bandwidth or processing power a commodity, and most don't. Why would a source be necessary again? And how can anyone have a reason for thinking bitcoins aren't a commodity money other than the fact that bitcoins themselves aren't made up of a commodity? I mean, you can't say, "well, Bitcoin has bit the dust and no-one is accepting them, so I guess I'll have to put by horde of coins to their alternative, non-monetary use." Fleetham (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: 'How about opening the section with something like "While the true value of bitcoins is determined by markets..."' - hate being so picky, but the "true value" notion is used as the result of the analysis performed by John Quiggin. I propose to not contradict Quiggin's use of the notion.
' yes, Economic theory very much agrees with this. Ceteris paribus ' Yes, but as I just found out, to be able to determine the value of a monetary unit there are more characteristics that shall be taken into account like GDP growth, productivity, interest rates, ... On the other hand, it looks that the number of people using the currency is actually not relevant for the valuation.
'I don't believe I need a source stating that bitcoins are not a commodity money.' - and yet, there are authorities stating that bitcoins are money, there also are authorities stating that bitcoins are commodity (already in the article). I understand your opinion is different, I may have mine, but, it looks that no matter what your opinion is, it is likely that it contradicts at least one reliable source Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Trying to propose a consensual section name. Can we agree on:

===Bitcoin valuation===

? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Status Update:

I have edited the article according to my latest "minimalist" proposal which contains only unopposed material:

The 1st version (00:25, 1 Feb.) received no objections after it was posted 4 days ago, and the 2nd version (23:59, 2 Feb.) drew objections, which were then addressed in the 3rd version (08:47, 3 Feb.), which has been unopposed for over 36 hours. (Note that the 1st and 3rd versions are more or less the same).
The section titles were chosen in part to accommodate recent changes/proposals, e.g., "Bitcoin valuation" (which is fine for the Bank of America material but not the Hough material -- see above, "these two are different things").

This is not expected to be a "final" version, since the discussion is ongoing. It is meant to be a placeholder, i.e., to have the live article reflect the "least common denominator", the minimum on which there seems to be no controversy, rather than have the live article reflect a proposal that appears to be no longer a candidate -- that proposal had objections raised ("directly conflict with points 2 and 6"), with no subsequent discussion or development.
This change is for the benefit of new editors coming into the discussion (note that there is still an RFC in effect), allowing them to see a more neutral starting point on the live article while the discussion continues.
Going forward, I would like to offer the suggestion that we keep a clear distinction between "intrinsic value (monetary economics)" and finance concepts like valuation and market price. I'm not sure the discussions above reflect that (and I'm not aware of "true value" or "true worth" being terms that are recognized as having any established and consistent meaning across disciplines and among relevant, reliable sources, at least not the academic ones).

Thanks for your consideration. Please let me know if you have any comments. -- HLachman (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, HLachman. As far as I am concerned, the things are still under discussion. The most comprehensive and discussed change of the material was the one proposed by Fleetham and your contribution was just opposing some aspects of it. The consensus has not been achieved yet (not even on the title, Fleetham did not get a chance to express his opinion). Your edit was disruptive, disregarding the ongoing discussion and the opinions of other editors discussing the subject. Your changes shall to be reverted. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:25, 5 February 2014 (UTC) The most harmful effect of your edits being that the contents of the section were destroyed, completely erasing the mainstream (orthodox) opinion, keeping only the minority (heterodox) opinion in it as if it was the only opinion on the bitcoin valuation. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav: Thanks for your comments. To be honest, I'm not clear on several points. Maybe you can help clear this up.

"things are still under discussion". Agreed. I noted that in the Status Update.
"your contribution was just opposing some aspects of it". If "just opposing" is meant to say that my feedback is of lesser quality than someone else's, then I don't think that's very objective. My contribution was to provide constructive feedback (and you may notice that the feedback I provided was not countered or refuted in any way). I am still hoping that my feedback is being considered.
"consensus has not been achieved yet". Agreed. I noted that on the Status Update. What was on the live article was a unilateral proposal (with no advance warning or discussion), so I'm not sure there's an argument to be made that the live article had consensus content. My content, on the other hand, had the benefit of 4 days opportunity to get feedback. While it's not meant to be a "final solution", it seems better to have a non-controversial "least common denominator" on the live article, as the discussion proceeds here on the Talk page (and now the live article happens to have roughly the same content as before the unilateral edit).
"not even on the title, Fleetham did not get a chance to express his opinion". I see Fleetham's proposal for the title above.
"Your edit was disruptive". As I said, since my content seemed to create no controversy on the Talk page after a few days exposure (while the live article was a unilateral proposal with unaddressed objections), I'm not sure how it's disruptive (or any more disruptive than that unilateral edit, in any case). Since the effect is certainly no worse than rolling back the original unilateral edit, why not just carry forward with producing the final solution on the Talk page, then post that to the live article, and be done with it? Also, "disruptive editing" is a conduct issue and against Wikipedia policy. It is generally a good idea to be careful about accusations and WP:NPA. That kind of issue is normally handled on "user talk" pages (which is what I prefer to do, if you don't mind).
"the contents of the section were destroyed". I agree that the unilateral proposal that was there deserves consideration as a proposal. I can re-post it here on the Talk page if you want me to.
"completely erasing the mainstream ... opinion". If by that you mean the "no intrinsic value" opinion, it is still there -- look in the "Monetary economics considerations" section (which is what my proposal said -- did you read it?).

May I point something out? WP:CIVIL says, "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others." I gave my reasons for my edit in "Status Update", above, and those reasons largely already address the issues you've raised. Having to re-state them here again now is somewhat redundant, but that's what I'm doing because so far nobody has pointed out what it is they disagreed with in my reasons. I, on the other hand, have responded to your comments point-by-point and with reasons. -- HLachman (talk) 11:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

" If "just opposing" is meant to say that my feedback is of lesser quality..." - no, I mean that the discussion was going on, and your points were opposing some points of the preceding proposal. That means that you cannot simply decide to get away with your disruptive edit just because you think that nobody opposed your opinion. The fact is that there was no consensus on any of your points, you were even told by another editor that your proposal is, in fact, unacceptable, trying to remove opinions of mainstream (leading) economists from the section. You did your edit disregarding this and disregarding the discussion, which suggested otherwise. Please stop removing mainstream and well sourced material from the section, which you did not even create or put the material in. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:48, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

To explain what is wrong about your edits here is short list of the main problems your edits caused:

You renamed the section "Money supply" to "Monetary economics considerations", making the present contents of the section misleading sice you did not cite any monetary econoímist opinion despite the name you used. The cited economists are mainstream, i.e., orthodox economists, not monetary, i.e., heterodox economists.
Your edit made the "Fundamental analysis" section one-sided removing the mainstream (orthodox) opinion completely, leaving only the minority (heterodox) opinion in it.

Your edits are not consensual and I cannot assume you do not know it being already warned that your proposed changes are undesirable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Also, regarding your "feeling ignored", the fact is that the proposal made by Fleetham had priority (was made earlier) and both you and I posted reactions to it, which resulted in further discussion of the original proposal. It is observable that you did not respect any of the points as discussed/proposed by other editors in this discussion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC) There is only one exception to that, the "Bicoin valuation" section title. However, even in that case I consider the edit premature, since you did not give Fleetham a chance to react to that proposal. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

To respond:

"your points were opposing some points of the preceding proposal". It is the normal process of discussion to give each other constructive feedback. That's what I was doing. I told you that above.
"That means that you cannot simply decide to get away with your disruptive edit". I understand you disagree with the edit. It's OK to express that. But "disruptive editing" is a policy matter and I'm not sure this is the space to make accusations of people violating conduct policies. I already suggested that we take conduct disagreements to the user talk pages (I already posted on yours), but you seem to want to force that conversation here. Fine. May I ask a question? Which is more disruptive: (A) an edit that was made completely unilaterally, with no advance notice or discussion, even knowing that a "hold off editing" request was in effect (the edit that you made, that I "strenuously" objected to above, that you brazenly denied doing on my talk page), or (B) an edit also made after the "hold off editing" request, but was substantially the same (in terms of content included) as simply reverting the aforementioned unilateral no-warning edit, AND this was also after several days of the edit having been proposed on the Talk page, AND after none of the major discussion participants gave any negative feedback, AND one new participant objected resulting in a subsequent draft that nobody raised issues with at all? Can you answer that please? If you're still not convinced that (B) is more legitimate than (A), let's add the fact that there's an RFC in effect, and if new editors don't realize that the live article was just one participant's proposal rather than a common starting point, then it's harder for them to join the discussion. My content, which was there already before (A), was not deemed by anyone to be in need of being removed, just in need of being added to. So the situation is that before (A), and after (B), we have (as I already said) a "least common denominator" of agreeable content, and that is more effective as representing a starting point for the various proposals. I should also add again that what I put there is not my "final solution" but just what makes more sense to have on the "live article" while proposals are hashed out on the Talk page. If you want your proposal to get visibility, can't you do that on the Talk page?
"just because you think that nobody opposed your opinion." Look at WP:CIVIL. It says, "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others." My proposal was there for comment, in 3 versions, over a period of 4 days. You did not comment even once that you have any feedback or objection. If you had an issue with it, there was plenty of opportunity to say something. You did not. Not raising your issues is a mistake because it gives the impression that you have no issues to raise. Now that you have made that mistake, the best way to move forward is not blaming others, it's resolving not to make that mistake again in the future. In short, this Talk page discussion is here to share ideas and feedback, and if you don't do that, then the whole thing doesn't work.
"The fact is that there was no consensus on any of your points". I did not claim (B) was a "consensus edit" (other than being unopposed). It was mainly to keep non-consensus material (A) out of the live article until a consensus was reached. How can you complain about a non-consensus edit overriding a non-consensus edit? Effectively it was a revert, and this was after the person handling our DRN advised me that reverting it shouldn't be a problem. Also, in comparison to my edit not having outstanding objections, your content (A) still had (and still does have) the issue I referred to as points "2 and 6" (which you have not responded to, to agree with the feedback, disagree, or discuss). Maybe you should work on addressing outstanding feedback against your proposal instead of continuing to complain and demand that your content be put back on the live article while consensus on it has never been reached.
"told by another editor that your proposal is, in fact, unacceptable". That editor gave specific reasons for objecting, and I agreed with those reasons. Unlike you (see "2 and 6", above), I actually read the feedback and did something about it.
"trying to remove opinions of mainstream (leading) economists". You are going to force me to respond to that again? The mainstream view is still in there (look for "Hough"), just as it was before your unilateral edit (A). So what's missing is some additional non-consensus content about the mainstream view. If you feel it's important, why not propose it here on the Talk page like everybody else does, and get consensus? In fact, if you present a good argument, I might even agree with it. The most productive way forward is to continue developing the proposals and getting consensus here on the talk page, not on the live article.
"You did your edit disregarding this and disregarding the discussion". Oh really? Did I provide feedback for other people's proposals? Yes. Did those people respond to my feedback, to either express agreement with my points, or share their reasons for disagreeing? No. Nearly all of my feedback was ignored. Therefore, who is "disregarding the discussion"? Me? Suggestion: instead of wasting time writing about how others are "disregarding the discussion", it would be better to respond to their feedback.
"you did not cite any monetary economist opinion". That is a false statement. Alan Greenspan was in charge of monetary policy at the US Fed for many years. Please stop making up false excuses for attacking my content. I feel offended by that.
"the proposal made by Fleetham had priority (was made earlier)". That is a false statement. Fleetham's proposal was posted 18:04, 2 Feb. Mine was posted before that, 00:25, 1 Feb. If you really believe in your own reasoning (do you?), you'd be saying mine takes priority because it was made earlier. Right?
"you did not respect any of the points as discussed/proposed by other editors". I offered the feedback that I sincerely believed was constructive. It's OK to say you disagree with my position, but accusing me of being disrespectful is unfair, especially when you don't show the respect to even respond to my feedback on your content.
"I consider the edit premature". Do I need to say the same thing over and over again? I don't consider my edit to be a final consensus solution. It is just the "interim text" that represents the "least common denominator" of unopposed (I didn't say "consensus") content. The main effect of my edit was to revert your edit (A), which the DRN assistant suggested would be OK (because your edit was a unilateral edit during a "hold off editing" request). It's a waste of everyone's time to discuss that here. If there's anything further to say on this, do it on the user talk pages. But the more productive choice is to build the consensus solution and then put that on the live article.

For the last time: Please stop repeating the same arguments, accusations, and false statements, and making me respond to complaints that I already addressed. PLEASE? Thank you. -- HLachman (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I think the discussion has gone off the rails a bit. I do agree with Mecir that it's best not to edit a page while consensus is forming. Again, to all parties involved please hold off editing that particular section. If you would like to change something, please post it on the talk page first. There's really been so much back and forth that it's very difficult to know if HLachman is correct in saying that all the changes are unopposed. It could be true, but it would be time consuming for me to go back and check. Fleetham (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I removed the entire section, and until some form of consensus can be reached, it should stay off the page. Fleetham (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Regarding what's true, I can only say that what I wrote under "Status Update" is true to the best of my knowledge. Going forward, my main input at this point can also be found under "Status Update" (see "Going forward"). This input is not obstructionist, it is meant as constructive feedback on the proposals I've seen so far. If reliable sources render my suggestions moot, then so be it. But I haven't seen them. Other than that, I think it would be advantageous to have more participants, especially ones with economic expertise, which is why I added the RFC(econ) template at the top of this section. If discussion of this and related material ever moves to a new Talk page section, I'd suggest that it also have an RFC(econ) template. I might not be able to check in every day because things are getting busy for me and I've sunk a lot of time on this, so if I don't contribute at some times, it doesn't mean I've chosen to ignore anyone. I'll check in and contribute when I can. Thanks for your contributions and patience. -- HLachman (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Continued discussion how the new section could look:

===Bitcoin valuation===

Bitcoin has been under scrutiny by financial journalists, notable economists, financial analysts, investors and researchers trying to determine its possible future value.

Reuters journalist Felix Salmon used the chart plotting bitcoin market capitalization as the primary reason (see also technical analysis) to forecast: "Rick Falvinge, then, the founder of the Swedish Pirate Party who has invested his entire net worth in bitcoins, might be a multi-millionaire right now, but he is doomed to end up a poor and disappointed man unless he changes his mind."^[2]

Economist and Professor John Quiggin basing his analysis on a Wall Street Journal article by financial journalist Jack Hough forecasted: "Bitcoins will attain their true value of zero sooner or later, but it is impossible to say when."^[3]

Bank of America published the analysis of its FX and Rate Strategist David Woo forecasting a "maximum fair value" of bitcoin of $1,300 and a "maximum market capitalization" of $15 billion.^[1]

Bitcoin investor Cameron Winklevoss forecasted for Mashable: ""Small bull case scenario for Bitcoin is a 400 billion USD dollar market cap, so 40,000 USD a coin".^[4]

the end of the proposed text Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I can sign up for that. I would like to go ahead and flesh out the Felix Salmon of Reuters bit, but I don't have other qualms. Maybe the Winklevoss quote could go because that just sounds ludicrous, but I'm certainly not one to burnish the Bitcoin brand and am equally happy with it remaining. Fleetham (talk) 18:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

"flesh out the Felix Salmon...bit" - sure, no objections

"Winklevoss quote could go..." - no problem either, it is the least supported by more detailed analysis of all, so it looks fair enough to leave it out. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a few comments:

"Reuters journalist Felix Salmon". I found the quoted text on Medium.com but not on Reuters. If Salmon didn't publish it on Reuters, then I'm not sure it should be attributed that way.
"used the chart plotting bitcoin market capitalization as the primary reason (see also technical analysis)". This doesn't match the source. Salmon starts with the chart, but then says very early (2nd paragraph), "there's a deeper reason", and goes on with that (and observations on the nature of Bitcoin) as the basis for the rest of his article (not the technical analysis).
"basing his analysis on a Wall Street Journal article". This doesn't match the source. Quiggin quotes the WSJ Hough piece, but then immediately points out that Hough didn't go far enough on the importance of Bitcoin lacking government backing, and the consequences of that; specifically, that Bitcoin should be assessed as a financial asset (like stocks and bonds) instead of as money (which is what Hough was doing).
I might suggest starting a new Talk thread for this discussion. This thread is pretty long, and moving to new thread will allow it to get archived sooner rather than later. -- HLachman (talk) 14:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: "Reuters journalist..." - seems that I was not careful enough taking this information from the "Speculation..." section. I think that it should be corrected in the "Speculation..." section then. We should replace "Reuters" by "Financial". Good catch.

"used the chart plotting bitcoin market capitalization as the primary reason (see also technical analysis)" - this actually does match the source, since "primary" means the same as "initial", and he mentioned it as the initial reason. It may be noteworthy to mention the deeper reason as well because it also seems to be a notably different approach to forecasting than other sources use.

I will address the other suggestions in a new thread Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b Sharf, Samantha (12 May 2013). "Bitcoin Gets Valued: Bank Of America Puts A Price Target On The Virtual Tender". Forbes. New York.
^ Salmon, Felix (April 3, 2013). "The Bitcoin Bubble and the Future of Currency". medium.com. Retrieved 26 October 2013.
^ Cite error: The named reference BMH was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
^ Schroeder, Stan (1 December 2013). "Cameron Winklevoss: Bitcoin Might Hit $40,000 Per Coin". Mashable. New York.

[BoAFA-1] Sharf, Samantha (12 May 2013). "Bitcoin Gets Valued: Bank Of America Puts A Price Target On The Virtual Tender". Forbes. New York.

[2] Salmon, Felix (April 3, 2013). "The Bitcoin Bubble and the Future of Currency". medium.com. Retrieved 26 October 2013.

[BMH-3] Cite error: The named reference BMH was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[4] Schroeder, Stan (1 December 2013). "Cameron Winklevoss: Bitcoin Might Hit $40,000 Per Coin". Mashable. New York.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]