Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 19

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

→

Archive 25

Regarding bitcoin as a "real currency"

It has come to my attention that there is some degree of an edit war regarding whether or not bitcoin is a "real currency". An assertion in the first paragraph specifically calls bitcoin "not a real currency". This statement lacks citation, is clearly a controversial one, and may be impossible to source. There may have been cases of this in the past, but it is common sense that whether or not something is "real" or "true" is a matter of opinion. Please read WP:IRS. For the time being, I have removed any assertion that the currency is "real" or "not real". If anyone can provide a significant reliable source from an authority on whether or not currencies are real, you are free to change it providing citation from that source. Teggles (talk) 09:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, no citation is needed in the lede as long as citations exist in the body of the article. As they do, I don't feel a citation is needed. I've restored the material in a slightly modified format pending discussion per WP:STATUSQUO. Fleetham (talk)

We have citations and lots of arguments in both ways, so we can use something like "While not considered an standard currency..." instead of "While not considered a true currency..." I'll put it that way and wait to see if this is a good fit for most people.

--Jaumenuez (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that "we have citations and lots of arguments in both ways." Please provide them... Fleetham (talk) 09:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

We don't have citations for either view, we have an opinion blog post. While you are correct that citations are only required in the body of the article, the citation in question is opinion-based. The issue is that this opinion is being presented as fact. Lous Woodhill is not an authority on whether or not a currency is real or true. Teggles (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

For added point, we have a blog post from the exact same website stating that Bitcoin is, in fact, real money -- this one backed by a US judge. Regardless, I am worried the statement boils down to a "no true scotsman" argument. Dictionary definitions of currency hold that it can be in any form, and in actual use as a medium exchange. Bitcoin fits this definition. If we are not holding it to this definition, which definition are we holding it to? Teggles (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Lastly, I think it's relevant to point out that the Bitcoin#Not classified as money section is full of original research, and most of it drawing far (or even contradicting) the sources, and even approaches the topic with much less certainty than the intro. The only definite source it has refers to the People's Bank of China. Does the Bank of China have the last word on whether something is a "real currency" or not, and do their views override that of a U.S. judge? I urge you to consider a more neutral version. Teggles (talk) 10:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

And then we may discuss about the authority about who said what, etc. Just trying to find something verifiable and with a larger consensus. That's the way to go.

--Jaumenuez (talk) 10:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, no citation is needed as long as citations exist in the body of the page. Such citations do exist; see the section titled, "not classified as money." The idea that there can be no definitive definition of money, only your own opinion, is somewhat flawed (and also unsourced.) Fleetham (talk) 10:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm concerned you are ignoring the central points of the issue. Can you address them? Teggles (talk) 10:25, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what they are... I believe I did address them. Please clarify. Fleetham (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

So Fleetham This is like saying email is not true mail. But anyway, that "true" word it's a bad idea, I would recommend to find something else. --Jaumenuez (talk) 10:35, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the best way to effect a change to the article is to provide citations or show how current citations do not support the sentences they cite. Simply saying, "you're totally wrong--X is like Y" is not an effective method. Fleetham (talk) 10:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

1. The majority of the "not classified as money" section uses original research to draw conclusions based on various definitions of money. These definitions do not reference bitcoin, and the conclusions are not obvious -- they require interpretation, and that is not what Wikipedia does.
2. The in-depth source in the "not classified as money" section that actually discusses definitions of money is on an Economist opinion blog called Free Exchange. This is not an authority on currency. The article provides a definition with 3 tenets, actually shows that bitcoin meets 2 of these tenets (whether volatile or not) and does not draw a conclusion on the 3rd tenet. Is this really enough to conclude that it is a fact that bitcoin is not a true currency?
3. While the People's Bank of China does claim bitcoin is not a currency, and this is the clearest source, we have a U.S. judge that disagrees.

All three of these issues imply that the text in the body -- "bitcoin is not a real currency" -- is not neutral. It ignores the fact that we need to avoid original research, it avoids the fact that the Economist article is from an opinion blog, it ignores the fact that the Economist article never draws a conclusion so clearly, and it most of all ignores the fact that authorities on the matter disagree. I cannot see how you can observe these issues and still hold the text to be neutral. Teggles (talk) 10:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

To address your concerns: The section titled, "not classified as money" does not use WP:OR. No interpretation is required. None of the sources used are "opinion blogs." The only seemly valid complaint is that a judge ruled bitcoins to be money. I suggest you focus on that or further explain why you deem a source "an opinion blog" or where interpretation of sources is required. Fleetham (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You have merely refuted each point with no argument. This isn't how you reach consensus. The original research lies in this statement: "Bitcoin is unlikely to be considered money under this definition" -- it is not the job of Wikipedia editors to decide how a definition might be interpreted. The Free Exchange blog is written by Ryan Avent [2], and while they never use the word "opinion", his follow-up article[3] clearly shows that the argument is opinion-based, with statement like "My personal view" and "Maybe I will be proven wrong. We shall see". We, again, are only left with the Chinese bank refutation. And, again, all the matters here is that there is clear disagreement whether or not bitcoin is money[4]. I'm not trying to incite a flamewar here, but it seems like you're not being rational about this -- would it make more sense to start a Request for Comment? Teggles (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"An assertion in the first paragraph specifically calls bitcoin "not a real currency". This statement lacks citation, is clearly a controversial one, and may be impossible to source."

See the article for the source stating that the People's Bank of China stated that bitcoin "is fundamentally not a currency". That surely means the same as bitcoins "is not a real currency"?MonteDaCunca (talk) 11:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

What the People's Bank of China is stating is that Bitcoin is not an official currency. The problem with the word "true" or "real" is that sensu contrario implies it's "fake" or "false". --Jaumenuez (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

No, the People's Bank of China is stating that bitcoin is "not a currency." If this central bank actually meant that bitcoin is not an official currency, that's certainly not something we can know. 11:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The first issue here is that the People's Bank of China is not the final authority on whether or not a currency is real. The conclusion we can draw from this is that "China has declared that the currency is not real", not that "the currency is not real". The second issue is that there is [5] clear disagreement from others in similar positions. Teggles (talk) 11:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the best argument for bitcoin being "real money" is a court decision. The idea that we should look for a "final authority" that decides what is or is not money is completely irrelevant. Fleetham (talk) 11:34, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

No one said anything about the best argument. The important thing is that relevant parties disagree on the matter, and so we cannot make a statement that implies there is consensus between all authorities. WP:IRS even states in bold that all majority and significant minority views must be covered. It also states that Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are rarely reliable for statements of fact. -- and that key Economist article is at best an analysis. In terms of the relevancy of an authority on the matter, it is obvious to say that an authoritative statement requires a source from an authority on the matter. The People's Bank of China is an authority on whether or not bitcoin is a currency in China: it does not decide whether or not bitcoin is a currency in the entire world. Teggles (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

In China the PBOC is the final authority on what is fundamentally a currency or not. That is the case with every Central Bank in every country. The US IRS ruled it is not a currency at all. The US IRS ruled it is a property. MonteDaCunca (talk) 11:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The key statement there is "in China". We cannot take a source that shows bitcoin is "not a real a currency in China", and extrapolate to say bitcoin is "not a real currency". We cannot do the same for the IRS. We cannot take the views of two parties, ignore the view of one other party, and state that the first two parties have the view of all parties. Teggles (talk) 11:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's not actually true. Perhaps a central bank is the final authority on what is or is not legal tender. But money is de facto not de jure. The PBOC is clearly not saying "bitcoins are not yuan." It states that they're not currency. Fleetham (talk) 11:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

There is another test whether an item is currency, namely, is it perfectly stable in real value or, and this is what is actually important, is it "assumed to be" perfectly stable in real value. Why? All actual fiat currencies are "assumed to be" perfectly stable in real value for traditional accounting purposes (Hist Cost Acc). Why? Because not a single fiat currency is in fact perfectly stable in real value and the traditional HCA model that is used to account economic activity globally implements the stable measuring unit assumption. Bitcoin is not and is not (and never will be) "assumed to be" perfectly stable in real value. MonteDaCunca (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Fiat currencies are "real currencies". They are all assumed to be perfectly stable in real value for traditional (HCA) accounting purposes. MonteDaCunca (talk) 11:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

What about the Zimbabwe dollar, is that money? Also, the first flying machines of the Wright Brothers were not stable enough to be called airplanes. So those were not true airplanes either?.--Jaumenuez (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are 100% correct: the Zimbabwe Dollar WAS fiat money. It´s legal status as a fiat currency ended on 20 November 2008. That is why it's real value as a fiat currency (you can most probably still buy 100 trillion ZimDollar notes on E-bay as a collector's item today) was completely destroyed by hyperinflation: it was fiat money with the real values of the notes assumed to be perfectly stable. However the Central Bank of Zimbabwe printed ga-zillions of them and created hyperinflation of 89 00000000000000000000000% (89 and 23 zeros - that is how I remember it). MonteDaCunca (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Besides all these arguments here, can we agree on the statement that bitcoin is "has been disputed as a real currency"? I am not happy with any blanket statements that aren't backed up by blanket authorities. Currently, the article is locked on "While not considered a true currency" -- which implies that bitcoin has never been considered a true currency by a relevant party, and that statement is clearly false [6][7][8][9] (I could continue...) Teggles (talk)

Also, bitcoin might not be legal tender, or gov backed money, but no body can say it's not "real" or "true" money as the facts show us it's beign used as money for some years now. About a definition for Bitcoin this is one of the best papers I have ever seen about it. It might be of help here. "Bitcoin: a Money-like Informational Commodity" http://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.4778v1.pdf --Jaumenuez (talk) 12:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, your "one of the best paper I have ever seen" is entitled "a Money-like" Informational Commodity. Your "best paper" thus agrees with the view that bitcoin is not a real currency: it is not money, but, like money or money-like: not actual money or real money.MonteDaCunca (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

MonteDaCunca Obviously you have not read it. BTW, there is no consensus about using the word "true", so why is it being used in this article?? Why not use

some other with more consensus?. Really, is this debate going to finish with something like "your God is not the true and real God" ?? To whoever has authority here: please change that. --Jaumenuez (talk) 14:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

A currency is an emergent behavior anyway. A central authority making a statement about this is like legislating the sunrise. You need words like "Although financial authorities disagree on whether Bitcoin is a currency [PBOC and US judge references here], it's intended purpose and common use is that of a currency." Gandrewstone (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

All people, in general, agree that bitcoin is a currency in terms of it being a medium of exchange - only in this specific narrow sense. No problem with that. You will find it very hard to get an economist or central banker to agree that bitcoin is a currency in terms of the generally accepted definition of money, namely, a medium of exchange, store of value and unit of account. So, yes, bitcoin is a currency in terms of being a medium of exchange. No, bitcoin is not a currency in terms of the generally accepted definition of money. MonteDaCunca (talk) 16:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

There are a few problems with your argument. The first and most important is that people, including economists and central bankers are biased towards their own systems. Yet a few are changing their minds: The first sentence of this document from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago acknowledges Bitcoin as a currency by saying "In this Chicago Fed Letter, I explain the digital currency called bitcoin" (http://www.chicagofed.org/digital_assets/publications/chicago_fed_letter/2013/cfldecember2013_317.pdf). The second is that the generally accepted definition of money was created by examination of existing currencies (so your argument is circular) AND even so some esoteric currencies fail it (Yap stones -- too heavy to exchange except notationally, value is questionable, denominated too highly to truly be a unit of account). Third, many people believe that Bitcoin does meet those criteria, with qualifications given its youth. As I previously stated currencies are actually emergent social behavior, which people then attempt to describe and label... another way of thinking of it is that in practice Bitcoin may be so incredibly good at one aspect (medium of exchange) that weakness in another is ignored. Gandrewstone (talk) 16:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you as I stated above. It is a currency, just not a real currency. See my explanation above about all real currencies being fiat currencies, i.e., assumed to be perfectly stable in real value. To me, all bitcoin's value comes from it being decentralized and a digital currency, a digital medium of exchange platform. MonteDaCunca (talk) 16:59, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

As an aside: It seems a lot of new editors don't know the indentation conventions here yet, but I'll pretend not to notice :P This is a response to Teggles' original post.

Thanks, Teggles , for bringing up this topic in a civil manner, I had planned to say something about it myself. While I understand that the current phrasing, "While not considered a true currency", is born out of an (honest) attempt at compromising, it is also incredibly awkwardly phrased, and, more importantly, not sourced properly and presumably impossible to source in this form.

What would a "true currency" be? Let's take a look at currency: in the lead we see that "currency" can have two meanings: (1) "... tokens used for money by a government" and (2) "anything that is used in any circumstances, as a medium of exchange". It's even more clearly stated in the next paragraph: "A definition of intermediate generality is that a currency is a system of money in common use, especially in a nation." Note the word "especially" before "nation", currencies are dominantly considered to be, but not exclusively in the domain of a country (in the second meaning of the word).

To summarize, I see no way to justify (and source) calling Bitcoin "not a true currency". It can, and should be, clearly stated that it is not the "official currency of any country", but the second, "means of exchange", meaning of currency certainly applies to Bitcoin, which prohibits the qualifier "not a true currency", by WP's own definition of currency.

EDIT: I propose the following alternative phrasing: "While not the legal tender of any country, Bitcoin is commonly referred to ... " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minvogt (talk • contribs) 18:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Minvogt (talk) 18:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I second the whole "please indent properly people" thing and might add that it's best to write a response to my post below my post not inside your original one! (Not directed at you, Minvogt.)

Anyway, the reason it's justified to state bitcoin "is not a real currency" is because it doesn't meet the definition of a currency--not because bitcoins aren't used as legal tender by any nation. The concept of currency is not exclusive to legal tender used in a single country. The currency article states, "the most specific use of the word refers to money in any form when in actual use or circulation." Specifically, bitcoin doesn't conform to the various criteria of money, and therefore cannot be a currency. Other editors have suggested using the formulation "not a traditional currency" or "not a standard currency." The issue I have with your proposal is the same one I do with these suggestions: bitcoin literally is not a currency. It's not some newfangled currency created by techno-wizards simply because it's sold as such: there is a "real" definition of currency, and bitcoin doesn't meet it.

No one would seriously claim that PayPal, for instance, is a currency, and because bitcoin uses its own unit of account (viz. bitcoins) does not mean it suddenly meets longstanding definitions of currency or money. It's an online payment system with its own unit of account and likely meets the criteria necessary to be considered a digital currency, virtual currency, or an electronic money. But this does not mean it meets the criteria necessary to be considered currency or money. Fleetham (talk) 19:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that bitcoin is literally not a currency, like the PBOC stated "it is fundamentally not a currency" and the IRS stated it is a property. The fact that it is not assumed to be perfectly stable in real value under the Historical Cost paradigm when all real (fiat) currencies are all assumed to be perfectly stable in real value, also clearly indicates that it is fundamentally not a currency. These are technical issues. In the economy at large, bitcoin is called a digital currency or virtual money because it is widely accepted as a medium of exchange on the internet even though it is not a real currency. MonteDaCunca (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Having read the explanations above I agree that "not a true currency" or "not a real currency" are opinions, and that they are not neutral, expressing just one point of view. I also do agree that different authorities do not present a unified opinion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The only unified opinion world wide is that bitcoin is not a fiat currency. MonteDaCunca (talk) 19:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps surprisingly, there is a source mentioning bitcoin as a "fiat currency". I think that the source is already cited in the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That would be hilarious. Please indicate the link location. I would love to read the article. MonteDaCunca (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Well the arguments here seem really all over the map. I don't think it much matters if it's a "fact" or "opinion" that bitcoins are or are not currency. What does matter are reliable sources. Instead of making disparate arguments that don't seem to address what any of the other editors are saying, I think a good plan of action would be to find relevant WP:RS, change the "not classified as money" subsection to reflect the minority view that bitcoins are a currency, and then discuss what impact this should have on any statements made in the lede. Fleetham (talk) 20:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

In the bitcoin-as-currency corner:

• US judge rules btcoin a currency

In the bitcoin-is-not-a-currency corner:

• A The Economist article stating, "Economists reckon money is anything that serves three main functions. ... The American dollar meets all three conditions. Bitcoin has some way to go."
• The PBOC states bitcoin is not a currency

Nowhere did the judge state in his report that "bitcoin is money" or "bitcoin is a currency" and stopped there. He stated bitcoin is "a currency or form of money". He stated "a currency" but then immediately qualified it with " or form of money". He did not say "bitcoin is a currency or money". There is thus no reliable source that states "bitcoin is money". The reference to the US Judge can thus not be used to verify that "bitcoin is a currency or money", but only to verify that bitcoin is a currency or form of money. " I agree 100% with the judge´s interpretation/finding. The first line in the body of the article also correctly starts off: " a federal judge has ruled that bitcoins are “a currency or form of money,". Note the use of the qualified term, not just "a currency", but, "a currency or form of money". The judge found that bitcoin is thus subject to US Laws. The latest US Law or regulation, is actually that bitcoin is not a currency but a property. The IRS stated that bitcoin will be taxed as a property. MonteDaCunca (talk) 20:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing you said so far changes the impression I have that the claim "not a true currency", presented as it is now, to me either looks like a violation of WP:OR, or WP:NPOV, depending on how you try to motivate it.

The only source making a comparably phrased claim is the PBOC reference, which I can counter for example by another country's "opinion" on Bitcoin: FAZ article stating that the German government considers Bitcoin a form of "private money" (Privatwährung). I'll find an English version if required.

Here's how I see how this discussion must proceed in principle: based on the sources alone, we will find those who say Bitcoin is /not/ a currency, and those who say (perhaps with some qualifier attached) that it /is/ a currency. Ergo: to claim (in the lead!) that is not a currency, without pointing out the controversy, is at odds with the source situation, and violates WP:NPOV by presenting it as a consensus when there is none.

The alternative is that we look into the definitions of currency and money ourselves. We will find aspects where Bitcoin can be argued to fail ("store of value"), and aspects where it succeeds ("medium of exchange"). We can then discuss for our own edification whether failure to cover all aspects of money to a full degree warrants the statement "not a true currency", but in the end, it will amount to synthesis, and we're back to WP:OR.

I understand that my proposal containing the phrase "legal tender" is not to your liking. I still uphold that "not a true currency" is not warranted in any way either. If source A (with limited authority to declare so) says that it is not a currency (PBOC), and source B (with equally limited authority) says it is a form of currency (German government), it is simply not justifiable to present the claim ("not a currency") in the lead as if it is the product of a universal consensus. Can we agree on that?

I see the possibility to phrase the claim as "Though some have argued that it is not a true currency, it is commonly refered...", but that's awfully close to WP:WEASEL, at least in phrasing.

Minvogt (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, again, we're not going to find the one true authority on money. And we're not going to find a source that says, "The Economist is very authoritative when it comes to determining what is and is not money while the PBOC is only somewhat authoritative." So debating the relative "authoritativeness" of sources seems to be a fool's errand. As for "weasel words" or "NPOV," all I can say is that we have a source that states "not a currency" and another that states "a currency is X, bitcoin has some way to go if it wants to be X." Those seem very clear in their assertion that bitcoin is not a currency. There is also a source that states a US court ruled bitcoins to be money. While the fact that there are conflicting sources does not mean there is a controversy, I do agree that the minority view of bitcoins as "real" money should be included in the article. Beyond that single court decision, I have yet to come across a WP:RS that firmly places bitcoin in the category of money or currency. Fleetham (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I can get behind the idea that bitcoins are a private currency, however. Fleetham (talk) 22:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You are not answering the pertinent argument I brought forward in my previous comment:

There are sources stating that Bitcoin is not a currency. There are sources (equally authorized) that state it is one. Presenting this situation in an unequivocally negative manner as is done now in the lead is not justifiable by the sources.

(Note please that your claim that the position that Bitcoin is in fact a currency is only a "minority view" requires substantially more evidence than presented so far.)

I am getting the impression this discussion will likely continue to go on without much progress. I have therefore asked for outside input on WP:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Bitcoin.23Regarding_bitcoin_as_a_.22real_currency.22.

Minvogt (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, as the idea that bitcoin = currency rests with a single court decision, how does that not constitute a minority? And again, if people want to push for the "currency" label, I'm happy to sign up for "private currency." It appears that there's a German source for that. Fleetham (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't rest with a single court decision, I provided three news sources above that all call bitcoin a currency (CNN, US News, India Times). [10] [11] [12]. The issue I have is that, despite all the counter-claims, you are still acting like that the view of the two sources you have constitute a definitive statement on the matter. This is just absurd. It is not a neutral point of view to make the assertion that the statements of the People's Bank of China + Ryan Avent's Economist blog post/analysis reflect worldwide views on the topic (especially when there are other statements, even one, though there are many, that contradict the statements). Teggles (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

One of those sources uses the term virtual currency, the CNN money article appears to be a gloss (A "bitcoin for dummies," if you will), and the US News article refers to "'real' money" as something that specifically does not include bitcoins. Yes, yes, that's "real" money in scare quotes, but still... Again, what's wrong with the term private currency? Fleetham (talk) 23:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

"Currency" is not (exclusively) a legal term, so the court decision/non court decision distinction you imply is immaterial. Otherwise, the PBOC source is out as well (a statement by a central bank =/= court decision).

I'm fine with "private currency" as well, but us agreeing that Bitcoin is that doesn't answer the other question: when is something /not/ a "true currency"? In the non-legal sense in which the term seems to be used here, a virtual currency is a form of currency. If on the other hand you'd prefer to use the term in the stricter legal sense, then "legal tender" is an acceptable substitute, but you rejected that as well.

Minvogt (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, bitcoin certainly doesn't qualify as legal tender because that does require the sanction of a government or independent central bank. Being found by a court to be money does not mean bitcoins are legal tender. Since it seems we have an agreement to use the term "private currency," I'm not sure it's strictly necessary to opine on what is or is not true money... Fleetham (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I have never seen bitcoin referred to as legal tender because it simply is not that anywhere in the world. A German court may have qualified bitcoin as private money in its attempt to show that bitcoin is not real money, but it is not a general term for bitcoin in the press, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MonteDaCunca (talk • contribs) 23:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

You two are continuing to ignore my central argument. It is not any editor's job to decide the definition of Bitcoin. Your job as an editor, as per WP:NPOV, is to cover all significant views. My citations clearly show that there are multiple conflicting significant views, and because of this, it is not acceptable to imply there is only one significant view. We simply cannot make the definitive statement that Bitcoin is/is not real currency, that it is/is not private currency, that it is/is not legal tender, because none of them are the sole significant view. The only definitive statement we can make is that there is no definitive statement: i.e., "Bitcoin's status as a currency is under dispute", or "Bitcoin's status as a currency is unclear". It is not your position to argue the definition of Bitcoin, it is your position to represent significant reliable sources fairly. Teggles (talk) 23:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I look forward to seeing a WP:RS that states "bitcoin's status as a currency is under dispute", or "bitcoin's status as a currency is unclear." You're the one who decried WP:OR in the "not classified as money" section, so I hope I'm right in thinking you don't want editors to make interpretive statements. Cf. WP:SYNTH. Fleetham (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with you there. We couldn't say that either. We can't say either way. Teggles (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Teggles: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It reflects what is in the world. Notable and verifiable. The bitcoin article should reflect what is notable and verifiable about bitcoin. Please note: presenting notable and verifiable news/information is not deciding the definitions of something. Finding in the world that something is defined as x or y and presenting that finding with a verifiable source, I am not defining the item. I am presenting what is already defined in the world.

Teggles: You not realising what a reliable source is, really complicates this discussion. Your CNN reference is ... I struggle to find the right term. It is a million miles away from a reliable source. Don´t you have serious, peer reviewed, research papers that you can quote as your sources? Glossy CNN summaries are not reliable sources. With your view of what a reliable source is, you have a big disadvantage in this difficult task you are taking up over here. You need to understand this point otherwise you will not succeed in building any consensus over here. MonteDaCunca (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

You just said that we're "reflecting what is in the world". I have provided you sources that reflect what is in the world. For that particular purpose, the news agencies are reliable sources, because they reflect how it is treated by the world. If we were only approaching it from the view of academia we would *say so in the article*. And we would back it up by academic conclusions -- of which you haven't provided any of either! We're just stating outright that it's not considered a currency at all ever, when clearly multiple sources show it being considered as a currency. If we are to be neutral, we absolutely must not neglect popular viewpoints. I am only at a disadvantage because you two are trying to dismiss significant viewpoints: not because the sources aren't a reliable reflection of significance, but because they don't meet your *personal* standard. Your personal standard is not the judge of a reliability of a source. And it's a massive straw man to say that the CNN piece is the only source given. Teggles (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Teggles is correct, the CNN gloss is a reliable source. Fleetham (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Got a new important source here. A piece from USA Today[13] quotes Bill Maurer, director of the Institute for Money, Technology and Financial Inclusion at the University of California-Irvine: "There's also still an unsettled debate about whether bitcoin is a currency or payment protocol — a crucial legal distinction that has made regulators especially wary". So while it's not a peer-reviewed paper, you have the word of mouth from an important person in financial academia. To me, this clearly justifies a statement that the status of Bitcoin as a currency is under debate. Teggles (talk) 02:57, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, we have a big list of economists divided on Bitcoin as real money or not[14]. This makes it pretty clear that it is under debate. While you could question the reliability of this source, the quote by Pippa Malmgren asserting it as real money is also posted on Bloomberg[15] (which is certainly a reliable source). Teggles (talk) 04:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hey, good sources! Okay, so once the ban has expired, let's change the section's title from "not classified as money" --> "classification as money," add the new sources, and change the lede to read something along the lines of, "Although its status as a currency is disputed, bitcoin is often referred to as..." Fleetham (talk) 04:18, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that the wording proposed by Teggles "While it is debated whether bitcoin is a currency..." or the one proposed by Fleetham "Although its status as a currency is disputed..." are good compromise wordings presenting the neutral point of view and do agree with one of them being put into the lead replacing the controversial formulation. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I support Teggles wording "While it is debated whether bitcoin is a currency ..." MonteDaCunca (talk) 08:27, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Well I think the main point is that, while it's commonly referred to as a currency, those who do so are wrong. Fleetham (talk) 08:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

We should avoid essentialist formulations unless they are supported by a consensus of RS. Comments on bitcoin as "real" currency do not have such support and we should use some formulation along the lines suggested immediately above by Fleetham and Teggles. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Richard. I also would like to propose that the laundry list of quasi-currencies that the lede currently includes be reduced to simpy "cryptocurrency." I believe that's the preferred term, and I'm unsure how often the media refers to bitcoins as, for example, electronic money. Fleetham (talk) 02:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks practical to reduce the "laundry list" of "classifications" in the lead. I prefer to move the less frequent "classifications" to a section in the article body. For example, the term "electronic cash" is used in the bitcoin whitepaper introducing bitcoin. However, it looks to me that both in this article and in the secondary sources the term "digital currency" is more frequent than "cryptocurrency". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the list should not be deleted entirely just moved from the lede. I'm not sure if "digital currency" is used much more often than "cryptocurrency," however. A google news search shows a similar number of results for each term. Fleetham (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I also prefer to keep the "The bitcoin system is not controlled by a single entity, like a central bank, which has led the US Treasury to call bitcoin a decentralized currency." sentence in the lead not because it introduces the term "decentralized currency", but because it explains an important and characteristic property of bitcoin distinguishing it from previous attempts like e-gold, etc. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, how about including both "digital currency" and "cryptocurrency" and mentioning the US Treasury quote but not including "decentralized currency?" Something like, "The US Treasury has recognized that the bitcoin system is not controlled by a single entity, like a central bank." ? Fleetham (talk) 06:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I read: "I agree that the list should not be deleted entirely just moved from the lede." - based on this, I did not object against moving the "decentralized currency" notion to a different part of the article. There is no agreement, nor a proposal to remove the notable "decentralized currency" notion from the article all together. The removal of the sentence was opposed as well. Based on the fact that all the changes to the sentence were nonconsensual, I have no other option than to restore the status quo. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:37, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, then why did you state less than a week ago that you want to keep the US Treasury sentence in the lede "not because it introduces the term 'decentralized currency'"? It seems to me that you signed up for something and are now trying to walk back on that. Consensus isn't final, but please be a bit more careful to be less shifty in future...

I've gone ahead and made corrections per the original source. Fleetham (talk) 23:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I did not shift my opinion at all. The issue is that the sentence was removed from the article lead, while there was no agreement on that. Also, I expected the complete list of the notions, including the notable notion of "decentralized currency" discussed in US Treasury as well as in US Senate to be moved to the indicated section in the article as proposed, but the effect of your edits was different and incompatible with the consensus. Similarly, the consensual wording of another sentence was replaced by a more editorializing version, a version which was not discussed at all ("far from being universally recognized" - how "far"?, the formulation is much more subjective and editorializing than necessary, discussed, and agreed upon above). Summing up, while there is and was a consensus on the "currency" issue, the consensus should be treated as such, not replacing it by inconsensual and opposed modifications. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: Well, then why do you object to the removal of the term "decentralized currency" if the reason you wanted to keep the sentence itself has nothing to do with the he term being included in the sentence? I mean, you say you want to keep this sentence but not because in introduces the term. Then you complain when the sentence is kept except for the part that introduces the term. So, if you haven't changed your mind, let's keep the sentence sans the term, okay? Fleetham (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

As I indicated above, and apologize for repeating, I expected the complete list of the notions, including the notable notion of "decentralized currency" discussed in US Treasury as well as in US Senate to be moved to the indicated section in the article as proposed. Since that did not happen, the proposed change is not what I did agree with. If you propose to remove the notable (discussed in US Treasury and in US Senate) notion completely from the article, then I inform you that I disagree with the removal. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, well I went ahead and added it to the "money classification" section. I believe you had prior placed it among the terms that are often used to describe bitcoin in the media, but I don't believe it belongs there... let me know if my change is acceptable. Fleetham (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: Please give me a response to the above... Fleetham (talk) 23:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Classification as money

Does anyone know whether the monetization of bitcoin was actually foreseen (written into/part of or a feature of) in the original research paper by Satoshi Nakamoto? CameraWallet (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

CameraWallet, I dont know the answer, but who says bitcoin is underghoing monetization? Whats your source?--Wuerzele (talk) 03:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Legal and journalistic classifications

The sentence "While it may appear that a lively debate over the nature of bitcoins is occurring, the different classifications are likely more reflective of what rules apply to bitcoin in a specific jurisdiction than what bitcoin really is." has these issues:

1. it does not reflect any source, it is an editorializing comment expressing a personal opinion of the editor
2. the sentence is not true; journalists do not need to look for a classification specific to some jurisdiction, and the journalistic classifications used in the section demonstrate this

Based on the above points I propose to remove the sentence from the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. was tempted to remove it a week ago, but added the first sentence and left the second. If you remember I had changed the term classified because journalists opine.

Today I changed classifications in the section heading to opinion. i am bothered by the whole section that someone introduced a while ago, because it sits right on top of Legal status and Regulation which is a totally different cattle of fish, but looks languagewise so similar. When I originally wrote the section I simply called it Regulation. Legal status was inserted later and I have never been happy about it. Regulation establishes a legal status, so in my view it's redundant.

if that hodge podge section of Legal and journalistic classifications continues to sit where it is, I propose to delete the term "legal status" for clarity. --Wuerzele (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

edit under Regulation-Jeff Kurzon accepting bitcoin donations

LaFayettePolitico, I understand you want to link and save Jeff Kurzon's wikipedia article, which is proposed for deletion, but I am not sure your entry of 38 year old [!] Kurzon accepting bitcoins in donations under the REGULATION section of bitcoin is the best place for it. Certainly his age is off topic. How about moving the sentence with "AFter teh FEC decision...." to the last section "In the Media" ? -Thats where my last entry was moved to, too.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Unnotable information about bitcoin as investment

Fleetham added a sentence: "Bitcoins were named the third worst investment of 2014 so far in June of that year by Quartz." I see this information as:

• untrue, because the end date of the cited information was May 2014
• not encyclopedic, 2014 has not ended yet
• not notable, no such information is present for other years, like 2013, about which such an information would have much more definite and encyclopedic character, taking into account that the results of 2013 are already definite

Based on the findings, the information should be deleted. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

agree. --Wuerzele (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, being "not encyclopedic" isn't really a reason to remove cited info. And it's not as if Quartz chose or decided that bitcoins are the third worst investment--the reason they're on that list is because if you purchased a bitcoin on Jan. 1 2014, on May 31 it would have been worth 15% less than what you purchased it for. Perhaps this should be explained on the page, and, yes, the month mentioned should be changed from June to May, but there's really very little to prohibit cited content being added... simply calling it "unencyclopedic" doesn't justify banning it. You'll need a stronger reason than that. Fleetham (talk) 23:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

See above, if we do not count the factual inaccuracy, there are two reasons listed, both of them are relevant. If you do want to see a third one, this is a fragrant case of nonneutrality: 2013 not mentioned, while 2014 mentioned even if the results of 2014 are not definite. Even if 2013 were listed, I would be against listing 2014 before its results are definite. That would still constitute a nonneutral, treatment of the subject. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. As long as what I write conforms to the source, it's okay because it's a high-quality source. So, third worst investment of 2014 as of 31 May or something along those lines is fine to add. Fleetham (talk) 10:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

That is not OK at all, it is a nonneutral treatment of the subject, as I mentioned. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, take a look at WP:NPOV. What part of that does it violate? Fleetham (talk) 12:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

How about this one: "Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." When judged, by the principles, the information is:

• insignificant, mentioning just one view on the purported performance of bitcoin as an investment in 2014, when such an information has to be incomplete (and therefore inaccurate), knowing that 2014 has not ended yet
• not representing fairly the subject, ignoring all views on the performance of bitcoin in 2013 (that has already finished) and in any previous year that has already finished Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Photo caption explanation needed

The caption of one of images says, "Overpassed bitcoin hardware. Each USB Erupter is 333 MH/s, very common hardware in early and mid-2013".

I have no idea what this means.

• What does "Overpassed" mean in this context?
• Is it a brand name?
• What is a "USB Erupter"?
• Is it a brand name?
• What does MH/s stand for?
• And does "very common hardware" need a citation?
• What is this hardware doing?
• How does it relate to the article

None of these terms are explained in the article. I don't see much point including this image; presumably it is a bit of cool hardware for those "in the know". Googling these terms just seems to find pages that have copied the image and the text. Maybe no one know what it means ... Thirteenangrymen (talk) 12:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

First, a couple of reservations:

• I am not a native speaker.
• I did not insert the image into the article, nor I edited the caption or even noticed the presence of the image until now.
• I never saw the hardware before.

That said, I am pretty sure I know what "Overpassed bitcoin hardware" means in this context. I think that it means "bitcoin mining hardware that is not the latest and greatest any more". Also, I am pretty sure that "overpassed" is not a brand name. I think that the image illustrates how popular bitcoin mining hardware looked in early and mid-2013.

For the readers who did not notice it illustrates the "Mining" section it might be useful to edit the caption to mention that the image shows an example of bitcoin mining hardware.

The "USB Erupter" probably is a brand name (that may or may not be interesting for readers, but I bet that other brands of hardware may look differently).

As for the question "What does the MH/s stand for?" - I think that it may be an interesting information for some readers describing the performance of the hardware in MH/s units. Per www.blockchain.info, the total performance of the whole bitcoin network is 98923.31 TH/s at the time of this writing. I do not find it useful to explain the "M" or "T" metric prefixes in this article, "H" seems to stand for "hash" and "s" is the second. Uninterested reader may safely ignore the number, in my opinion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:46, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Thirteenangrymen and think the caption is confusing. I think Mecir's post reinforces that idea... why not simply stick with something like "bitcoin mining hardware"? Fleetham (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Because the additional informations may be interesting for the reader, my proposal is to change the caption as follows: "Bitcoin mining hardware common in early and mid-2013 called USB Erupter. It can calculate 333 megahashes per second." Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, how about a citation? But again, opaque jargon really does very little to inform the reader (and prompted someone to write on talk). I think it should go. Fleetham (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Stating that the performance of one piece of hardware is 333 megahashes per second is not "opaque". Anybody knowing the metric prefixes and the unit of time should understand it. It is exactly as "opaque" as stating that Sergi Bruguera (tennis player) played his topspin forehand with 3300 rotations per minute spin, or that Roscoe Tanner was famous for his 153 miles per hour serve. I can understand and tolerate that some people do not know what "kilometer per hour", "rotation per minute" or "megahash per second" mean, but the people not knowing the meaning of these should also tolerate that these expressions are standard and understandable for a wide audience. This is an encyclopedia, where the metric prefixes and measurement units are explained, if somebody is interested. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure that's not opaque? Speaking for myself, I have no idea what a megahash is. Can't we explain this for the layman? Also, where's the citation? How do we know this isn't just copy+paste from the script of a low budget sci-fi film? Fleetham (talk) 22:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thirteenangrymen, thanks for bringing this up. I agree that the description looks puzzling. I completely agree that it needs explanation. I too didn't know that Capital h (H) stands for hash. Capital m (M) can also be confused with thousand, see List of acronyms: M, so I kind of understand why Fleetham called it opaque. The photo should have a precise caption, so I would definitely keep it. If the person that pasted the photo cant be found (can someone look back?) and pinged, we need to figure explanations out ourselves. The additional info pertaining to mining as suggested by Ladislav will help. i posted on the bitcoin network and bitcoin mining talk pages, whether this bit of technology be worked into the respective article, since it's not explained on Wikipedia. wuerzele 107.0.208.243 (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, Wuerzele, there are certain valid and certain mistaken points in your above contribution.

• Thinking that "M" in "333 MH/s" may mean 1000 is an obvious error. Roman numerals contain only "I", "V", "X", "L", "C", "D" and "M" characters. Since "333 MH/s" contains Hindu-Arabic numerals and other characters, it is not possible for it to be a Roman numeral.
• also, the word "hash" is mentioned 13 times in the article already, so the meaning of it does not need any further explanation in the caption
• the letter "H" meaning "hash" is not standard; "H" normally means "henry" in International System of Units, that is why it looks better to use the word "megahash" as I proposed above.

If the word "megahash" is not an obvious composition of the "mega" prefix and the word "hash", then it is possible to amend my above text adding a footnote referring to metric prefixes for further explanation of the "mega" prefix. I do not think, though, that there were many spectators having a problem with the metric prefix in "1.21 gigawatts of electrical power" wording in "Back To The Future" even without any extensive explanation. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav ok, lets fix it. - whether you think my points are mistaken or not, is irrelevant. FYI: in the US, MPH on official road signs means miles per hour, so M and H are certainly ambiguous ! I didnt suggest to explain the word "hash", just H.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Concerning the specific quoting

Ladislav Mecir has replaced a wording in the Ponzi scheme section with a quote that I have reverted that made it seem as though all of the references cited directly support that quote, which is obviously not true. Ladislav Mecir reverted this with the summary that "the changed wording cites no source at all". This, again, is quite obviously untrue, it's the same sources, the only differences is one is used in Wikipedia's voice and summarizes the various sources, and the quote is overly specific to a single source, but is presented in a way that suggests it is a quote used by all of the sources (which it isn't). That is why the quotation was reverted. The idea that because the the text isn't word-for-word taken from a source that it somehow isn't supported by the source runs completely contrary to Wikipedia policy. More to the point, none of the sources actually contain that quote at all; this one comes close, but if the article is going to use quotations and attribute it to...whoever that's supposed to be attributed to, it needs to actually quote something. However, that's ignoring the fact that even that quote cannot be attributed to multiple sources if those multiple sources did not actually say those exact words, because that's what a quote implies. - Aoidh (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

The discussed edit is trying to replace the wording:

Various journalists, US economist Nouriel Roubini, and the head of the Estonian central bank have voiced concerns that bitcoin may be "only a little more than a Ponzi scheme".

by a wording:

Various journalists, US economist Nouriel Roubini, and the head of the Estonian central bank have voiced concerns that bitcoin may be nothing more than a Ponzi scheme.

Trying to jusgtify the change as follows: "quoting a single source but attributing all the sources to the quote give the appearance that all the sources are quoted as saying this or have this exact opinion. This is not the case."

My response is: the former wording demonstrably cites the source and is, thus, accurately representing the source. The latter wording, on the other hand, cites no source at all. If (no such evidence is known to me, though) there is indeed a substantially different opinion, then the WP:NPOV policy requires to fairly and proportionally represent all relevant views, not just the view User:Aoidh prefers (not even able to demonstrate which source supports his preferred wording, though). Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I've combined the sections, since they are the same discussion. As explained above, your wording is a quote that is not found in any of the sources, and is put in quotations as if all of the examples given agree with that exact wording when the opposite is true; none of the sources verify the wording you introduced. The argument that the previous wording that was present before your change "cites no source as all" is quite obviously inaccurate, that's what the sources were doing on the page before you changed the content, they were directly supporting the content in question. I'm not sure what part of WP:NPOV you believe supports your edit, but once again, the reverse is true, and your edit is not even verified by a source, much less neutrally worded. I didn't introduce the original wording into the article, I merely reverted your edit, so please try to keep the discussion on the content instead of trying to focus on those that disagree with you (inaccurately, I might add). - Aoidh (talk) 06:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

1. Re "none of the sources verify..." - that is false, it is this one: [16] where the wording: "[only] a little more than a Ponzi scheme..." is present.
2. Re "[the sources] directly supporting the content in question" - is obviously false, since it is you who claims that the "[only] a little more than a Ponzi scheme" wording presents a different opinion, so you should indicate which source does support the wording you prefer and do not forget, please, that even if you find one, it is you who indicated that the above source presents a different opinion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

First of all, you can't add words within a quote, that's putting words in the sources mouth which means the source doesn't verify what you're saying. Secondly, this isn't the first time you've brought up this argument that if the source and the article aren't verbatim copies of one another, that the source doesn't support the content. The consensus the time you first made this argument on this talk page (and Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and copyright law) say otherwise. All of those sources support the content, just as it was the last time you kept asking that question long after it was answered. The sources support the content. The sources, however, do not support your quote.

Furthermore, even if the quote was changed to match one of the sources, the article claiming that all of those groups reflect the wording on a single article is not an option. This is especially true when the actual bank didn't use that wording, the article did, so putting it into quotations is especially inappropriate, because the article says that, but it doesn't verify that the bank said it and that's what you're suggesting when you word the article that way. There are numerous problems with the edit you've introduced, asking for sources that already exist in the article is not a argument for your edit, it's an argument against the previous edit, and even that argument has no leg to stand on because you're assuming that a Wikipedia article needs to be a borderline copyright violation to count as verified. - Aoidh (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Citing your statement: "... the sources are quoted as saying this or have this exact opinion. This is not the case." Thus, it is you who states that the sources do not have the same opinion. Your attempt to use a totally unsupported formulation (by any of the sources) attributing it to all sources is, as I already concluded:

• unsupported by the sources; you found no source yet to support the formulation, you did not even try
• if you succeeded to find a source supporting your preferred formulation, it is you who voiced that the head of Estonian Central Bank does have a different opinion than the one you are trying to use as a "common opinion of all sources". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

See below. - Aoidh (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

(inserted as edit conflict- ladislav types faster...) Hi Aoidh thanks for sharing your concern here. the first thing i must ask is: why did you revert Ladislav? i know you are an experienced wikipedian, and that you know all the policies, but a major rule is: reverting is for vandals. why not flag or discuss this first ? please. Ladislav is a steady, careful, constructive editor on this page, no vandal.

i do understand your concerns (although it was a lot to read), you found a flaw. And i understand that Ladislav Mecir takes a different approach in reflecting text from sources, what you humorously describe as 'for Ladislav a Wikipedia article needs to be a borderline copyright violation to count as verified'. I would say, maybe this is because of Fleetham (wrongly) modeling it here. ?

But Ladislav found you made an untrue statement too. so now you are even. Aoidh please just fix it, no more fighting. I am glad you both contribute here. Peace, man.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:45, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, User:Wuerzele, it looks that there are more problems in the present formulation of the paragraph. The facts are:

• Nouriel Roubini carefully avoided mentioning the "Ponzi scheme" notion in his formulations, using a different term "Ponzi game" instead. Unless we want to misrepresent his words, we should not mention him as supporting any formulation containing the "Ponzi scheme" term.
• Another cited source mentions bitcoin as resembling a Ponzi scheme.
• The source mentioning Estonian Central Bank also presents a different opinion, as User:Aoidh reminded us and I agree with him.

Taking all these problems into account, I do not think the formulation User:Aoidh prefers may be claimed to be supported by all the cited sources without misrepresenting all of them. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: as far as "reverting is for vandals", I'm not sure where you got that idea but that's not the case. See WP:BRD, for example, which is a core part of editing collaboratively on Wikipedia. The edit was problematic for a number of reasons, which I explained above. However, I've changed the wording to reflect all of the sources; whether they are "only a little more than" or "nothing more than" or anything else, these sources show that many are of the opinion that it's a ponzi scheme, so I've shortened it to just stick to that fact, since that's not in question. Hopefully that will resolve this issue.

@Ladislav Mecir: You have a critical misunderstanding of the relationship between sources and content on Wikipedia, as highlighted by this discussion and the previous discussions where you refused to acknowledge that content was supported by sources unless they were copied word-for-word. Don't take my word for it, you are welcome to inquire at WP:RSN or ask an administrator to explain this to you. However, when you put a text in quotes, that's saying that the source says this word for word (which is, for the most part, the only time Wikipedia can copy a source verbatim). When the text isn't actually a word-for-word copy of the source, that's an issue. When your edit changed it to say that Various journalists, US economist Nouriel Roubini, and the head of the Estonian central bank have voiced concerns that bitcoin may be "only a little more than a Ponzi scheme" that means that all of those sources are quoted as saying this, yet only one source says this, and in the article's voice, not the head of the bank's voice. Therefore even in that one case, putting that exact wording in quotes is highly inappropriate, even ignoring the fact that you added words to the quote to change the meaning slightly. Please stop using words like "formulation"; you're asking that the article match the sources exactly (but only when you disagree with what it says, I've noticed) but that is not an option. I've changed the wording, however, to side-step this issue entirely. It doesn't matter if it's "more or less than nothing or without which" or any other qualifier that's ultimately meaningless to include, all of the sources show that the concern is the ponzi scheme aspect, not whether that's all it is. Therefore I've simplified the wording so that it sticks only to the pertinent information. - Aoidh (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Nouriel Roubini carefully avoided the "Ponzi scheme" term. Since he is an expert, and since he avoided the "Ponzi scheme" term, I am sure he meant to avoid it. The observation is that your last edit misrepresents Roubini's citations.

The cited journalist also did not state that bitcoin may be a Ponzi scheme, he stated that it resembles a Ponzi scheme, which is different. To resemble something and to be something are opposite opinions, in fact.

Also, the head of Estonian central bank did not state that he was concerned that bitcoin may be a Ponzi scheme.

Summing up, all the sources are still misrepresented and misinterpreted.

Taking all the facts into account, and adding the fact that the issue is being discussed, I cannot allow you to just push some wording that is not consensual. Reverting, please wait until the consensus has been reached. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are still not using the word "misinterpreted" correctly. Here's where that becomes an issue: your edit doesn't reflect your concerns. Your edit "misrepresents" Roubini, for example, much more than the previous version or the version I just changed it to, because you are unambiguously putting words in his mouth that are not attributed to him. Your assessment of the sources is only true when you look at it from a "are these exact words in the source in this exact order". In light of that, sure, you may have something. That's not, however, how sourcing content on Wikipedia works. I don't honestly know how you can look at this source and not see how there are Ponzi scheme concerns detailed; it's all over that article. The sources support the content, changing it to a quote that (1) isn't actually said in the source and (2) isn't shared by all the sources when your edit suggests it is isn't a "fix", it's a step backwards. - Aoidh (talk) 19:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the current wording misrepresents the sources. I believe Roubini called bitcoin a "Ponzi game," and the other sources are clear that bitcoin, for them, is a Ponzi scheme. Fleetham (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

'I believe that Roubini called bitcoin a "Ponzi game"' - yes, he did, and since he is an expert, we should not reinterpret his words as "Ponzi scheme". He was very consequential and careful to not use "Ponzi scheme" at all.

Also, the changes are still not consensual. I propose this wording, that should represent all the collected source infromations, yet not misrepresent any of them:

Various sources compared bitcoin to Ponzi scheme. A journalist expressed that it resembles a Ponzi scheme.

Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

It's odd how you're eager to nitpick the sources to death, but only when it's a version you don't like. I've reverted your edit because you reverted it back to your version, not the previous version per WP:STATUSQUO. Short of a consensus, you're not going to find that version in the article, period. A "ponzi game" is a ponzi scheme, the article doesn't need to be a verbatim match to the source unless it is in quotations, and Roubini elaborated and made it clear what he was talking about. Please take my earlier advice and to go WP:RSN or speak with an uninvolved administrator about the nature of sources on Wikipedia, that way you don't have to take my word on it. The current wording is supported by the sources, and you're the only editor that seems to have an issue with it. - Aoidh (talk) 21:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I've now added a source that says quite clearly that "Economist Nouriel Roubini..appears to be equally pessimistic on the fledgling virtual currency bitcoin, declaring it a "Ponzi scheme" and a "lousy" store of value." There's now another third-party reliable source unambiguously supporting the current wording in the article, so that shoots a rather large hole in your rationale that the sources don't support the content. As for this source, I'm baffled how you can read that and not see how it supports the claim that there are ponzi scheme concerns there; the source (as with all the others) support the content. You simply disagreeing with that fact does not change it at all. - Aoidh (talk) 22:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Ok, you two, I think it's high time to please find a phrase you both can agree on, like there are controversial opinions on whether or not bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme. Thank you.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

citation request for Nakamoto

Homni, in this edit did you want a citation for the fact that Nakamoto is a developer? I see that Ladislav Mecir removed your flag, when adding a citation in his edit. Is this what you wanted?--Wuerzele (talk) 06:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

proposing small subsection on bitcoin's decentralized aspect

Ladislav Mecir, Fleetham and Agyle, at this time teh term "decentralized" appears only in the lede. The term has no own wikipage (yet) so I suggest to mention/explain it in the body. I recall quoting a sentence questioning the decentralized nature in the context with mining from an eprint.iacr.org paper some time ago, but it didnt survive the waves of editing...

we should also tackle the topic, in light of the recent press about the 51% computing power situation, first in Jan or Feb and again this month International Business Times, PC world, also WSJ etc. --Wuerzele (talk) 09:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not know what your goal is (is it to explain the "decentralized" word?). If yes, then I am afraid that this article may be an inappropriate place, while for explaining the "decentralized virtual currency" it certainly is appropriate. However, I do not know whether there is more to say than what is already present in the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir I didnt explain well: the 51% mining pool computing power situation is a sign that the decentralization is in jeopardy. This needs to go in the article.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Characterizing a common measure for unacceptable content

A recent edit including an interwiki link to Liberty Reserve has been repeatedly reverted. This edit contrasted the decentralized nature of bitcoin with the now defunct single-administrator Liberty Reserve. I am unsure why this content addition is contentious. Given reasons for reverting were "status quo" and "no improvement." Is there actually any reason to bar mentioning Liberty Reserve?

Additionally, the reverted content was attached to a sentence where some editors strongly objected to using the name of the agency that was quoted. Instead of "The US Financial Crimes Enforcement Network" other editors felt "US Treasury" was more appropriate. While it's true that the US FinCEN is an arm of the Treasury, so is the IRS. The terms "IRS" and "US Treasury" are rarely used interchangeably.

While I don't doubt that some editors feel it's necessary to prevent certain information from being posted on the main page to preserve WP:NPOV, I don't feel that the best way to judge if content should be included or not is to ask the question, "does the content link bitcoin with illicit activity?"

Fleetham, I barely, no, I dont understand your overwrought subject title "Characterizing a common measure for unacceptable content", and I dont understand what bone you want to pick with your vague phrasing of recent edits, instead of providing diffs, so everyone can see for themselves.

I 'll answer, even though you didnt address me by name, because it was me who reverted your addition today ( never before) of teh sentence "Payments work peer-to-peer without a central repository or single administrator, which has led the US Treasury to call bitcoin a decentralized virtual currency" in contrast to centralized virtual currencies such as Liberty Reserve. My edit summary contained 4 points:1) no improvement, 2)belongs to virtual currency, 3)not to bitcoin lede, 4)makes sentence longer and more difficult to understand. Now, your task was to discuss why your edit was an improvement per WP:BRD. But you did not and you do not why is adding Liberty Reserve an improvement?, just because that Jennifer Alhasky from Fincen mentioned it?, ie "it's in the source" ? Instead of responding to the points I made, you stated to edit war and reverted me (!) here complaining and demanding in the edit summary ""no improvement" is a very vague reason to revert. Let the content stand, discuss on talk, or clearly state reason for revert."), misquoting me, twisting [WP:BRD], twisting [WP:STAUSQUO] since you need to leave the status quo alone, mistaking the edit summary for the talk page and demanding clarity, that you yourself do not care to supply when you revert. See your very next edit here with the completely uninformative edit summary "removed lede mention of Jersey island bitcoin investment vehicle"... yeah, obviously you removed it, Factsearch noticed, but you didnt help him understand why.

Fleetham, your addition 'didnt improve the sentence' was point 1), the summary of my edit summary. 2)If you want to make a point about which virtual currencies on teh planet are centralized, as opposed to bitcoin, I suggested to you an appropriate page. 3) I see no reason to contrast Bitcoin with Liberty Reserve in the lede, also as there is Zero mentioning of this topic in the body (as I pointed out the section [Talk:Bitcoin#proposing small subsection on bitcoin's decentralized aspect] to which you have not responded - would have been nice to start there, and 4) adding this it makes the heavy duty sentence longer and more difficult to understand. these are 4 good reasons, none have to do with [WP:POV], which I find weirdly misconstrued, or was this directed at Ladislav Mecir ?.

FYI, I did not revert your last format change of the Regulation section, even though I see no improvement in that either. I asked you July 6 why you did this, to start a discussion on this page [Talk:Bitcoin#Regulation section], but you did not have the courtesy to respond so far. Come on, Fleetham, one double standard is enough. --Wuerzele (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so what specifically makes the content unacceptable? Fleetham (talk) 04:44, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Fleetham, you are now disruptive per WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Read the above, I wrote it twice. And dont forget YOU NEED TO DISCUSS your point. And plse reply to the talk section above.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the edit to not introduce a "standard" to mention other virtual currencies in the Bitcoin article lead. If that "standard" was maintained, we would end up having lots of other virtual currencies mentioned in the article lead stating how other virtual currencies differ from bitcoin. That is unacceptable for me. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed and thank you.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I follow. Do you mean precedent in place of standard? What's wrong with mentioning other virtual currencies? Fleetham (talk) 05:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

yes, he means precedent. --Wuerzele (talk) 06:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: Just to clarify, your complete reasons for disliking the Liberty Reserve link are as follows? "No improvement, belongs to virtual currency, not to bitcoin lede, makes sentence longer and more difficult to understand." These all appear to be subjective... what do you mean by "no improvement?" Why should the Bitcoin page not include something that could also be mentioned at virtual currency? And while my addition does make the sentence longer, it doesn't have much if any impact how difficult the lede is to understand. The Lexile score of the lede without mentioning Liberty Reserve is 2360L. Including the Liberty Reserve mention increases that score to 2390L. That's a little less that a 1.5% jump in reading difficulty. Fleetham (talk) 22:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Regulation section

Fleetham you changed the nation subsections to subheadings with semicolons, which makes the subsections go away in teh content section /non searchable. Wonder what your goal was? To make the contents shorter?

Let me know. If so I have a better idea.Thank you.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Fleetham plse kindly answer the above question.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

BitLicense

S. Rich Why can the following not be added to the article? It looks very similar to what is in the paragraph before.

"The New York Department of Financial Services released a draft of their proposed BitLicense Regulatory Framework for virtual currency firms on 17 July 2014." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Homni (talk • contribs) 17:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

As per my edit summary, there are three problems: 1. it is a newsrelease from the regulators; 2. it is not certain to happen; 3. it is a primary source bit of information. – S. Rich (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

S. Rich News Releases are not banned on WP. It is definitely going to happen. Read the paragraph before. It is mentioned in there. People only have 45 days to respond. Primary sources are not banned per se from WP. The NY FSD mention in the previous paragraph in the article is also from a primary source. Should I remove it?Homni (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

S. Rich Why do you think it may not happen? Do you think the NY FSD play games?Homni (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

S. Rich Do you want to inform all these companies in the following news article that it may not happen and the NY FSD is playing a game with them?

S. Rich It is certainly going to happen.Homni (talk) 18:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Something is going to happen, but we don't know exactly what. When it does, then we can add. But if we start reading the regs and giving our own interpretation of them, then we get into trouble with WP:original research. Primary sources must be used with care. As for the other material, I won't comment only because I prefer to give some focus to this particular edit. (Your question about "informing all these companies...." is a silly one not helpful in terms of proposed edits to the article.) – S. Rich (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

S. Rich So, then it is ok for me to remove the other mention of this information already in the article based on your criteria of us not knowing exactly what is going to happen. I did not give any interpretation of anything. Your reference to OR is thus wrong. Homni (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

S. Rich You state: "Something is going to happen, but we don't know exactly what. When it does, then we can add." Can you direct me to the WP policy regarding that?Homni (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Exactly what will the proposed regs say when adopted? Until they are issued in final form, we don't know. Please read the third sentence at WP:BALL. If the WSJ gives us a news story about the proposed regs, then we can use the WSJ as a reference. – S. Rich (talk) 18:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

This one for example? Wall Street Journal: NY Financial Regulator Releases Draft of ‘Bitlicense’ for Bitcoin Businesses. Homni (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. And with it we use WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. (Also, I've removed the "<ref></ref>" markup in your comment. This keeps the external link in your comment without the need for a {{reflist}}.) – S. Rich (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I am going to keep the sentence the same. I am only going to change the reference. Is that OK?Homni (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The WSJ is an acceptable secondary source. You might add something like: "the proposed rules will apply to companies New York who use digital currencies." (Keep in mind that WP does not have an "editor in chief". Someone else may come by and revise your edit.) – S. Rich (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Fine.Homni (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)