Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Proposed "Overview" section (was: Bold, revert, discuss)

@Richardbondi: Hi, and thanks for your recent edit. You added a large amount of material to the very start of the article. A WP:BOLD move indeed. Congrats! As adding such a large amount of uncited material is unusual, I'd like to discuss the changes here. There's a couple of concerns... The edit lacks sources, and may be WP:Original research. And while your content additions are appreciated, I'm also not sure the best place for a detailed discussion of double spending is at the top of the page. Let's continue to discuss the changes referring to the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle if needed. Fleetham (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@Fleetham: Thanks, Fleetham. I've moved my proposed entry to User:Richardbondi. Could we & others please discuss it there?

I'm proposing these eight paragraphs as the second section of the Bitcoin article; I've pasted the first of eight paragraphs below so interested readers can decide if they want to click through and discuss the rest.

Re Fleetham's comments:

1. I have not been able to find a comparably comprehensible explanation of how Bitcoin works anywhere, even on Wikipedia. My intention by being Bold was to get my account edited by others who understand how Bitcoin works as well. So what I've written is original in the sense that nobody has before explained Bitcoin in quite this way; it is not original at all in the sense that it just describes what is already known; IMHO it's best thought of as unoriginal overall.
2. My source is an online article I have written, which in turn cites the original Bitcoin white paper; could someone suggest where in my Wikipedia entry I could best add it as a reference?
3. I think the second main heading of the Bitcoin article is the appropriate place to put my Overview because: (1) people presumably come to the article to find out first _what_ Bitcoin is and then second immediately _how_ it works; (2) the current entry does indeed follow this format, but IHMO the current explanation of how Bitcoin works is too difficult to follow without the kind of Overview that I am proposing.

Thanks, Richardbondi (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

First paragraph (incl. header):

\=\=Overview\=\=

Just as a ledger can be used to record transfers of conventional money like dollars from payers to payees, all Bitcoin transfers are recorded in a ledger, called the "blockchain". However, whereas a conventional ledger records the transfer of actual dollar bills or promisory notes that exist apart from it, in the case of Bitcoin, only the blockchain exists: there are no actual coins or bills or other entities. It simply records the transfer of numbers from a payer to a payee, and those numbers are called "Bitcoins". What has made it viable as a currency is the system that makes it virtually impossible to create fraudulent entries in the blockchain ledger; most notably, entries cannot be fraudulently added or modified or deleted. What is remarkable is that this is accomplished without any central authority or server. Bitcoin servers form a network by simply connecting to each other over the Internet, and broadcasting any blockchain ledger additions they make to each other.

Continued at User:Richardbondi

@Richardbondi: No, this talk page is the place to discuss it. I would like to thank you for taking the time to add to the page. I propose that the first paragraph of your content and the incentive to mine section be incorporated into the Bitcoin page with citations added as appropriate. The more technical discussion of attacks on the block chain should be placed, I think, on a more technical page such as Bitcoin network. I'd be interested to hear what Richard and others have to say. Fleetham (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@Fleetham:: Thanks for your comments. I strongly disagree - nothing personal, purely on the merits.

• The attacks on Bitcoin I describe, specifically how they are defended against, are not some subtopic of Bitcoin: they are at its very core, why it works, why it is the first cryptocurrency ever. If one does not understand them, one does not understand how Bitcoin works; and if one does, everything else is just a footnote. Every previous cryptocurrency could be defeated by these basic kinds attacks, and that is why they never succeeded, are not famous, and are not used; it is how Bitcoin solved them that makes Bitcoin Bitcion.
• The incentives are part and parcel of the defense against the attacks, and also are what makes Bitcoin Bitcoin. Without the incentives, there would be no reason to carry out the activity of mining which is precisely the defense against modification of the blockchain. This makes the incentive part of the explanation of the defense against the attacks; they are not a subtopic.
• This section is titled "Overview" because it does just that: it provides an overview of these inseparable topics. Details are explored in later sections of the Bitcoin article.

Best, Richardbondi (talk) 21:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@Richardbondi: Unfortunately, technical discussions about block chain vulnerabilities really aren't appropriate for a section that wants to be a quick overview of Bitcoin. There's certainly a place for such content, but that's not in an introductory section. I'm unsure why you would claim that the block chain vulnerability content is "inseparable" from the rest of your edit. Or why you would say that such vulnerabilities are not "some subtopic." You put them in subsections yourself, so you must recognize that at some level they are separate and distinct from your first, introductory paragraph (which makes no mention of block chain vulnerabilities). Fleetham (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@Fleetham: You say that a quick overview should not be technical, and that the technical details do not belong in an introductory section. But what I have written is not technical, and it is an introduction: an introduction to a section that is technical.

1. As I already said, the format of the article is already (1) explain what Bitcoin is, (2) explain how it works. I haven't touched the first section that attempts to explain what it is. What I have done is added a preamble to the second section that makes what is already there much easier to follow.
2. As is appropriate for a preamble to a technical explanation, I have not attempted to explain technical details; they are explained later, and not by me. I do not consider my introduction technical: it refers to and links to digital signatures, but does not explain them; it refers to and links to hashes, but does not explain them. To explain what these things are would indeed be technical; to refer to them is not: that is why it is a preamble, an overview.
3. More importantly, if you know of a way to explain how Bitcoin works without referencing these things, I would like to see it, and we should it use it instead of my overview. IMHO it is simply not possible to explain this in much less space than I have used, and without referencing them.

So unless you can convince me that my overview is more technical that it needs to be for an introduction to a technical section, I think I have addressed your concerns.

Thanks, Richardbondi (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think it's clear that you are against incorporating only some of your edit into the page. Let's see what other editors have to say. Fleetham (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, Richard is proposing to place the following at the very top of the page (under the lede):

(Edit by Richardbondi (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC) on 4/5/2014: deleted the <blockquote>; please use the one below instead.)

@Fleetham: Thanks for going to all this trouble, I really appreciate it. Is the following perhaps worth considering: Make my first paragraph the overview, but merge the other paragraphs into the existing technical section? TBH I feel the clarity of the technical section could be improved; I just didn't want to replace it, that's why I proposed my addition as a preamble. I will work up a draft of such a new technical section if you think that is a good approach. Thanks again, Richardbondi (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@Richardbondi: Yes, I think that the more technical "attack" sections should be merged with or added to more technical parts of the article. Perhaps they should have their own subsection, but it shouldn't be right at the top of the page. You might also want to consider adding to the more-technical Bitcoin network article where you may find a pre-existing section that could benefit for your content.

And may I suggest using the overview paragraph to replace or modify the existing content in the block chain section? Your overview paragraph is really more an overview of how the Bitcoin system works (and specifically, how the block chain works) than an overview of Bitcoin itself. At least the header should be changed from "overview" to something more appropriate.

Also, if you think the technical sections of the article need improvement, please don't hesitate to replace them with better material! I look forward to seeing the draft. Fleetham (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

@Fleetham: @Wuerzele: @Ladislav Mecir: Hi all, as common contributors to this page, could you please review my proposed change below?

• It would replace the current sections 1 through 1.2.
• Currently 1 is titled "Transactions"; my replacement would say "The Bitcoin System". Fleetham has objected that I'm describing the Bitcoin system and not "bit coin" small b, the coins, and that my description of the system/network should go elsewhere. That's not unreasonable, but I suggest three reasons for keeping that discussion here:

1. IMHO readers who are trying to find out how Bitcoin works don't know about the distinction between "bitcoin" and "Bitcoin"; and even after they learn it in the first paragraph, they've come to Wikipedia to find out how "it" works. What I've written is what they are looking for; I think it would muddy things to suggest to them, with only linked text, that they have to click through to another entry to find what they were looking for (assuming also that, re Fleetham, I move what I've written to the Bitcoin_network page).
2. This Bitcoin page is the only place I have ever seen the distinction made between "bitcoin" small b for coins, and "Bitcoin" capital b for the system or network. I think it's actually a useful and good distinction (dollars and euros aren't capitalized), but I suspect it is only made on the Wikipedia page. I've googled "Bitcoin system" in double quotes, and there are very few hits, none of them making this distinction apart from the Wikipedia page. So, if that distinction doesn't actually exist in the real world, that's another reason to not force readers to go to a different entry to read what I've wrote (which is about the Bitcoin system).
3. The original entries I'm replacing were also already about the Bitcoin system, but they didn't identify themselves as such, and were IMHO too brief to be comprehensible.

Unrelated, I think because of the above we should modify the lede to say that this distinction is only being made on this Bitcoin wikipedia entry page? Eg something like "We will distinguish here between.. etc".?

• I have tried to address Fleetham's concern about how technical it is by keeping everything I think he considered technical out of the first paragraph.
• Full disclosure: in 2.1, the reference to "How Bitcoin works: A guide for the digitally perplexed" is an original source, and mine. Apart from the Khan Academy videos, which are much more technical, I just don't know of a better non-technical description of how Bitcoin works, that takes the time to explain the cryptographic primitives involved in layman's terms. But of course I will understood if you wish to exclude it because it is an original source.

Thanks for your time and happy reading ;), Richardbondi (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

1 The Bitcoin system

The Bitcoin system consists essentially of two parts: a single ledger that records financial transactions in the "bitcoin" currency, and a system - the Bitcoin system - that protects the ledger against fraud. What is remarkable is that this protection is accomplished without any central authority or server. Bitcoin servers form a network by simply connecting to each other over the Internet, and anyone can run such a server. Candidate transactions of the form "Payer pays payee x bitcoins" are broadcast to this network using readily available software applications. Any Bitcoin server can validate these transactions, add them to its copy of the blockchain ledger, and then broadcast these ledger additions to all other servers. Thus myriad copies of a single master blockchain ledger exist everywhere on the Internet, and are constantly being updated with new, validated entries.

1.1The blockchain ledger and how it is protected

Just as a ledger can be used to record transfers of conventional money like dollars from payers to payees, all bitcoin transfers are recorded in a single computer file that acts as a ledger, called the "blockchain". However, whereas a conventional ledger records the transfer of actual dollar bills or promisory notes that exist apart from it, in the case of Bitcoin only the blockchain exists: there are no actual coins or bills or other entities. The blockchain simply records the transfer of numbers from a payer to a payee, and those numbers are called "bitcoins".

There are two main ways the blockchain ledger can be corrupted to steal bitcoins: by fraudulently adding to or modifying it. The Bitcoin system protects the blockchain against both using a combination of digital signatures and cryptographic hashes. (For a more technical description of the Bitcoin system and network, see Bitcoin_network.)

1.1.1 The Addition Attack and digital signatures

Payers and payees are identified in the blockchain by their public cryptographic keys: most Bitcoin transfers are from one public key to a different public key. (Actually, hashes of these keys are used in the blockchain, and are called "Bitcoin addresses".). In principle, an attacker Eve could steal money from Alice and Bob by simply adding transactions to the blockchain ledger like "Alice pays Eve 100 bitcoins", "Bob pays Eve 100 bitcoins", and so on, using of course these people's Bitcoin addresses instead of their names. The Bitcoin protocol prevents this kind of theft by requiring every transfer to be digitally signed with the payer's private key; only signed transfers can be added to the blockchain ledger. Since Eve cannot forge Alice's signature, Eve cannot defraud Alice by adding an entry to the blockchain equivalent to "Alice pays Eve 100 bitcoins". At the same time, anyone can verify Alice's signature using her public key, and therefore that she has authorized any transaction in the blockchain where she is the payer.

1.1.2 The Modification Attack and mining

The other principle way to steal Bitcoins would be to modify blockchain ledger entries. Eve could buy something from Alice, like a sofa, by adding a signed entry to the blockchain ledger equivalent to "Eve pays Alice 100 bitcoins". Later, after receiving the sofa, Eve could modify that blockchain ledger entry to read instead: "Eve pays Alice 1 Bitcoin", or even delete the entry. Digital signatures cannot prevent against this attack: Eve can simply sign her entry again after modifying it!

To prevent against modification attacks, the Bitcoin system first requires entries be added to the blockchain not one at a time, but in groups or "blocks". More importantly, each block must be accompanied by a [Cryptographic_hash_function|cryptographic hash] of three things: the hash of the previous block, the block itself, and a number called a "nonce". A hash of only the first two items will, like any cryptographic hash, always have a fixed number of bits (eg 256 for SHA-256). The nonce is a number which, when included, yields a hash with a specified number of leading zero bits. Because cryptographic hashes are essentially random, in the sense that their output cannot be predicted from their inputs, there is only one known way to find the nonce: to try out integers one after the other, e.g. 1, then 2, then 3, and so on. This process is called mining. The larger the number of leading zeros, the longer on average it will take to find a requisite nonce. The Bitcoin system constantly adjusts the number of leading zeros so that the average time to find a nonce is about ten minutes. That way, as computer hardware gets faster over the years, the Bitcoin protocol will simply require more leading zero bits to make mining always last about ten minutes.

This system prevents modification attacks in part because an attacker has to recalculate all the hashes of the blocks after the modified one. In the example above, if Eve wants to change "100 bitcoins" to "1 bitcon", she will not only have to recompute the hash of the block that transaction is in, but of all the blocks that come after it; she will have to recreate the chain of blocks. She can do this, but it will take her time, about ten minutes on average per block. However, during that time the network will continue to add blocks, and it will do so much faster than Eve alone can mine. Eve would have to recalculate all the blocks before the network could add a new one, or at least catch up with or overtake the network's miners. To do this, she would have to have roughly as much computing power as much of the existing Bitcoin miners combined. This would be very expensive and, if the Bitcoin network is large enough, likely infeasible. Furthermore, because of financial incentives to mine described below, it will make more financial sense for Eve to devote her resources to normal Bitcoin mining instead. Thus the system protects against fraudulent blockchain modifications by making them expensive and, if the attacker is rational, unappealing because they make less financial sense than becoming a miner. The more miners there are, the more expensive and less feasible such attacks become, making the whole system even more secure.

1.1.3 Double-spending

While the blockhain ledger fraud problems are particular to Bitcoin, the Bitcoin system also solves a problem common to all digital currency and payment schemes: that of so-called double-spending. With paper money or physical coins, when the payer transfers money to the payee, the payer cannot keep a copy of that dollar bill or coin. With digital money, which is just a computer file, this is not the case, and the payer could in principle spend the same money again and again, copying the file over and over. With Bitcoin, when Eve offers to pay Alice some bitcoins, Alice can always first check the blockchain ledger to verify that Alice actually owns that many bitcoins. Of course, Eve could try to pay many people simultaneously; but Bitcoin can defend against that as well, albeit somewhat cumbersomely. If Eve offers to pay Alice some bitcoins in exchange for goods, Alice can stipulate that she will not deliver the goods until Eve's payment to Alice appears in the blockchain, which typically involves waiting about ten minutes.

1.1.4 Incentives to mine

Miners have two incentives to mine. First of all, as a reward for finding a nonce, they are allowed to allot themselves a certain number of Bitcoins "out of thin air". Second, every payer can include an optional "transaction fee", which can be thought of as a kind of tip before a service is rendered rather than after. A miner who finds a nonce can transfer all the transaction fees in that block to herself. Payers have an incentive to include transaction fees because their transactions will likely be added to the blockchain sooner: miners prefer to include such transactions in their blocks.

In the Bitcoin system, the number of Bitcoins that can be manufactured "out of thin air" decreases steadily over time, and will eventually be zero. After that time, miners' only incentive will be transaction fees.

refs

Just a reminder... if you're citing yourself, that's WP:OR unless you're an expert. Are you an expert? Fleetham (talk) 23:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It's actually WP:OR even if you're an expert; you'd need reliable, published sources to back up what you're claiming, even if you're an expert on the topic. - Aoidh (talk) 02:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, if Richard is published elsewhere as an expert he could still cite his own blog per WP:SPS. Fleetham (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@Richardbondi: Yes, I think the change from "overview" to "Bitcoin system" is appropriate. And the big-b bitcoin v. little-b bitcoin thing might be followed elsewhere but you just didn't notice? The source for that is an Atlantic article that says "there's a consensus forming" around this convention, but to be honest I haven't bothered when reading articles about Bitcoin to determine if other people are actually doing it. Anyway, I think that your material is pretty much ready to go... I'd still be interested to hear from some editors, such as @Agyle:, who may have a better grasp of the inner workings of Bitcoin than I do. I'm not sure it should entirely replace the first section. Instead I support keeping the existing subsections, such as anonymity, that are about topics you don't cover. Also, any "big claim" that's still uncited in your version should be cited or a "citation needed" template added. And the attack sections should not go at the top of the page... I suggest moving them to another section further down the page (perhaps titled "Block chain vulnerabilities"). Unfortunately, I just think covering specific block chain attacks really derails the section. ...I mean, it's as if you're explaining the US dollar by saying,

"US dollars are the fiat currency of the USA and can be coins or notes. Today, only a few other currencies, such as the euro, British pound, and Japanese yen, have the same stature and worldwide use as the US dollar. The 1884 $5 note was easily counterfeited by anyone with an intaglio printing press.

...you go from basic overview to incredible detail with no warning, and frankly I think it's jarring for the reader. Fleetham (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@Fleetham: Thanks for the feedback; sorry I wasn't able to check in here until today.

1) I was only proposing replacing the sections titled "Transactions", "Block chain", and "Mining", not the section "Anonymity" or anything that comes after it.

2) Thanks for the pointer to WP:SPS. IMHO it does appear to allow me to cite my unpublished article, because as published author of a book on cryptography by a reputable press John_Wiley_&_Sons I fit its criteria as an expert in the field (Bitcoin is a "crypto" currency).

3) How about if I rearrange my proposed sections and integrate them like this?

1. Lede (old)
2. The Bitcoin System (new)
   1. The blockchain ledger (new, 1st para only)
   2. Anonymity
   3. Ownership
   4. Buying and selling
   5. Wallets
3. Security (new: "There are two main ways the blockchain ledger can be corrupted...")
   1. The Addition Attack and digital signatures (new)
   2. The Modification Attack and mining (new)
   3. Incentives to mine (new)
   4. Double-spending (new)
4. History (old)

Thanks, Richardbondi (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@Richardbondi: Yeah I think that's fine. Fleetham (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Fleetham: Thank you Fleetham! I've updated the Bitcoin page. Thank you very much for your feedback; it definitely made my entry much better, and more accessible, than it would otherwise have been. Much appreciated. Best, Richardbondi (talk) 02:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC) (PS: Should I now delete this discussion from the Talk page, or leave it for posterity?)

@Richardbondi: Well, thanks for adding to the page! No need to delete the talk page entry. A bot will archive it in a bit. Fleetham (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry for being negative, but the introducing sentence: "The Bitcoin system consists essentially of two parts: a single ledger that records financial transactions in the "bitcoin" currency, and a system - the Bitcoin system - that protects the ledger against fraud." does not make sense to me. The Bitcoin system consists of single ledger and the Bitcoin system? Are you serious? To illustrate the fallacy, here is an example that could give you an idea what is wrong about it: "A notebook consists of two parts: the keyboard and the notebook." Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: Yes, you're right. How about: "The Bitcoin system essentially consists of a ledger that records monetary transactions in the "bitcoin" currency, and various measures to protect the ledger against fraud."? Please feel free to make that change or a similar one.

Also, I am rather uncomfortable with the "single ledger" formulation. I would prefer to just read "the ledger". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: I have no objection to "the ledger" instead of "single ledger", please feel free to make that change.

I am also rather uncomfortable with the "myriad copies" formulation. That is figurative and suitable for a novel, but do you find it approapriate for an encyclopedic article? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: I'm fine with "many" instead of "myriad", please feel free to make that change.

Thanks

Seeing an edit: "Any Bitcoin server can validate these transactions, add them to its copy of the ledger" - As a matter of fact, I know that this is false - only some servers (mining servers) can do that, while other servers do other things (preserve copies of the block chain and broadcast new transactions). Thus, the formulation looks false. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Investor warnings as POV

@Wuerzele: A recent edit was reverted because two different warnings to investors was "pushing POV." I'm unsure how mentioning that both FINRA and the European Banking Authority have warned investors about investing in bitcoins is not a WP:NPOV stance. Couldn't the same logic be applied to, for example, multiple mentions of retailers accepting bitcoins? "Sorry, you can't say that both Clearly Canadian and TigerDirect accept bitcoins. That's POV." I suggest reinstating the mention that both FINRA and the European Banking Authority have warned investors about investing in bitcoins. Fleetham (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, please don't simply delete text because you feel it's POV. The WP:NPOVFAQ states that, "especially contentious text can be removed to the talk page if necessary, but only as a last resort, and never just deleted." Do you really feel it's "especially contentious" to mention the fact that two organizations have warned on bitcoin instead of only mentioning one of the two organizations? Fleetham (talk) 04:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

We now have a reliable proof that banks, central banks or banking authorities do not present neutral POV on Bitcoin. (See the report by David Andolfatto.) This suggests that such sources should be handled as nonneutral primary sources of information. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Kinda like those who deny the holocaust or believe the world is flat. The fact is most don't believe that reputable government agencies are biased against bitcoin. Per WP:VALID "While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or even plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." Fleetham (talk) 20:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

And what do you mean by "the report by David Andolfatto?" I looked over a bunch of stuff by him including this powerpoint presentation. No where in it or anything else by Mr. Andolfatto is there any mention of "reliable proof that banks, central banks or banking authorities do not present neutral POV on Bitcoin." In fact, I can't seem to find what by David Andolfatto you're referring to unless it's slide 34 of the above presentation where he states, "well-run central banks should welcome the emerging competition. There is (in my view) room for beneficial coexistence." Some pretty damning evidence of the central bankers' rabid hatred for bitcoins, right there! Fleetham (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Fleetham thanks for your message. please mention exactly what you are referring to. I reverted 2 of your 12 or so edits from the day before under WP:STATUSQUO, as far as I remember and ran out of space in teh edit summary explaining all you had changed with "ce was decreasing precision, incorrect use of tense, EBA warning repeat pushing POV, w". Unlike you I didnt remove any new facts or references, correct me if I am wrong. The EBA analysis is still there. Thank you.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

No, the EBA analysis is not there because you reverted my edit. Please address the issues I've brought up. I'm going to replace the material soon because no one has said that it shouldn't be there. If you don't want it to go back, please explain why. Fleetham (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Fleetham first of all, I didnt get pinged , once again. All I find in my inbox is: Fleetham reverted,reason : unchallenged" ? this is ridiculous. there's no urgency, you must reasonably wait for a response. second: How long did you wait for a response? you push through edits ( 15 or something yesterday?). I warn you. you are edit warring again.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Fleetham wrote: "The fact is most don't believe that reputable government agencies are biased against bitcoin." - no, the independent secondary source you removed from the article replacing it by the primary source verified the statement "... bitcoin could be a threat to the establishment, which he argues is a good thing for the Federal Reserve System and other central banks because it prompts these institutions to operate sound policies..." Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Stating that some institution is not neutral is not the same as stating that there is a conspiracy. For example, in justition, courts are neutral, but attorneys are not, representing just one side of the trial. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: I reverted your edit to the David Andolfatto section and then quickly put it back... Sorry about that, I kinda thought the whole "Andolfatto declares bitcoins a major threat" thing was likely journalistic hyperbole because the source you used cites an interview were the interviewer, not Andolfatto, mentions the "bitcoin threat." But all is well. On his personal blog the guy mentions that he believes "the threat that [bitcoins and gold] pose as alternate currency can serve as a useful check on a central bank." So there you go... nobody's putting words in his mouth.

About the EBA warning on bitcoins:

• A single quote from a worker at a central bank saying that bitcoins are opposed to central banks is not enough to make a normal person believe that the Fed or the ECB would publish a misleading investor warning on bitcoins. They are widely regarded as credible institutions and aren't known for politicking.
• The investor warning in question is not from a central bank but instead the European Banking Authority, a regulator that supervises financial activities.
• Even if the warning had been issued by a central bank it could still be used as a source per WP:BIAS: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral..."
• So, even if the source was considered biased it could be used as long as NPOV is maintained. Maintaining NPOV is, per WP:WEIGHT, fairly representing all significant viewpoints from WP:RS. The idea that bitcoins are a safe and non-risky investment is not a "significant viewpoint," however. No one reputable goes around saying, "invest in bitcoins, an entirely safe way to make money fast."

So, I don't think that anyone can say that the EBA warning shouldn't be mentioned. I don't expect people to be familiar with the rules of Wikipedia, but before you say things like "take it away, take it away that source is clearly biased!'" please make a brief effort to see what the rules say about that. Fleetham (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

In David Andolfatto's case, I still find it inappropriate to present the primary source (self-published blog) when the secondary source is available. Why are you pushing the primary source? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the EBA warning - that is presented by a reliable secondary source, and I never said the secondary source should be taken away. That is your own idea, and I do not have anything in common with it. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's so wrong about a primary source. Simply "being a primary source" is not a reason to remove a source. Please read WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. I can understand not using a primary source if it requires interpretation or if it's inaccessible to a normal reader. But in the case of "what was said by David Andolfatto" or "the beliefs of David Andolfatto" citing David Andolfatto himself seems to be a good way to go. Fleetham (talk) 22:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Missing citation in Regulation section was intentionally removed

I wondered how reference 142 had disappeared in a section that I mostly wrote /know about. Maybe by accident in the editing bonanza of the last 2 days? ? No. Fleetham’ s deliberate deed: Fleetham cut a valid reference with the edit summary “removed citation that does not support statement--link is simply to the rules themselves and mentions no July 2011 amendment” and put up a citation needed sign.

Is this vandalism in a crazy form? Mere incompetence? I do not care to know, but it is dysfunctional if not, again, disruptive. Look at the reference. Look at it twice. where does it not support the statement? Fleetham, improve stuff if you want, or ask if you're not sure, but do not cut/ remove/ delete any valid core references. I caught this one by chance --Wuerzele (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Does the citation support the sentence it cites? This is a direct link to the citation: Bank Secrecy Act Regulations; Definitions and Other Regulations Relating to Money Services Businesses. A Rule by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network on 07/21/2011. I'm not entirely sure that supports the idea that "in the US the first step of regulation occurred in July 2011, when the US Department of Treasury's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network added "other value that substitutes for currency" to its definition of Money services businesses." If you're going to make a big deal out of removing the citation, I'm sure you'd also want to make sure other people know the citation is a good one. Can you provide a quote from the citation that supports the sentence? In future, it might be better to stick to secondary sources as recommended by WP:Citing Sources. It's really a bit much to expect the casual reader to wade through a long legal document. Please provide a selected quote to support the sentence. Fleetham (talk) 21:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Does the citation support the sentence it cites? yes it does. --Wuerzele (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Then there should be no problem showing that. Why not provide a quote? Fleetham (talk) 07:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

massive edits in many sections over the last few days left some wounded sentences

Fleetham can you look at the History section please ? I know you where teh only one who ce that, and some weird cuts were made resulting in a single letter . I put a flag for you where. --Wuerzele (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

too many sub sub sub sections, and stretching text into single sentences

... with many white spaces, which tend to take apart the text.Fleetham I am asking you to stop tearing at the fabric. This has been noticed by others on other pages you edited and you should be aware of it. It is inappropriate to stretch first blocks, tehn paragraphs, then sub paragraphs and then finally sentences apart. sentences belong together somewhere! You ve done this in regulation and in malware the most. PLease stop doing this.It is unhelpful.--Wuerzele (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Overview additions

@FOXIBOX: Hi, and thanks for your WP:BOLD addition of material to the overview section. Content additions are always appreciated! In this instance, it appears that the information was cited with the Bitcoin Wiki. Do you have other sources for your information? Being a wiki, the Bitcoin wiki isn't a WP:Reliable Source. I've pasted your material below. Thanks! Fleetham (talk) 21:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Block

Permanently recorded files at Bitcoin containing information on occurred transactions are called block. Block is the record of every recent transaction or its part that has not been recorded in the previous blocks. In nearly all cases blocks are added to the end of the chain, which contains all transactions and is called blockchain. When a block is added to the end of the chain, it cannot be changed. Each block contains information about everything that happened in previous blocks before it was created.

Block Structure

Field	Description	Size
Magic no.	Value is always 0xD9B4BEF9	4 bytes
Blocksize	The bytes number should be added to the end of the block	4 bytes
Blockheader	Consists of 6 components	80 bytes
Transaction counter	Positive integer VI = VarInt	1-9 bytes
Transactions	Transaction list	Multiple transactions

Principles of building

Every mined block contains hash of the previous one. That way a chain of blocks is created which origins back from the so-called genesis block (the very first block in the Bitcoin system) up until the most recent block found by network. Editing data in a block that's been a part of chain for a long time isn't practical because you'd have to edit the data in all following blocks. Thanks to these properties the double-spending attack (repeated spending of already spent money) is almost impossible to perform in Bitcoin network.

Honest miners are always building their block upon the last mined, referencing to it. The "length" of the chain is calculated based on total complexity of the chain and not on the amount of blocks in it. A continuation of chain is only considered valid if it has information about all previous chain links and the chain itself starts with genesis block.

Fleetham, please show some respect for other editors´ contributions.

Fleetham, please show some respect for other editors´ contributions. You do not own this article. Who gave you the final say in every edit on this article? Please show some respect for others. Thank you. ChocTinFoil (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Fleetham, please show some respect for other editors´ contributions. You do not own this article!

Fleetham, please show some respect for other editors´ contributions. You do not own this article. Who gave you the final say in every edit on this article? Please show some respect for others. Thank you. ChocTinFoil (talk) 21:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC) ChocTinFoil Thanks for offering your opinion.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Classification as money

Hi, I would like to discuss two things. First a question: we now have two classification-related (sub)sections. I find it preferable to merge them into one. To not force my POV, I am asking here whether there are objections. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

In the section, there is a text: "...a virtual currency which is the general form of a digital currency..." - I must say that I do not understand. Where did this information come from? And what it means? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:48, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

A virtual currency is a currency that doesn't meet all the definitions of a 'real' currency. Some institutions have noted they are often unregulated and only acting as a medium of exchange (ie. not as a store of value, or unit of measurement). Many of these virtual currencies are in the digital rather than physical domain.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. So, "the general form of a digital currency" should mean that every digital currency is a virtual currency or that every virtual currency is a digital currency, or both, or something else? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Most or all digital currencies are virtual, but not inherently - because they are digital - but because of how they are used and the legal status. Many virtual currencies are digital but maybe physical examples like scrip or vouchers count (I'm not 100% so have started a question on the virtual currency talk page). It may be possible to improve the wording of the article. Jonpatterns (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

To explain my question further, I was interested in determining the meaning of the "...a virtual currency which is the general form of a digital currency..." formulation in the article, because I am still at odds what it means. I would prefer a more clear formulation than that. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree a better formulation could be used, I think it has already been replaced in the article.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

LeeParq's proposals

(cur | prev) 21:39, 19 April 2014‎ LeeParq (talk | contribs)‎ . . (107,004 bytes) (+593)‎ . . (Undid revision 604932567 by John (talk)Undid vandalism.) (undo) (cur | prev) 21:29, 19 April 2014‎ LeeParq (talk | contribs)‎ . . (106,411 bytes) (-55)‎ . . (→‎Money supply: There is no inflation with bitcoin because it is not money. It is a property like a bar of choclate or a brick or a nut or a bolt or a litre of milk or a computer or a wine glass or a roof tile or a match or a pen or a spoon or a plate.) (undo) (cur | prev) 21:27, 19 April 2014‎ John (talk | contribs)‎ . . (106,466 bytes) (-593)‎ . . (npov) (undo | thank) (cur | prev) 21:23, 19 April 2014‎ LeeParq (talk | contribs)‎ . . (107,059 bytes) (+37)‎ . . (→‎Classification as money: What disqualifies bitcoin from being money is that it is not a unit of account: no-one does his or her accounting in very unstable bitcoins. A unit of account has to be stable in real value. HCA assumes this.) (undo) (cur | prev) 21:13, 19 April 2014‎ LeeParq (talk | contribs)‎ . . (107,022 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (A bitcoin is fundamentally not a currency, as stated by the People´s Bank of ~^Chi) (undo) (cur | prev) 21:09, 19 April 2014‎ LeeParq (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (107,023 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (undo) (cur | prev) 21:06, 19 April 2014‎ LeeParq (talk | contribs)‎ . . (107,024 bytes) (+303)‎ . . (A bitcoin is regarded as a currency in terms of the second - more restricted - but also generally accepted definition of a currency as any item that is widely accepted as a medium of exchange.) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:55, 19 April 2014‎ LeeParq (talk | contribs)‎ . . (106,721 bytes) (+39)‎ . . (Allegedly by developer Satoshi Nakamoto or a group of developers by that name. There is no certainty about whether the Satoshi Nakamoto discovered by Time Magazine is the real Satoshi Nakamoto that introduced bitcoins to the world.) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:50, 19 April 2014‎ LeeParq (talk | contribs)‎ . . (106,682 bytes) (0)‎ . . (Virtual is used to mean "almost" a currency: it is a medium of exchange, so it is "virtually" a curency. With digital currency there is no doubt: it is only digital or "virtual" not real as in US Dollars notes and coins.) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:46, 19 April 2014‎ LeeParq (talk | contribs)‎ . . (106,682 bytes) (+10)‎ . . (It is "allegedly" introduced: Satoshi Nakamoto, as identified by Time Magazine, denies that he is the person who introduced bitcoins to the world.) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:39, 19 April 2014‎ LeeParq (talk | contribs)‎ . . (106,672 bytes) (+8)‎ . . (→‎Overview: The block ledger is no guarantee that the system will not be defrauded in 2014.) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:37, 19 April 2014‎ LeeParq (talk | contribs)‎ . . (106,664 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (→‎Overview: The block ledger is "rather" unsuccessful rather than "quite" unsuccessful.) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:34, 19 April 2014‎ LeeParq (talk | contribs)‎ . . (106,663 bytes) (+14)‎ . . (→‎Overview: The Bitcoin system is accomplished without the intermediation of any single, central authority.) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:31, 19 April 2014‎ LeeParq (talk | contribs)‎ . . (106,649 bytes) (+7)‎ . . (→‎Overview: The Bitcoin system has various times been defrauded in the recent past (2014).) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:18, 19 April 2014‎ LeeParq (talk | contribs)‎ . . (106,642 bytes) (-12)‎ . . (→‎Overview: Correcting a mistake: bitcoin actually functions without a central, controlling entity, for example, a global central bank.) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:11, 19 April 2014‎ LeeParq (talk | contribs)‎ . . (106,654 bytes) (+3)‎ . . (→‎The block chain ledger and bitcoins: Conventional ledgers reg) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:07, 19 April 2014‎ LeeParq (talk | contribs)‎ . . (106,651 bytes) (+144)‎ . . (→‎Overview: The Bitcoin system has various times been defrauded in the recent past. The block ledger is no guarantee that the system will not be defrauded.) (undo) (cur | prev) 20:01, 19 April 2014‎ LeeParq (talk | contribs)‎ . . (106,507 bytes) (+41)‎ . . (→‎Overview: A very noteworthy fact about the Bitcoin system is that it has quite frequently been defrauded in the recent past. It is a total fraud to claim that the block ledger protects the Bitcoin system from fraud when the system is often defrauded) (undo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeeParq (talk • contribs)

• Hmm. What are the sources for your proposed edits? --John (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
• See WP:OR, please Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The user, LeeParq, was actually a sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/FlappyBird Fleetham (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. There have been quite a few. Keep vigilant for more coming. --John (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Mining pools

It is OK to tell what a mining pool is, but I think that the description of the reward systems is too much. What about moving the reward systems to a more specialized article? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav thanks for your comment; a more specialized article, such as? Until and unless there is "more of a specialized article", I want to keep it here. Also, this is specific to Bitcoin. ---Why is the info on reward systems "too much?" I could have said the numerous malware sections was too much. I didnt. I think the info on the different reward system is highly interesting. I am no miner, but I feel covering that area should be part of an encyclopedic article about Bitcoin.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir I removed the info about the reward systems (it appears to have been taken from a Bitcoin wiki) and re-wrote the section using good sources. (The only source present prior was from Arxiv, which doesn't pass WP:RS I think.) Please let me know what you think! If you know of a technical article that could benefit from the reward system info please add it there. I agree that it's too technical for the page. Fleetham (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, You are asking Ladislav what he thinks AFTER you deleted my section as usual within 14 h? I, the author of the section and regularly contributing editor to this page think this is uncivil. Once again a good faith edit has been completely deleted without good cause.

The allegation that the info is from a wiki is not only wrong, but unfounded. This is new material for the page, sourced, nothing was taken from a wiki. Furthermore Fleetham mixes cases up (again), previously [deleted a similar contribution that was unsourced], but I found a source, and reported what is in the source. The allegation that source doesnt pass WP:RS is just that, an allegation.

what Fleetham replaced instead is missing the mark, bad prose (always a "while..." sentence) and completely miss the points I added.

• The first sentence is superfluous, unneeded.
• The second sentence "The odds of being the lucky winner are so slim that the amount spent on electricity to power your computer likely outweighs any bitcoins received in payment" is misattributed to the source (Purdue). Fleetham paraphrased a sentence almost verbatim from arbiteronline: "The energy you spend, the resources you consume to run your computer to mine the Bitcoins may not match what you gain from being part of a pool that gets the bitcoins out".
• The third sentence "To get around this problem, some miners combine their efforts by joining so-called mining pools that share the task of mining among many participants and the rewards as well." Is less precise than the source and even contradicts the source. Its not some its "the most common way now for people to begin mining bitcoins is through joining a pool".
• The last sentence concludes with what I consider an unfounded value judgement of the topic mining pools. Consider the source! The ARbiteronline interviewing 2 assistant political science professors "Even those who join pools may not earn more than the electricity spent on mining, however."

I cant help noticing, that Fleetham is continuously finding and emphasizing negative aspects of Bitcoin, (see the above 4 sentences) something I have said before, "undue weight". I'd appreciate if Fleetham created new stuff himself, worked on finding citations, where citation needed signs are up, gets reference 8 in line etc. put inline signs up, waits for some days for responses. If there is an error, he should edit in small ways, add, like others do instead of continuously wholesale deleting stuff you simply don't like.

The problem is, that 90% of the time Fleetham deletes good faith edits, deletes within 24 h without giving readership a real a chance to react, and worst, deletes WITHOUT PRIOR DISCUSSION. This is disruptive editing. Fleetham who talks to the hand so much, should read WP:TALKDONTREVERT himself. --Wuerzele (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: Perhaps both you and I could benefit from reading WP:TALKDONTREVERT: " Contributors with good social skills and good negotiation skills are more likely to be successful than those who are less than civil to others." Just back off the personal attacks please, and I'll do less immediate reverting of unsourced material. Fleetham (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

No self revert then ? But more allegations, since these are no personal attacks. I criticize extremely poor editing skills, that happen to be disruptive. Someone wrote earlier that one has to be a masochist to edit here endure this atmosphere. Fleetham has shown poor social skills and reverted on all sites hes involved in, as far back as I could research when I reported his edit warring; he has a block log history and a user page scarred with complaints. Fleetham's "if --then" proposal doesnt even work in a kindergarten; one must model, but Fleetham deletes, regardless, as can be seen in the edit history today.--Wuerzele (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, Fleetham's edits are highly inaccurate. For example, "...the amount spent on electricity to power your computer likely outweighs any bitcoins received in payment. To get around this problem, some miners combine their efforts by joining so-called mining pools..." does not make sense at all. If I cannot get enough to pay for electricity bills, joining others cannot help me. It contradicts any serious sources. Also, there are miners doing it for profit, and the underequipped, unsophisticated and irrational should not be presented as the rule. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I propose to use this text:

Solo mining means an individual works alone to calculate hashes, to collect the reward of finding a block. Success depends on time and hash rate. The luck factor, or mathematically speaking the variance was calculated in 2011 to be quite high. A "joint effort of several miners to work on finding blocks together," and decrease the variance is called a mining pool.[26] The reward is split among participants in proportion to their contribution.

, we just need to find the sources verifying it. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir thanks for your proposal. Ref1 for solo mining and variance:

Ref 2 best def for mining pool, even if commercial source "Mining pools are a way for miners to pool their resources together and share their hashing power while splitting the reward equally according to the amount of shares they contributed to solving a block. A "share" is awarded to members of the mining pool who present a valid proof of work that their miner solved."

Ref 3 The rise and fall of Bitcoin mining. By Aaron Sankin, January 29, 2014 i believe is already in the ref list (ahh, it got lost in the extraordinary editing bonanza today), mentions pools, their history since 2010 and their power, shows a graph of incr. "difficulty" (units?), but sloppily written.

I propose to also write sthg like 'initially people were able to mine by themselves, but with ever increasing calculation time, as of 2014 it is most common for miners to join organized mining pools'. --Wuerzele (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

What I do not understand is , why despite this LONG discussion here, the present version is still Fleethams's. He reverted my last edit (as almost anything I wrote). Ladislav? Anyone? on this page there seems consensus, but on teh article page Fleethams opinion rules?--Wuerzele (talk) 05:49, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

moving the stuff on capital Band small b bitcoin in lede

guys, the lede is what people first read, this capital Band small b bitcoin stuuff is such a technical small footnote , can we please please leave it at the end. It is totally not central. if it comes 3 sentences after the important stuff people will still figure it out . its really a jerky issue I find ( as Richardbondihas said somewhere.please no edit war on this. Its not essential enough to be up front ok? sorry to disagree with you Ladislav, I know where you are coming from.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly disagree. Until defined, nobody knows "Bitcoin" means the system and "bitcoin" means the digital currency. The purpose of the Wikipedia is to define the notions for people, and I see the mess caused by inconsistent use of the definition in the lead. I have got a totally different proposal: I propose to use the notions consistently as defined, i.e., use "Bitcoin" to mean the system and "bitcoin" to mean the digital currency consistently throughout the article. Is there any objection agaist this? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh Ladislav! wholeheartedly even ! please save your good heart for something else!

I know how messed up it is, I know, I know, I know, and I am with you! I see the inconsistency , believe me, BUT i honestly think you and I arent the majority in this. folks just dont care about it. and I cant blame them entirely. this isnt science. this is some freaking weird money. there's an american expression about this situation: Dont sweat the small stuff. -:) and this is. we got bigger fish to fry. ok?

BTW hey, what happened to the anonymity section? it vanished. I dont see who cut it ( by mistake probably). I was just going to edit it.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not notice the deletion of the anonymity section either. Regarding my proposal: there actually are alternatives:

• we can use "Bitcoin" to mean the system and "bitcoin" to mean the digital currency, explain the terminology to the reader, and use it consistently throughout the article
• we can use "Bitcoin" and "bitcoin" inconsistently, following the use in the cited sources
• there may be other preferred alternatives I did not list

I think that you did not indicate your preference, do you have some? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

As a scientist, I see the benefit of the definition and adherence to it, to communicate unambiguously (pers. pref).

As a person in the US I say, well: I do realize my fellow citizens dont care about this, not agyle, not bondi, not fleetham, and the media ? i havent payed enough attention. again: small stuff. my preferenece is "leave it be", Wild West.outside science nobody cares and money and economics as you have stated before aint science.

As an editor on this page: I am throwing my hands in the air! definitely got other priorities, thats why I moved this thang down to the end! ok?--Wuerzele (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not think you should speak for agyle or others here. The purpose of Wikipedia is to explain the terminology to readers so they can discern "indolence" from "intelligence". The rules don't state it should read as either a textbook or a novel. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Whoa ! I responded to your question, even taking the time to qualify my response 3 fold, obviously too complicated and wasted, if I earn a slap in the face for that. All I said is that as a person in the US my preference is to go along with what the rest here does and in the context on this page, this means I go along with my fellow editors from the US. - You however jumped to the conclusion, that I spoke for them. Maybe I didnt say it clearly enough but I think, you misunderstood. I did NOT SPEAK FOR them . I have observed that, they didnt care about b or B. Richard expressedly said so. Now I am going to ping everyone, so we can make this darn thing official and basta. And please do not accuse me of pushing for a novel or a textbook or indolence. I was trying to get across that there are principles, but there are also human realities of space and time. These have to be negotiated.

Agyle, richardbondi, Fleetham, can you please weigh in on this minor issue? see above. Thanks for your time.--Wuerzele (talk) 11:22, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not intend to reprimand, I just wanted to make sense of your answer. Frankly, I did not understand it, since if I take the first sentence, I think that you prefer the consistent terminology. The subsequent text seemed to contradict the starting sentence, therefore I just wanted to sum up what the official policies of Wikipedia have to say to the subject. I did not want to accuse you of wanting to turn the article into a textbook or a novel, but, we should not forget that the official policies are to prefer the encyclopedic aspect. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's that important whether the sentence is in the first or second paragraph, but personally I'd put it no later than immediately after the first time a different capitalization is used, which is currently in the first paragraph. (I'm not addressing approaches that would not use that sentence).

As an aside, I think the sentence itself gives the false impression that this is a widely followed convention. "Bitcoins" (plural, clearly the currency) is capitalized consistently by The Guardian and The Financial Times, often but inconsistently by The NY Times, USA Today, the UK Daily Telegraph, Sydney's Daily Telegraph and Forbes, very rarely by The LA Times and never by The Wall Street Journal or The Washington Post...at least looking at the first page of Google results). This WSJ article explains their switch to using lowercase "b" in all cases, and The LA Times seems to try to always use lowercase but make occasional mistakes. Among all these publications, none seem to follow "the convention". However, the question here isn't whether the sentence about the convention is factual, it's just about where to put it. :-)

As a word of caution when applying the convention consistently, there seem to be different conventions on applying the convention. For example, some would use uppercase in the phrase the Bitcoin currency, because "currency" specifies what aspect of the Bitcoin system is being talked about, while others would use lowercase since as a whole the phrase refers to the currency. There are also gray areas. The phrases bitcoin transactions and Bitcoin transactions are both used in this article; they have different meanings, but in most cases, either would be correct, so it's simply a matter of preference. You could similarly use "Bitcoin", "bitcoin", or "bitcoins" in the phrase gun dealers can use Bitcoin to sell arms; they'd all have different meanings (the Bitcoin system, the Bitcoin currency as an uncountable noun, and the Bitcoin currency as a countable noun), but all be correct. Using "bitcoin", the currency, as a singular mass (uncountable) noun, the way "the euro" could be used, seems to bug some people, so it might worth avoiding.

Agyle (talk) 20:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

"As an aside, I think the sentence itself gives the false impression that this is a widely followed convention." - Oh, yes! I prefer to use some convention throughout the whole article, and it would be best to use the one that might be understandable to most people. The boundary cases Agyle mentions - yes, agreed to all cases. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

If no one actually follows the convention, I don't think there's much point to including any mention of it. Why not transition the entire page to lowercase b bitcoin and disregard a widely ignored "convention"? Fleetham (talk) 23:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

If this article follows the convention, I think it's worth mentioning that, regardless of what others do, to explain the changing case. Also, some publications follow it, differing only in gray areas; CoinDesk is particularly consistent about it. Agyle (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Agyle for weighing in, particularly with the evidence you listed. So, to summarize a sentence that coudl be inserted: "There is no uniform convention of Bitcoin nomenclatura using lowercase "b" vs capital B. Most recently, the WSJ in a 3/14/14 article suggested using lowercase "b" in all cases. Other newspapers havent followed suit, but for ease this article will follow the suggested convention." So 2 questions, pinging you AgyleLadislav, Richardbondi+ 2 new recent contributors on talk page Jonpatterns and ChocTinFoil :

• should we stick the above sentence in, following the (easier) WSJ rule, hoping this will become dominant, or stick with sttus quo/the rule that's been in the article? Fleetham already opined and I am inclined to agree.
• Next: How high up should this be in the lede? status quo or , technical footnote at the end, my preference, since I started this discussion after being reverted; the topic Bitcoin is overwhelming enough for the reader, the least thing to worry about IMHO.thanks.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Your suggested sentence is true, but relies on original research/synthesis. I'd reflect published sources, something like "One writing convention uses Bitcoin, capitalized, to refer to the concept or system, and bitcoin, uncapitalized, to refer to the currency, while The Associated Press Stylebook and The Wall Street Journal switched in early 2014 to using bitcoin in all cases.^[1][2][3][4] This article follows the [former or latter] approach."

I favor always using lowercase. It's usually clear from context or unimportant which meaning of bitcoin is intended, and where it isn't, it's better to reword it so that it is, rather than depend on B versus b for clarity. Regarding placement, if consensus is to go with all lowercase, I think it should go in the opening section, since it refers to the style used throughout the article. I'd add it as a final paragraph in the section, but I don't feel strongly about where it goes in the opening section.

^[1] Bustillos, Maria (2 April 2013). "The bitcoin boom". The New Yorker. Condé Nast. Retrieved 19 April 2014. (Standards vary, but there seems to be a consensus forming around Bitcoin, capitalized, for the system, the software, and the network it runs on, and bitcoin, lowercase, for the currency itself.)

^[2] AP Stylebook (25 February 2014). "AP Style tip: Bitcoin is a..." Twitter. Retrieved 19 April 2014. AP Style tip: Bitcoin is a digital currency. As a concept, Bitcoin is capitalized. The currency unit, bitcoin, is lowercase.

^[3] Metcalf, Allan (14 April 2014). "The latest style". Lingua Franca blog. The Chronicle of Higher Education (chronicle.com). Retrieved 19 April 2014.

^[4] Vigna, Paul (14 March 2014). "BitBeat: Is it Bitcoin, or bitcoin? The orthography of the cryptography". The Wall Street Journal. BitBeat blog.

Citing blogs and tweets is non-ideal, but I think valid in this case under WP:SPS (Metcalf is an English professor who's written books about language; @APStylebook is a verified Twitter account). 2013 and 2014 copies of the AP Stylebook would be awesome replacements if anyone has them handy.

––Agyle (talk) 06:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the research. Taking into account that the original convention had serious issues summed up comprehensively by Agyle and making it hard to follow, I prefer to make the things easier. I think that we should switch, but we shall mention it in the lead or as a technical footnote, since it is crucial for the reader to be able to understand the text. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir Thanks. So, Oooookaay- then ?

looks like all 4 of one opinion, despite initial wholehearted objections, good thing I asked. I will put in the sentence I proposed. Cant follow Agyle, your accusation of OR and WP SYNTH. ( pretty serious accusation) I just hope it is repeated misunderstanding as several times previously, when you didnt read a paragarph etc. Antyway , you can edit, Agyle.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:02, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

editwarring 33RR

(Personal attack removed) Fleetham (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: The bursting of one bitcoin bubble in April 2013 was correctly predicted by a financial journalist.

This information is not serious. I checked the source and found out that it labelled bitcoin a "speculative bubble", stating that "the bubble is sure to burst". There was no specification when, though, and other sources stated something similar even before. Thus, there is no doubt that the cited source did not demonstrate any exceptional ability to predict the event. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC) I ve been thinking teh same thing for a long time. --Wuerzele (talk) 06:47, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't be too worried about the lack of time specificity. No one's going to say, "it's going to burst in two weeks exactly" because it's very difficult to know that. Even if you did think the bubble would burst in less than two weeks, you'd more than likely have significant doubts about your own ability to predict such things (or the ability of whoever you got the information from) and therefore keep your mouth shut. I think a more realistic concern is the possibility that there's a lot of journalists saying "the bubble is sure to burst," and Mr. Salmon, who wrote the article you reference above, simply was the lucky one. Even if it was the case that many predictions were made and Mr. Salmon's simply happened to be 10 days before the value of a bitcoin fell by 70%, he still predicted that particular instance. Obviously, you shouldn't think of Mr. Salmon as some sort of mystic sage just as you shouldn't think of someone who won a lottery as a person of particular skill in number picking. But that doesn't mean the person who won a lottery didn't actually win. Fleetham (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree. A ton of people predicted that Bitcoin will drop down to 50$ after the bubble burst, but here it is hovering at about $500~. To claim that this was vaguely predicted by a journalist would be irresponsible. People like to make vague predictions about claims, and then try to claim responsibility when it does finally happen. "Somewhere, in the next 5 years, a bridge will fall in this city." And then a piece of crap bridge falls in the 2nd year after she made that prediction. It's ludicrous. Now, taking it a step further, if she gave an exact date and time, and specified which bridge, then it may garner inclusion. For this, though, saying 'the bubble is to burst soon' and trying to garner inclusion is simply irresponsible. Tutelary (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the prediction was borne out at all. There certainly was a crash, but no bubble was burst, and Bitcoin prices have risen and fallen enormously since then and are now way up compared to that particular crash. Besides, several Bitcoin insiders had already predicted there would be a number of crashes before Bitcoin was successful. I think the sentence is silly and needs to be removed. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's probably best to just remove the whole thing then. Fleetham (talk) 17:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

editwarring 3RR

I am restoring a section Fleetham reverted illegitimately with the summary WP:NPA . the section was renamed 33RR to create an intermediate edit, so the action couldnt be undone. Fleetham, I suspect you want the policy reference for calling your removal illegitimate: it is WP:NPA#WHATIS --Wuerzele (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2014 (UTC) -----------------------------------------------------------------

Fleetham, you have twice removed interwiki links that you call "erroneous", (which is incorrect because tehy arent erroneous), or "confusing" without saying how.

Your edit summaries are no replacement for discussions. first here "Please don't just link to "big words" because often the page would only confuse the reader" then on April 20 here saying "erroneous" not responding to my reasoning at all, pushing POV.

Numerous times now you have reverted the sentences on Bitcoin as currency, because for you the case appears to be clear: it's no money, so why bother mentioning that the US gvt sees it as currency. You are pushing POV.

Here you removed a whole paragraph I had written, after first shortening the list of agencies by et al then removing it and all references I assembled to it. Ladislav and I had a consensus, yet you "delete": Various US government entities refer to bitcoins as digital currency or virtual currency, however, including the Government Accountability Office, the Federal Reserve, the Department of Justice, the FBI, et. al.

Fleetham, you appear to be unable to leave sentences I write alone even for 24h. Despite assurances of the contrary here your continuous flurry of disruptive edits add little to nothing, but often come at a loss of precision. I have protested against these edits here several times. You continue to make dubious edits, that introduce ambiguity or harm the clarity, specificity and also erase valuable work that's been put into it: the last one is here where you strike "The thief hacks an online wallet service by finding a bug in its website or spreading malware to computers holding the private keys" which is a perfectly good sentence, saying "unhelpful explanation of how theft occurs". I didnt write the sentence, I am not taking ownership as you apparently do, (observed by many). I will reinsert this. You reverted, and you should discuss.

You took yet another bite at a newbie User:ChocTinFoil, the second in 2 weeks, a "normal occurrence" which has been quietly tolerated by editors on this page.

lest you accuse me once more of the unfounded allegation of personal attacks: I have previously challenged you to find any personal attack on you by me and you have not come forth with anything. I provide evidence for my constructive criticism in every talkpost or edit summary. you pretend to mix up criticism with personal attack. you deflect criticism to divert attention or to be uncivil.

I could list more of the 39 edits, and the 20 before, -the amount of reverts on 4-18-14 alone are too numerous to count- but this seems enough for now; increasingly I doubt the usefulness to spend any time editing here, because for 2 months you have nothing but reverted (and get away with it).--Wuerzele (talk) 07:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

external links to sister wikis (I think this is my third edit on this :-)

• my edit (→‎External links: not in WQ or WV---yet (not the neatest edit I admit))
• my edit reverted (→‎External links: Remove external links that don't satisfy the criteria set forth in Wikipedia:External links)
  Wikipedia:External links
• my restoration (I put back sister project links in external links. At least Wiktionary deserves a link. Will read the Wikipedia meta-page later.)
• edited out again (Undid addition of external links. The wiktionary entry is inaccurate (says "BitCoin" is an acceptable alternative capitalization), the other content is mediocre at best. Why would we link to that? Nothing in Wikipedia:External links requires it.)

Wiktionary has a number of alternate spellings for wiktionary:bitcoin and a decent discussion about it on their page. External links might not require it, nor does it forbid it. Besides, isn't sister project external links a bit different from other type of external links?Civic Cat (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Civic Cat thanks for posting this. Ive been staring at this occasionally, wondering why nobody replies... I have no problem with your edit(s), and I encourage you to just do it again. The person that reverted you 3x is no longer active on this site. I dont know the answer to your question if sister project external links are "different" from other type of external links.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Incentives to mine

as written, I think this section belongs under 'mining' not 'security'.

It also has zero refs, so I will flag it.

BTW: Ladislav MecirYou removed from can be thought of as tip "before the service is rendered" saying it is inaccurate, miner can get the fee only after rendering the service. I dont understand your reasoning. Seeing this from the customer or miner perspective the sentence is accurate, because the tip is given BEFORE the transaction is complete. or were you against the word "tip"? ( customarily given after service) I didnt write this sentence, but am a little concerned about the amount of righteousness on this page of reverting and deleting. --Wuerzele (talk) 07:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

To explain further: the miner obtains the fee only after rendering the service, and this, of course, means that the tip is not given before the service is rendered. Comparing it to other cases, it may be seen like a customer in a restaurant promising a tip to the waiter before the service is rendered, but the waiter obtaining the tip only after rendering the service. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir thanks for replying. I am aware, that a tip is customarily given after the service ( see above), but since the transaction fee is paid BEFORE the transaction is complete, well, the tip is paid before the service is rendered! BTW many coffeshops have a glass saying "tips appreciated", and the servers don't "receive" the tips until it's split at the end of a shift or day. so same thing as here; to delete on grounds that "miner doesnt receive the fee until service is rendered" is, ehem, splitting hairs. This site does need metaphors. this isnt a bad one. my 2 cents.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that virtually everything in this section is already in the Mining section lead. Do we really need duplicates? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

the Mining section lead? or teh mining section ?we come full circle here, on the lede section discussion! remember? It was me who brought this up March 11 i think the intro texts on the whole bitcoinpage are very unfortunate and redundant duplications on what usually follows 1/2 inch below but nobody else agreed. see also subsection Section ledes before subsections from March 12, 2014 Only 12% of the good articles had a subsection lede, so its not necessary. yes agree the incentive paragraph can be shortened. by comparison, the reward systems I added, were zero repetition, but they were deleted....--Wuerzele (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the section. Not only is much of it redundant, it uses language that's not defined in the article prior. Nonce, e.g. I tried to save the info on transactions fees, as this wasn't in the mining section already. Fleetham (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Thefts

I find the sentence: "Generating and storing keys offline mitigates the risk of theft, yet it occurs on a regular basis..." highly problematic, since it suggests that the bitcoins with offline keys are stolen on a regular basis, which is not what is happening. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav, i agree. The word theft may have to be repeated to be clear.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Wallet section feedback

Let me know if you have any feedback on my recent edit to the "wallet" subsection. I think my changes make the concept easier to understand but am willing to make changes if some are suggested. Also, I think the section could do with more paring down... the "software" and "security" sections could be condensed in my opinion. Let me know what you think. Fleetham (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The closure of the Silk Road had failed to dampen illegal online drug sales

I changed a recent content addition from "the closure of the Silk Road had failed to dampen illegal online drug sales..." to " the closure of the Silk Road had little impact on the number of Australians selling drugs online, which had actually increased." The article doesn't mention anything about the volume of drugs sold online only that there were more individual vendors. While it doesn't necessarily follow from this that fewer drugs were sold online after the Silk Road take-down, it doesn't mean more were. There could very well have been a greater number of sellers and a smaller number of sales. Fleetham (talk) 06:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Referencing regarding whether Bitcoin is a considered money

Fleetham, what is wrong with you? There is a statement in the article: Economists generally agree that it does not meet the definition of money. A citation was requested. I supplied various citations referring to Central Banks. You state that refers to lawyers. Because you show your ignorance about the subject at hand, regarding the references, you go and delete the statement. What is the problem with you? So, you have a problem with a reference that, according to you is not from an economist. Fine. Then remove that reference. Don´t remove the statement. Remove the reference. I am sure you understand this, Fleetham. So, now you go and remove the reference that according to you has nothing from an economist. Leave the statement alone. Only deal with the reference you do not like. Do you understand this, Fleetham? If you do not, then just respond here and say you do not understand what I am saying over here. Then I will have another go at explaining to you. In the mean time, please leave the statement in question in the article. OK, Fleetham? I am sure you now understand. Thank you for your kind co-operation in this matter. Titfditroyl (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, when the statement is "most economists agree bitcoin isn't a currency," so why not provide citations that actually support this instead of some complex explanation about how your citations "kinda" support the statement? I mean, you didn't write "some lawyers and a central bank (which employs a lot of economists!) don't think bitcoin is a currency." In anycase, no citation is needed... the info is cited in the body of the article, and there's no need for extra citations. Having five really is over-citing. Also, have you contributed to this page before using a different name? Fleetham (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I've changed the title of this topic as it could be considered a personal attack. It maybe be helpful to quote want sentence you want adding or removing, and any supporting references.Jonpatterns (talk) 09:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Bitcoin white paper

The white paper is currently used as both a cited source and an external link. I suggest to keep just one of the forms. Which one do you prefer to keep? (my preference is to remove it from the list of external references) Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

External link is better. I believe you've already made the change. Fleetham (talk) 21:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

why better? --Wuerzele (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You hadn't, so I did. Fleetham (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This is too hasty, yours is the only opinion preferring this alternative, taking into account that I indicated the opposite preference. Please wait for other editors to be able to express their preferences. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

a reference is a source's preferred status, and default status and here status quo. If there's no place for a source to fit as a reference THEN and only then it becomes an external link. agree with Ladislav on both accounts. (strike under external links and Fleetham is too hasty, as almost always)--Wuerzele (talk) 03:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Oops, yes too hasty. I thought Ladislav meant remove it as a reference... external links are usually referred to as "links" not "references." Apologies! I've removed it from the external links section and restored it as a reference. Fleetham (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC)