Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Problematic edits violating the WP:NOR policy

I notice that none of the edits made by Jorge Stolfi recently is supported by new citations of reliable sources. For example, the replacement of the "ownership" formulation by "posession" and related text changes are obviously contradicting the cited source, which mentions "ownership". Please note that the policy is not to write what you think is true. Instead, the policy is to write what reliable sources support. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

OK for that bit having no reference (although I think it is just a plain statement of the fact). But that is no justification for discarding all the reorganization work I did.
Also, the statement that one needs 51% haspower for a successful attack is false; if you reference says so, you need a better reference. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 22:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Another editor removed the following sentence from the beginning of section "Ownership..", as being redundant:

"For the bitcoin protocol, "ownership" of bitcoins is reduced to their effective possession, resulting from the knowledge of the private key associated to the address that the bitcoins are assigned to."

Is this sentence really redundant? Note that the article is directed to the general public, not to people who are already familiar with bitcoin. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• For the same argument, I think that section should explicitly say that the blockchain (unlike, say, a public real estate registry) does not record legal ownership. To me, that is just a consequence of the fact that the protocol is not subordinated to any legal system, which is basic principle of Bitcoin. But perhaps one can find a Reliable Source that says that explicitly. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that Jorge Stolfi just started an edit war by rereverting the content changes. While I listed just one change that violated the WP:NOR policy, there are more controversial changes in his edits:

• the edits introduced many typos
• the edits introduced a new "Integrity" subsection not citing any sources at all and violating the WP:NOR policy as well. FYI, it does not matter that you think your claims are true, they must be verifiable.
• The "Ownership..." section now contains a sentence: "In fact, the victim may not even be able to prove that this new address is not under his control." - this is yet another violation of the WP:NOR policy: there is absolutely no source for the claim, the claim is largely irrelevant, why the victim should need or want to prove that the new address is not under his control? (It would make similar sense as requiring a victim of a theft to demonstrate that the thief did not come back next day and return the stolen property; the victim may also be unable to prove that.)
• Yet another irrelevant sentence in the section: "The same applies if the legitimate owner was induced to transfer the the bitcoins by fraudulent means." - the sentence is followed by a citation as if it was supported by a reliable source, although the source does not have anything in common with it.
• On the other hand, the formulation supported by the cited source and meant as a warning has been removed.
• "The modification attack and mining" section contained an explanation of the cryptographic nonce, and how different values of the nonce are tried one by one to obtain a specific number of zero bits of the hash. It was also explained that the nework adjusts the number of required initial zero bits so that the average time the network needs to find a nonce is about ten minutes. The explanation was replaced by: "automatically adjusts the difficulty of computing a valid block hash code", which is not understandable, since the term "difficulty" is not explained, turning the formulation to unreadable mumbo jumbo.
• Regarding your "does not record legal ownership" formulation: this is yet another case when you are not supposed to present truth, but the informations verified by independent reliable sources. Unless you are sure a source for the claim exists, you are not supposed to put such information to the article. Even if true, it may still be unnotable, redundant, and violating the WP:NOR policy as Fleetham spotted.

Summing up, I initially did not list all my reasons for reversal, mentioning only one case of WP:NOR policy violation. Now the list is more complete, and I hope we can discuss the problems and come to an agreement without continuing the edit war. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 02:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, it is arguable who started the edit war... I started a substantial reorganization of the page, and all that work was summarily reverted because of some alleged "original research" statements. Note that a statement without source MAY BE "original research", but MAY NOT BE; check the {{cn|date=}} template. Specifically:

• "the edits introduced many typos" - sorry about that, I will try to fix them if I see them.
• "the sentence In fact, the victim may not even be able to prove that this new address is not under his control is original research" -- granted that it has no reference, so delete it if you will. However, it is an obvious consequence of the design: how do yo prove that you do NOT know a private key? That is quite relevant if you want to complain about theft to the police, justify why your exchange lost all coins, request insurance payment, etc..
• simplification of the "modification attack" section: The technical details of the "nonce" etc. are not needed here since they are better explained in bitcoin network and/or bitcoin protocol. Those details are not appropriate here, anyway, given the general tone of the article. "Computational difficulty" is quite understandable, even by computer-naive readers, by reference to the general sense of the words; it is not necessary to explain the specialized sense of "difficulty" in the context of bitcoin mining (which is merely the parameter that controls the the computational difficulty, in the common sense of the word). Note that it requires some computing/math knowledge to understand that requiting more leading zeros in the hash makes the problem more difficult.
• "the sentence The same applies if the legitimate owner was induced to transfer the bitcoins by fraudulent means is irrelevant and not supported by the cited reference" Indeed, that was an editing error. But, again, the sentence is obviously true, and everybody who understands bitcoin is well aware of it. If Alice sent bitcoins to Eve for a sofa, but Eve did not deliver it, there is no authority to whom Alice may appeal to get the payment reversed. (Sites like BitPay note that, and claim that it is a feature.)
• "On the other hand, the formulation supported by the cited source and meant as a warning has been removed." Sorry, I did not understand this remark.
• Re the "ownership" issue: As I wrote above, OK to keep that phrase out while we find a reference. But, sorry, Wikipedia editors are expected to use their judgement to avoid teaching lies and errors to readers, even when the lies are printed in journals. The "reliable references" one is supposed to cite must be "reliable" in the higher sense "more likely to be correct", not just "printed by a famous publishing house". Thus if one suspects that a source is wrong, one must look for better sources, and/or cite the dubious source with a subtle warning to the reader, "some sources claim that ..."
• "the phrase does not record legal ownership is not notable": Opinions may differ on whether that fact is good or bad, but, for the general reader that has ony a superficial knowledge of bitcoin, that is one of the most important things that he must know about the system: that the blockchain is not backed/constrained/subordinated/binding on the legal apparatus of any country.

Anyway, I appreciate your corrections. All the best. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 03:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Re the "ownership" issue, again: The seizure of the SilkRoad coins by the FBI/Interpol illustrates well that point. The blockchain assigned certain bitcoins to addresses XYZ, and Ross Ulbrich had knowledge of the private keys to those addresses. Even so, the US court decided that those coins never were legally his property, and seized them by (stealing the private keys, IIRC). The court is still deciding whether the other 140+ kBTC are his legal property or not. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 04:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
• Re the irreversibility of payments obtained by fraudulent means: Note that there is a passage elsewhere in the article (sourced, and not written by me) that explicitly mentions malware that substitutes the destination address when a transaction gets signed and broadcast, besides malware that steals private keys. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 04:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, it is arguable who started the edit war... - actually, it is not. The first reversal I made was not an edit war at all. Consult WP:BRD and related references, please. The problem is that instead of starting a dicussion here, you immediately reverted the revert, starting an edit war. Relevant text: if your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, use the opportunity to begin a discussion with the interested parties to establish consensus.

• I simply re-did my restructuring edits, which were reverted without any justification (and I dare think that they did improve the article). Then I edited the sentence that you did accuse of "original research", trying to remove the cause of your objection. I repeat, I did not intend to add any "original research", but only explain points that are common knowledge. If you feel that any sentence should not be there without a reference, fine, we can delete it while we find one. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is becoming hard to read as Fleetham suggested, and he already reverted some of your edits again to protect the structure and contents of he article. To address the claim that you improved the article - this is the point of disagreement, which you just ignore. To add more informations:

• your edits went against the consensus recorded in archives of this talk page
• your edits left "orphans", parts of the original text formulated in a way assuming that they follow the related text
• your edits broke the logic of the article moving the parts where they did not belong Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

"Computational difficulty" is quite understandable, even by computer-naive readers, by reference to the general sense of the words - in some cases, maybe, but your formulation: the bitcoin protocol automatically adjusts the difficulty of computing a valid block hash code misleadingly suggests that the difficulty of computing a hash is adjusted, which is false. What is adjusted is not the difficulty of computing a hash, the difficulty of computing a hash remains the same, the adjustments influence how many times the hash is computed at average. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Note that it says the difficulty of computing a valid block hash code. So that sentence is not misleading. By the protocol, a block hash is valid only if it has the required number of leading zeros. That detail is not essential; the validity criterion could be any other requirement on the hash code that provides the same control on the computational difficulty of generating a valid block. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

No, the computation of a hash of a valid block is performed by full node clients of the network when checking the new blocks obtained. It is orders of magnitude faster than the task to find the requisite nonce, and exactly as fast as the computation of a hash of an invalid block. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Now the problem is that you did not read the WP:NOR policy and are not trying to take it seriously. Nor you seem to have read the WP:BRD, WP:Consensus, or WP:Be Bold pages, since you continue editing disregarding all objections and the fact that your changes have been reverted. Otherwise you would know that the proper approach is to maintain the status quo and try to reach consensus instead of disruptive editing. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• I haven't seen any objections to the bulk of my edits. I have tried to address your objection about the "ownership" prase, and I do not insist on the other two sentences that you claim are "original research". I know what "original research" means, thank you, and what is merely "unsourced statement" or "disputed statement". And I also know about WP:COI. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen any objections to the bulk of my edits. - then you did not read the objections listed above? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• The "bulk of my edits" was the reorganization of the sections and merging of duplicate material. Only one editor complained, and not about the reorganization, but about specific phrases and changes of wording. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jorge Stolfi: Thanks for taking the time to edit the page... I haven't read all of your conversation with Mecir, but I would ask you to be more careful when editing. For example, in this instance, you mostly just reorganized things, but in the process a BBC source/citation was removed. Also, I would caution against just adding new material without citation. While it might be frustrating to search for an article that supports what you already know to be true, making sure any new content is correctly cited is important. This page only has a few active editors, and while I don't speak for anyone else, I know that my knowledge of bitcoin and how it works is limited. When you add new content without a supporting source, I really have little way of knowing if what you wrote was true. Please realize that what might be obvious or common sense to you might not be to others who are not so knowledgeable about bitcoin. Fleetham (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jorge Stolfi:, I agree with the points made by Ladislav and Fleetham, if it isnt already clear from my prior responses.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Restore theft to "Overview" section

Hi, this is the note Fleetham wrote to describe his edit. However, the description looks as an error, because the section he moved never was in there, so it is not a "restore" at all. Also, there was a consensus, which can be found in the archives that the subsection belonged to "Criminal activities", which makes the move an error as well. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC) Also, the removal of the criminal Ponzi case by the same edit was not explained, just announced. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: I'm sorry, but it was you who recently removed content on "theft" from the overview section. As recently as 5 days ago, theft was mentioned in the overview as part of the section titled "ownership, theft, and loss." When you removed that content on or around the 16th, I noticed it was missing and replaced it with the only remaining section mentioning theft. Apparently, the original content was simply deleted.

In any case, there have been numerous, well-publicized bitcoin thefts, and the overview section currently includes topics such as fungiblity, which by any measure must be less relevant to bitcoin. For example, while many thefts have happened, it's only speculation that certain bitcoins could become less fungible due to their association with criminal activity. Fleetham (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but it was you who recently removed content on "theft" from the overview section. As recently as 5 days ago - would you be so kind and find any edit of mine removing any theft-related contents from "Overview"? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

it's only speculation that certain bitcoins could become less fungible due to their association with criminal activity - the opinion of independent reliable sources makes the fungibility issue notable. What I think about it does not matter.

there have been numerous, well-publicized bitcoin thefts - yes, and that is why it should be mentioned in the "Criminal activities" section as discussed, since it is notable. On the other hand, theft was not designed by the inventor of bitcoin, it is just a criminal activity as other activities listed. They are also frequently discussed in the media. Until recent changes, "Theft" was not handled differently than "Black markets", "Malware", or "Money laundering".

I remind you that your edit removed the only criminal case of Ponzi scheme from "Criminal activities", unexplainedly. Can you give a reason why? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You say, "Until recent changes, "Theft" was not handled differently than "Black markets", "Malware", or "Money laundering"." That's not true. As recently as 5 days ago theft was mentioned in the oversection.

I think the best way forward is to replace the "Ownership, theft, and loss" section that you removed from the overview .

And the Ponzi scheme material was included in the theft reason for some reason. It doesn't belong there, as fraud is different from theft. There are numerous small events such as this one Ponzi scheme that promised to invest money in bitcoins. At best, it's only tangentially related to bitcoin, and I see no reason why it needs to be on a page that is already far too sprawling. Fleetham (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion of regulation section

Fleetham deleted the contents of the regulation section yesterday. The edit summary said sthg like move to Legality of Bitcoin by country, but that wasnt done, no.

I think regulation should stay on the page: It is intimately connected with the other sections on the page. the legality of Bitcoin by country page is in bad shape, poorly maintained, so dumping the material there is a "lose-lose". I personally do not want to watch x numbers of Bitcoin related pages.

Fleetham what is it with these hasty edits? You know well, that WP suggests to discuss edits that are expected to be controversial, especially an edit as large as this. --Wuerzele (talk) 04:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Aha, it looks that I did not check the edit thoroughly enough. This indeed looks unfortunate. In that case I prefer to revert the edit, taking into account that the "ordering by prominence" is also controversial. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Weak key attack

One way to "steal" private keys is to induce the victims to use a malicious client software that picks new private/public key pairs from a subset S of all possible pairs (e.g. by using a hacked or very weak random number generator). The set S should be large enough to make collisions unlikely, but small enough to be enumerated exhaustively (say a billion different pairs). Then the thief generates all pairs in S, and monitors the public blockchain for any use of those addresses. When some of them appear, and hold enough bitcoins, the thief transfers them to his own private addresses. Note that this attack (unlike other key theft attacks) can be effective even if the victim generates the keys in a computer that is never connected to the internet.
I don't know whether this attack has been described in some reasonable publication. If it is to be mentioned, should it go in "Malware stealing bitcoins" or in "Security"? (AFAIK there are no claimed instances of this attack yet, so it seems more appropriate for the latter than the former.) --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 02:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Jorge Stolfi: "I don't know whether this attack has been described in some reasonable publication." - in such case the WP:NOR policy discourages us to put it to the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I understand that, but the attack is obvious and has been mentioned in many places; it must have been addressed in some formal publication. My post above is a request for help in finding such a source. (The Bitcoin Foundation once published a long report on "bitcoin risks"; maybe it is listed there?) --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Jorge Stolfi, I assume you didnt find a WP:RS for it, correct?--Wuerzele (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No, but I did not look for one. Millions of articles that need improving, only so many hours in a day... 8-) --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 15:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Other criminal uses

There are a couple of things misisng in the "Criminal uses" section:

• The FBI alleges that bitcoins have been used to pay for assassination contracts and other crimes (besides buying illegal drug and weapons). There is a separate charge against Ross Ulbricht for that.
• Online gambling is a crime in some countries, and gambling sites have been using bitcoin to get around those laws by locating their servers overseas. I have seen claims that it is one of the largest sources of effective bitcoin traffic, possibly second only to short-term sepculation. There must be many news articles about that.
• The section "Ponzi" should be broadened to "Commercial and financial fraud". Bitcoin ponzi schemes are just one of many frauds where people are induced to give bitcoins and do not receive the promised return. The sources can be articles on BFL, Neo&Bee, BitFunder, and many more. The relevance of those frauds to bitcoin is that the fraud is facilitated by he difficulty of documenting, tracking and seizing the payments made in bitcoins, and also by the assumption that investments in bitcoin do not fall under the scope of the SEC, the IRS, and other regulating agencies.

--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 04:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Jorge, the reason nobody has been replying to you in a week is, because you are not making a concrete proposa. And maybe also, because you are not addressing anyone."sources can be articles on BFL, Neo&Bee, BitFunder, and many more" is nebulous, and sounds like you want others to do the work. --Wuerzele (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, but it is quite common and proper for any reader to post suggestions in a talk page that would require substantial work for other editors. They are just suggestions; obviously no one is required to implement them. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Category:Circulating currencies

Hi, I do not know who added bitcoin to the category, but a recent edit by Zntrip removed it, stating: "Category:Circulating currencies contains only state-issued currencies". For me, the declared reason is completely irrelevant. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

How is it irrelevant? The category exclusively encompasses the entries listed in List of circulating currencies. Circulating currencies is a one of the three subcategory of Modern currencies, the other two being Alternative currencies and Modern obsolete currencies. This article is already listed in Alternative currencies. – Zntrip 20:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Zntrip, makes sense. Ladislav it's hard to know all the definitions for categories...--Wuerzele (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wuerzele wrote: "...it's hard to know all the definitions for categories..." - actually, I looked up the definition at Category:Circulating currencies and found: "This category contains all currencies that are currently used." For me, it is not hard to read. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Ladislav, you're a step ahead of me. In that case, I fully agree with your move. Odd definition, though: all currencies that are currently used. I left a note on Talk: List of circulating currencies, so Zntrip can follow up. The definitions of those pages should be harmonized.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Wuerzele and Ladislav for pointing out some of these inconsistencies. As you can imagine, some of the pages on Wikipedia do not contain the most clear wording. There are both benefits and drawbacks to creating articles by committee. Regardless, I've clarified the criteria for inclusion for List of circulating currencies and will hopefully be able to attend to rest of Wuerzele's suggestions in the near future. I'll change the description of Category:Circulating currencies to make that more clear as well. – Zntrip 22:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Side chains

Somebody should add something regarding the new proposed developments of "side chains" which link various alt-coins into the Bitcoin block chain. Cloudswrest (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

If I undestand it well, the whole thing is a proposal, which did not earn sufficient notability or acceptance yet. Therefore, I oppose such addition. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Cloudswrest, can you please refer to a WP:RS regarding side chains? thanks.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:43, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is the white paper on the subject. http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf . Cloudswrest (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Cloudswrest I had seen this a few days ago and it surely is interesting. If the discussion about sidechains enters a) the academic mainstream (as a secondary source) or b) the public mainstream (article outside coindesk and bitcoin sites) I'd agree to add such a source. As of now this sidechain idea is a proposal as Ladislav pointed out, a classic WP:primary source, and not considered reliable, hence my explicit request of a WP:RS. Do you see the point?--Wuerzele (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Environmental impact of the Bitcoin network

Several sources have stated that there are a substantial costs to the environment caused by the Bitcoin network (electricity consumption, obsolete bitcoin mining hardware…). Conversely, others state that these environmental costs are relatively small compared to other monetary systems (paper money and coins, credit cards…) or precious metals (silver and gold).

Then there is a question of scaling it up: even if the ecological footprint of current Bitcoin network is indeed small, what would it be, if the system grows considerably? I think this question – the environmental sustainability of Bitcoin network – needs to be addressed. It would be very good, if someone is able to find a comprehensive study about this topic.SyaWgnignahCehT (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, SyaWgnignahCehT for bringing this up. I had had this in mind ~6 months ago. I had searched the Bitcoin archives from 2012/2013, where there was mention of it, but dont know how it got deleted. I lost track, worked on more pressing issues. Do you have any WP:RS to boost with? --Wuerzele (talk) 04:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

The "51% attack" is not necessarily "unappealing"

These statements (formerly in the "modification attack" section) are not quite correct:

To achieve this would require roughly as much computing power as all existing bitcoin miners combined which would be prohibitively expensive and, if the bitcoin network is large enough, essentially unfeasible. Moreover, due to the financial incentives of mining new bitcoins, it would make more economic 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 mining power the network provides collectively, the more expensive and less feasible such attacks become, making the whole system even more secure.<ref name="khanbitcoin"/>

The first bolded part is not true: right now it would require only collusion of two or three of the largest mining pools/companies to control more than 51% of the network's hashrate. That cartel could in principle pull a modification attack if they wanted to. In fact, there is no clear-cut threshold: an attacker that controls less than 51% of the hashrate will succeed eventually, if he keeps trying. The second bolded part is a non-sequitur, it depends on the price of bitcoins, on the block reward, and on the block fees. For example, a large mining cartel that is barely recovering their costs with honest mining, may well be tempted to pull an attack for 10 million USD in BTC. Moreover, large banks or governments may be able to set up sufficient has power to launch attacks. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:37, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Jorge, maybe you are not aware: This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. Please supply WP: RS to back up the argument you made and others can chime in. --Wuerzele (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

My parag above is not about bitcoin per se but about the article. It is quite proper to discuss the correctness of claims made in the article, especially if not backed by sources (and the reliability of sources, when they are given). The observations above are not my own deductions; I have seen many discussions in forums about both the risk of collusion by large miners and the possibility of an attack with less than 51% of the hashrate, and as far as I understand my objections above are valid and known by the bitcoin community, and that the boldface claims quoted above are incorrect. As in other sections above, surely there must be reliable sources that say so; I just haven't had a chance to look for them. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Based on my personal understanding of bitcoin I think Jorge is correct. However we need a reliable source saying this before we document it. If the existing references do not support the existing text then it can be modified to better reflect the existing sources.

Forums are generally not considered reliable sources unless the person posting it can be shown to be an expert in the subject. This can result in awkward situations when enthusiasts know more about a subject than the "experts" and media. I cannot think of another subject where more journalists and professors have gotten things so wrong. Chillum 16:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I hear, i.e. I understand you Jorge Stolfi and chillum. alas this isnt a forum, it's wikipedia and what we write must be backed up with WP:RS, as Chillum said. Stolfi, if your claim is valid, it will eventually be published in a reliable source, so until then, hang in there.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I think everyone agrees this needs a reliable source and I don't think anyone is treating this talk page like a forum. Chillum 06:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting points, Jorge. Thanks. Evan R. Murphy (talk) 01:19, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Order of sections

@Ladislav Mecir: I see you've renamed the "overview" section "design." This is a better descriptor, as the section is more a primer on the mechanics of bitcoin not a true "overview." I've reduced it's prominence on the page in line with its new title. Hope this is okay. Fleetham (talk) 22:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your idea to move "History" to the first place. I am less inclined, though, to put "Economics" to the second place. I think that the general idea is to take inspiration in featured articles, and there the design often follows history, which follows the logic that design precedes (in time) acceptance, prices, etc. Similar logic applied to the "Legal status" may push it further backwards. Having said that, I am willing to accept the opinion and preferences of other editors on the ordering, and am quite curious whether we provoke some to express their preferences on the order of sections. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Fleetham, Ladislav Mecir I dont agree with the section shuffle, putting history before an explanation of the thing ("design"). Bitcoin definition/explanation of the system should be first, to get people grounded. what topic comes after that is less important IMO.

In other words: The old order was absolutely fine. I see absolutely nothing gained. Cheap edit.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Aha, Wuerzele sees the reason to keep the previous order, and found also another reason why the edit is unfortunate (the large deletion mentioned below). I tend to agree with him, thinking that the original order was better, explaining what bitcoin is before delving into other issues. In general, I tend to disagree that we should order subsections by prominence. Prominence looks as a subjective characteristic, as something no two persons can completely agree upon. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Fleetham, since you havent replied in 3 days and I see you are contributing on other wikisites,i.e. its not that you are offline, which looks to me like you dont want to reply to these messages- . Ladislav, it looks to me like we have a consensus to restore the prior sequence.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit war concerning the XBT code

• The "currency infobox" contained a claim mentioning that for bitcoin there is an XBT code (which is not an official ISO currency code).
• Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat deleted the claim, using a justification that "coindesk is not a WP:RS".
• To improve the state of the article I edited the page to replace the deleted and missing citation of the allegedly not independent source by a citation of a different and independent source and
• inserted a new claim into the infobox citing CNN as a source
• Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat deleted the newly sourced claim,
• I reverted the last deletion knowing that CNN is independent
• therefore, I find this reversal made without discussing the matter here as inappropriate. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

CNN cannot grant ISO currency codes. Only the ISO can grant ISO currency codes. Bit coin fans might wish that bit coin was a real currency and had an ISO code, but it doesn't. If you want to mention that some bit coin fans want an ISO code for their project, put it in the article somewhere with the appropriate weighting (e.g., "some people have proposed it<as referenced in CNN>"). Putting it in a currency infobox with "ISO code: XBT(note that this is not a real code)" is very misleading. Wishing doesn't make things true. You wouldn't write "Official currency of: the world(note: not yet)", even though a number of bit coin fanzines proclaim it to be the second coming of the Christ now, would you. 118.1.229.233 (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

^^^^ forgot to log in Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk) 03:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat. It is either an official code issued by the official agency/institute or it is not. I saw an article about XBT can only be the code used by Bhutan, or something like that. JorgeGabriel (talk) 05:44, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is the article I was referring to: http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-needs-iso-certified-currency-code/ It confirms that XBT is not yet a formal code for bitcoin.JorgeGabriel (talk) 06:45, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, seems that editors perceive the use of the iso_code attribute as controversial, even though the claim explained that the "XBT" code is not official. To honor these wishes, I refrain from using the iso_code attribute at present. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:28, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Currency code

There are both XBT and BTC. Which one is correct? Is there a standardized symbol for Bitcoin? I saw something about "edit war" on top. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcfan500 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Both are correct, see this article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit #632255373 identified as intentional vandalism

Evidence:

• the justification says: "No. The bit coin sfoundation -cannot- do that since it is not the ISO! Stop misleading people." Even with the most basic reading and writing skills it is impossible to unintendedly confuse Bitcoin Foundation with "The bit coin sfoundation".
• Edit #632077718 demonstrates that Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat is adept at Wikipedia policies, and his policy violations should be regarded as intentional.
• The edit deliberately removes claims supported by the cited independent reliable sources.
• The edit deliberately adds claims contradicting cited independent reliable sources.
• As a supporting evidence, note also that Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat has been already found vandalizing Wikipedia contents. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:28, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit #632276062

The edit in question replaced the claim supported by a citation of The Wall Street Journal by an unsourced text. While the editor replacing the wording supported by the independent citation may be honestly convinced that his opinion is "more correct" than the opinion of the WSJ, I would like to point him to the WP:NOR policy, which explicitly discourages editors to replace reliably sourced information by their own claims, even in case they are honestly convinced to be more correct. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOR does not apply.

INVESTOPEDIA: DEFINITION OF 'MARKET CAPITALIZATION'

The total dollar market value of all of a COMPANY's outstanding shares. Market capitalization is calculated by multiplying a COMPANY's shares outstanding by the current market price of one share. The investment community uses this figure to determine a COMPANY's size, as opposed to sales or total asset figures.http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marketcapitalization.asp

Wikipedia: Market capitalization (or market cap) is the total value of the shares outstanding of a publicly traded COMPANY; it is equal to the share price times the number of shares outstanding.[2][3] JorgeGabriel (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

You obviously do not understand the policy. Please consult WP:NOR to find out why The Wall Street Journal article explicitly mentioning bitcoin market capitalization is a reliable source, while your interpretation of Investopedia definition (or Wikipedia definition) is not. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yet another problem is that your edit removed the only reliable source of the claim, leaving the claim unsourced, since Investopedia does not mention that bitcoin is the largest cryptocurrency. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Other independent sources referring to bitcoin market capitalization are:

• Forbes
• IT World Canada
• Ordinary Times
• CNBC
• Business Insider
• Packetizer
• Yahoo Finance

I am stopping here, not claiming that the list is complete. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:42, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine. Please change the Wikipedia article´s definition of market capitalization. JorgeGabriel (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

This, JorgeGabriel is the essence of your misunderstanding of the WP:NOR policy. You should understand:

• Your interpretation and understanding of the market capitalization definition by Investopedia or Wikipedia is not relevant when an independent reliable source speaks about bitcoin market capitalization, the text in the independent source is.
• The text of an independent reliable source mentioning bitcoin market capitalization can be used to document that bitcoin does have market capitalization, but I (or any other editor) cannot create a completely new general definition of market capitalization based on such source, since that is not what the source can verify. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

So what you are saying is the following: Wikipedia´s and Investopedia´s definition of market capitalization, namely that only a publicly traded company has "market capitalization", "is not relevant when an independent reliable source speaks about bitcoin market capitalization." This means that although Wikipedia and Investopedia both state that only a publicly traded company can have "market capitalization", those definitions are completely ignored and invalid because a new reliable source or various new reliable sources have been discovered as noted by you above. Is that what you are saying? The Wikipedia and Investopedia definitions are now overruled by the newly discovered sources?JorgeGabriel (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

So, it seems to me that the true and actual definition of "market capitalization" is completely irrelevant in this case. We are not speaking here about whether bitcoin has or does not have "market capitalization" being defined as something only a listed company can have even though it is clear that bitcoin is not a listed company. What this is about is whether any statement can be found on CNN, etc. that states that "bitcoin has market capitalization". If such a statement can be found on a "reliable source" then it is a new fact that "bitcoin has market capitalization", (whether it is correct or not in terms of acceptable current definitions) not because it is true and correct and a fact, but, solely because it is stated on a reliable source like CNN. JorgeGabriel (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Note that the Market capitalization article is poorly verified by Wikipedia standards, meaning that its reliability is low. I do not know about the reliability standards of Investopedia, but it is a matter of fact that Investopedia is not considered a reliable secondary source for Wikipedia. Using Investopedia as a source, it is not surprising that the definitions in Investopedia and Wikipedia are identical. As mentioned, I cannot change the general definition, but I can add a note to Market capitalization article mentioning bitcoin market capitalization as a special case. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:07, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Another, and much more comfortable alternative may be to forget about market capitalization accepting your wording, but reinserting the citation of the WSJ article to verify that bitcoin is the largest cryptocurrency. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It is really all about Wikipedia being an encyclopedia and not a science textbook. I think I have read this somewhere on Wikipedia. what Wikipedia is and what it is not. Wikipedia is not about what is right or wrong or science or true or facts, but about what is out there in the world, described in an encyclopedic manner. If everyone were saying the world is flat, then that is what would be stated in Wikipedia: for example, it is stated on CNN, etc., etc., that the world is flat. And that is that: people believe the world is flat (for example). That is what an encyclopedia is about: about what is out there: not science and facts. Virgin space engineers have to get the science right. That is not required on Wikipedia. Wikipedia simply reflects what is happening and stated in the world. Nothing else. I don´t know if you would agree with this view of Wikipedia. I actually think it is the official (Wikipedia´s) view of Wikipedia. However, on the other hand, it is also true that many people use Wikipedia as a starting point for reliable facts, although that is not what Wikipedia in actual fact is suppose to be. Wikipedia is simply a reflection of the world. Wikipedia is not a source of scientific and economic facts, concepts and principles even though many people think it is. Or am I wrong in this?JorgeGabriel (talk) 21:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I would say that it is not reasonable to use Wikipedia as the source for Wikipedia. This is because that would be a faulty (circular) logic leading to any sort of nonsense. Wikipedia is supposed to collect the knowledge available from secondary sources, i.e., if somebody reveals that the Earth is not flat, he should write a scientific article about the discovery, and not try to put the discovery to an encyclopedia first. Encyclopedic works are handled as tertiary sources, since they collect the knowledge available from the secondary sources. The recommended best practice for Wikipedia is to use the secondary sources when editing. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Satoshi

I wanted to add some stuff about bitcoin, like how they can be broken into fragments as small as 0.00000001 BTC/XBT, and how that is called a satoshi. Where can I put that infomation? Yoshi24517^Chat _Absent 16:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess that it is possible to create a new "Units" section, if you do have enough material to discuss these. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The claim that bitcoin lacks ISO 4217 currency code

• Hi, Fleetham. I do not object against this claim. I actually prefer to put it to the currency infobox under the iso_code parameter, since that is the place for it.
• However, after I inserted the claim that bitcoin lacks ISO 4217 currency code into the infobox as the iso_code parameter, I found out that Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat immediately deleted it, using the justification that the claim is "useless cargo-culting". I may be wrong, confused by his level of politeness when discussing edits, but I interpret his words as a statement that the claim is not notable. It certainly is superfluous at the place where your edit put it, and, if taking a slightly fundamentalist stance, it indeed looks possible to defend the assertion that the claim isn't available from a reliable secondary source, making its notability questionable. If the lack of notability point of view prevails, then the second best alternative is the one "produced" by edit #632540712, i.e., the state where the claim is omitted.

Hope this explains my opinion in an understandable way. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Is it not reasonable, much better and something most people would agree with to wait till bitcoin is officially allocated an ISO 4217 code (if that were to actually happen) and then put that encyclopedic information in the article? From the current presentation in the article it appears to me (and I think it would appear to some other people too) that bitcoin lacks something that it rightfully, legally, officially and reasonably should already have been given - while that is not the case at all. It is at present an encyclopedic reality that bitcoin does not have an IS0 4217 code just as it lacks some other characteristics of a currency, for example, a stable price, too. Then, should the fact that it lacks a stable price also be stated in the info box? I would rather wait for the ISO 4217 code and then put it in. No-one will be able to remove it then. At the moment anyone can remove the statement that it lacks the code on the basis that all other things that are lacking with bitcoin are also not stated and if this lacking thing is stated then all other lacking things have the right to be mentioned.JorgeGabriel (talk) 12:19, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It is stated above "the claim isn't available from a reliable secondary source". It thus cannot be stated in the article. Is that not how things work? JorgeGabriel (talk) 12:57, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Your edit #632551666 added the claim that bitcoin lacks the ISO 4217 code to the article, using the Bitcoin has no ISO 4217 code. wording.
• According to, and verified by, an independent reliable source, the fact that bitcoin does not have the ISO 4217 currency code is notable, that is why it should be present in the article.
• it appears to me (and I think it would appear to some other people too) that bitcoin lacks something that it rightfully, legally, officially and reasonably should already have been given - why do you think so? Or, perhaps, do you prefer the formulation to be replaced by the Bitcoin has no ISO 4217 currency code. wording, or some other wording not known to me?
• it lacks some other characteristics of a currency, for example, a stable price, too - yes, and that is called volatility and discussed in the article, there are several parts of the article: lead section, "Classification", "Price and volatility", "Speculative bubble", "As investment", and "Reception" devoted to this specific issue. Do you propose to delete the whole discussion of this issue as well?
• Then, should the fact that it lacks a stable price also be stated in the info box? - as far as I know, there is no infobox attribute that could be used for this purpose, is there?
• At the moment anyone can remove it. - that is not as easy as you think, since the claim is based on, and verified by, a citation of an independent reliable source. Also, we discuss it here to establish the consensus. As mentioned above, I see your edit and your comment here as mutually contradicting.
• It is stated above "the claim isn't available from a reliable secondary source". - indeed it was not verified by an independent reliable source some time ago, but it is based on and verified by an independent reliable source now. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting my previous statement: "Is it not reasonable, much better and something most people would agree with to wait till bitcoin is officially allocated an ISO 4217 code (if that were to actually happen) and then put that encyclopedic information in the article?" Consequently it is thus best to wait for the code allocation - if it would ever be given. The fact that there is doubt (if there were no doubt it would already have been allocated; for example, the Euro, a new currency, had no problem receiving an ISO 4217 code) about it being allocated is justifiable reason to remove the ISO 4217 claim from the infobox. JorgeGabriel (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for accepting my previous statement: "Is it not reasonable, much better and something most people would agree with to wait till bitcoin is officially allocated an ISO 4217 code (if that were to actually happen) and then put that encyclopedic information in the article?" - this discussion looks strange to me. While you did not answer any of my questions, (did you read my above comment?), you are thanking me for something I did not do. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:26, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, instead of trying to discuss this issue further while not understanding the majority of the above comments and not obtaining any answer to my questions, I agree that it is simpler to remove the mentions of ISO 4217 from the currency infobox. The explanations are probably not understandable enough when presented in just a couple of words. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit #632751647

Fleetham: I notice you made a new edit #632751647 instead of trying to discuss the issues here, which is what you wanted to do by your own words... While it may look to you like the edit is making sense, the fact is that BTC is also formatted like ISO 4217 code, and there is a positive probability that BTC ends up as an ISO 4217 code of some currency. So, can you discuss the issues here and eventually explain why you find the urge to put the claim where you put it, taking into account that the information already is present in the infobox at a more appropriate place? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

An ISO code starting with X denotes a currency that is not issued by a government. That's why the note goes there and not into BTC. Simpy "being three characters long" does not mean "formatted like an ISO currency code." Fleetham (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Funnily enough, I read the press release by Bitcoin Foundation and it does not verify your words. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

To explain, since both BTC and XBT are mentioned in the press release as candidates, the text you are trying to add is based just on your personal opinion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, the Bitcoin Foundation is not the ISO. See X currencies: "In addition to codes for... national currencies ISO 4217 provides codes for "supranational" currencies, procedural purposes, and several things which are "similar to" currencies". Fleetham (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, the Bitcoin Foundation is not the ISO. How does that influence the fact that the "similarity" you see is your own personal opinion unsupported by any source? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Image in the currency infobox

This may be controversial, that is why I am asking here first. In my opinion, the logo of the reference client used in the currency infobox actually belongs to the "Wallets" section. Therefore, I propose to move the logo of the bitcoin reference client to the "Wallets" section and use this bitcoin logo in the currency infobox instead. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:56, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I like the reference client logo better... that's an actual logo associated with bitcoin not a random person's drawing that he or she uploaded to wikipedia. Fleetham (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal to move the "Units" section

I gave the position of the section a second thought. In my opinion it makes sense to put the section to a place where it precedes the first use. Since the "Ownership" section speaks about an amount of 7,500 bitcoins, the natural position looks to be immediately above "Ownership". Any objections? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

why not ownership down to "Units"?

as long as the mining section is in such awful shape, unable to explain in one sentence the gist, with a nonsensical sequence of elaborating the idea and awful language (To prevent double-spending... To keep the block chain consistent .... To prevent modification... The miner has to find ...) all else is dressing up a pig.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• It is off topic to discuss the contents of the "Mining" section here. You can, and did, use a more appropriate place to discuss it.
• To your question why not ownership down to "Units"? - simply because there is also the "Transactions" section taking advantage of the use of the satoshi unit, that is why such a change would not help. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Note about illicit purchases made with bitcoin

Someone recently added a footnote to the lede sentence that describes bitcoins as being used to purchase illegal items online. The note reads something along the lines of "bitcoins are 'just like cash' and people also buy non-illegal items with them too!"

This is completely unnecessary, and the fact that someone feels it's necessary to point this out again makes me think that this page is pushing a specific POV. Perhaps the note should include a mention of the illegal items that people do purchase with bitcoins online such as child pornography, drugs, and credit card details? Fleetham (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

David Andolfatto, a Vice President at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, analyzed many aspects of bitcoin. Andolfatto's findings advancing the knowledge about bitcoin are:

• he found out that bitcoin mining is a record-keeping service
• he pointed out that it is misleading to think that bitcoin mining is similar to gold mining
• he found a relation between bitcoin price, liquidity premium, and the tendencies to call bitcoin a speculative bubble
• he suggested that bitcoin will motivate central banks and other financial institutions to operate sound policies
• he mentioned that bitcoin facilitates illegal trading
• he listed the similarities and differences between bitcoin and cash when used for illegal purposes
• he mentioned that bitcoin facilitates legal trading

Andolfatto's analysis brings new claims: not that bitcoin is used for illegal trading (that is not a new claim, and it is already present in the article), but that it also facilitates illegal trading (that is a different claim). Similarly, Andolfatto's claim that bitcoin facilitates legal trading is different from Fleetham's claim that "people also buy non-illegal items with them too!".

Seeing the last three points above, it is not hard to find out that Andolfatto's point of view is neutral, mentioning both legal and illegal trading in bitcoin from a different (facilitating) perspective

@Fleetham: justifying your edit #633445806 you wrote: to dispel idea that "bitcoins are just like cash" - this is a typical noneutral edit, since:

• Your edit purports to "dispel" an opinion you previously deleted from the article. While you try to accuse another editor of making nonneutral edits, that is exactly what you are doing when trying to "dispel" an opinion that you deleted from the article.
• Your argument is a straw man, since what your edit is trying to "dispel" is not what Andolfatto stated, misusing the fact that the original claim is no longer present in the article, being deleted by you. Andolfatto mentioned both similarities and differences between cash and bitcoin in his analysis, i.e., made different claims than your made up "[bitcoin] is just like cash".

Summarizing the findings:

• you deleted claims made by a notable expert that is independent from bitcoin
• the deleted claims were presenting a neutral point of view
• you accused the editor inserting the claims from "pushing a specific POV",
• while that is exactly what your subsequent edits did, obviously violating the WP:NPOV policy
• I cannot give you even a benefit of a doubt that you did it in good standing, since WP:NPOV mentions: As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased.

Now, to conclude, the only suggestion I have got for you is to reread WP:NPOV before making any further edits to the related parts of the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Confusing terminology

In the "Media" section there's a reference to students at MIT receiving "$100 in bitcoins." Considering that $100 will (barring a crash) currently only purchase a percentage (potentially a small percentage) of one single bitcoin, shouldn't another term be used such as a percentage or satoshi? One reason why people are having problems getting their heads around the whole BC thing is because very few people in regular day to day transactions would actually spend multiple bitcoins, but fractions of. So presumably, unless the value of Bitcoin was really low when MIT did its allotment, it was actually a percentage of one bitcoin, like 0.01 or something, correct? (My fraction may be off, but you know what I mean.) There may well me similar examples in this article or others on Wikipedia related to the topic of Bitcoin, but if you guys want to make it easier for people to understand the concept, one way of going about it is using consistent terminology and making it clear that (based on current exchange) if someone has, say, 5 bitcoins this actually represents an equivalent investment of hundreds if not thousands of dollars. And if the value of BC goes up the way some have predicted, only the very rich will ever actually be able to possess one complete bitcoin. So "$100 in bitcoins" becomes meaningless. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 00:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The original source mentions "$100 worth of bitcoins", which the editor (I do not know who was it) transformed to "$100 in bitcoins". As far as I am concerned, I do not see "$100 in bitcoins" as a misrepresentation of the formulation "$100 worth of bitcoins". I think that your reservation applies equally to "$100 worth of bitcoins"... The problem is that we should not correct independent reliable sources. In particular, it is not reasonable to "correct" journalists telling them how they should formulate their thoughts. It is not hard for anybody to check the actual price of bitcoin to find out how many bitcoins "$100 in bitcoins" means, and taking into account the volatility of bitcoin, that is subject to change. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

68.146.52.234, thanks for the note, I see your point. When I added this sentence in May, I merely tried to add what I had read, oblivious of the fact that 100$ is a fraction of 1 bitcoin. As Ladislav pointed out, we cant correct the source. I also see no similar examples on this page or lack of consistency. --Wuerzele (talk) 06:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Mining remains poorly explained

I joined this page in February 2014, because I found mining was poorly explained. I returned back to this issue today, and I find the article lacks the following quintessential info (quoted after our reference 13, I believe, BITCOIN A Primer for Policymaker:BITCOIN A Primer for Policymaker):

Mining is a purely mathematical process. It is the computational search of "a sequence of data called a “block”, that produces a particular pattern when the Bitcoin “hash” algorithm is applied to the data". etc --Wuerzele2 (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

There are two explanations of mining in the article. The one in the Bitcoin#Mining subsection explains the accounting aspect of mining. The more complicated one is in Bitcoin#The modification attack and mining subsection, and explains the "security against ledger modification" aspect of mining. When compared to these, the formulation "Mining is a purely mathematical process" looks unclear and misleading. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav, thanks for your opinion. of course I am aware what we have written about mining under mining: It lacks the quintessential info of how it is done, as you seem to admit. It makes no sense to describe only an accounting aspect, or to define something so central at the end of the article. I think you misunderstood my point. Also I didnt suggest to use the sentence "Mining is a purely mathematical process." I said I quoted it, followed by "It is the computational search of "a sequence of data called a “block”, that produces a particular pattern when the Bitcoin “hash” algorithm is applied to the data". this sentence is neither unclear nor misleading.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It makes no sense to describe only an accounting aspect, or to define something so central at the end of the article. - understood. So you want the explanations to be merged and moved to the "Mining" section. That makes sense, since there already are parts of the text in the "Mining" section that just do not make sense without a more complete explanation. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The technical details of mining are well explained in Bitcoin network, so they do not have to be repeated here. All that matters for this article is that computing a valid block hash is so difficult that it determines the rate at which blocks are added to the chain. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 18:18, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Jorge Stolfi,thanks for your opinion. I think you misunderstood me. I am not suggesting to add "technical details of mining". also, there is no redirect to the bitcoinnetwork in the mining paragraph, so you cant call this a "repeat". I do think that, absolutely, yes, there should be a sentence of how bitcoins are created. A fork to Bitcoinnetwork is mentioned much lower under Bitcoin#software. first I doubt that anybody who seeks general info reads that far, and this section right away goes into detail, without ever mentioning the basics , the "computational search of "a sequence of data called a “block”, that produces a particular pattern when the Bitcoin “hash” algorithm is applied to the data".--Wuerzele (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping at it, editing, Ladislav. sorry for the late (hesitating) response. I am still not happy with it. I see tremendous detail which is good, but I dont see a one-sentence explanation for non-experts. Imagine you want to explain what bitcoin is to your grandmother or children or nieces and nephews if you dont have any.

I come back to my quote above "Mining is the computational search of "a sequence of data called a “block”, that produces a particular pattern, when the Bitcoin “hash” algorithm is applied to the data". For me this is half way there, because it expresses the ethereal and cryptographic nature although I have no idea of the hash algorithm). after that teh proof of work sentence should follow.

Re the latest edit: I think the first sentence ("To prevent double-spending of bitcoins it is necessary to keep the block chain consistent, complete, and unalterable.") and the second sentence "Maintaining the block chain is called mining" need to come after the basic info in teh third sentence. In other words the use of the concept 'mining' or the concept 'block' should come after explanation of the concept.

Is there a synonym for nonce? It is not good if you have to interrupt yourself to tell grandmother, son or niece to explain /read other wikipages to understand the most basic puzzle pieces.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

--Wuerzele (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• It looks our opinions in this case differ. I think that the formulation a sequence of data called a “block” is much less understandable than a group of transactions called a block not just for an "expert", but for everybody.
• I observe the same difference in that produces a particular pattern, when the Bitcoin “hash” algorithm is applied to the data versus that gives a hash smaller than a specific target number - the first formulation is not simpler to understand than the latter, it is just more obfuscated, to the point that it ceases to be understandable.
• I think the first sentence ... and teh second sentence ... need to come after the basic info in teh third sentence. - That is problematic, since the third sentence describes only a part of the work miner does (keeping the block chain consistent and complete), while the proof of work is another part of the work miner does (more demanding, in fact), keeping the block chain unalterable.
• It is not good if you have to interrupt yourself to tell grandmother, son or niece to explain /read other wikipages to understand the most basic puzzle pieces. - actually, the text is self-contained in the sense that it explains bitcoin nonce. The cross link is unnecessary for understanding, that is why I moved it to the "See also" section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

• I have no problem with the phrase a group of transactions called a block.
• The phrase that gives a hash smaller than a specific target number is completely unclear to me and cant stand alone/is not self-contained: Hash isnt explained and what target number is, is unclear. However ,that produces a particular pattern, when the Bitcoin “hash” algorithm is applied to the data although may be less detailed is simpler and understandable.
• This is the most important part for me: the concept 'mining' and the concept 'block' should be explained before stating why they are employed.

--Wuerzele (talk) 03:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• "that gives a hash smaller than a specific target number" is completely unclear to me and cant stand alone/is not self-contained: Hash isnt explained and what target number is, is unclear. - I strived above to make it clear that I used the formulation "self-contained" to refer to your reservations related to the nonce notion. It turns out, however, that the "self-contained" characteristic applies also to the difficulty target, which actually is explained in the text to be a number periodically adjusted by the network, used as the limit for the hash of a new block.
• To the "unexplained" use of the "hash" notion: the text explains important, and, in fact, defining properties of a "secure cryptographic hash":
  • the fact that there is only one method to find data yielding a particular hash - the method trying different candidate data one by one until the condition imposed on the hash is met,
  • and the fact that the probability of finding such data can be made low by adjusting the condition imposed on the hash
• In this sense the text is more self-contained than the alternative text that produces a particular pattern, when the Bitcoin “hash” algorithm is applied to the data you propose, which does not explain the notion of "hash algorithm" in any way. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry that I dont have an original alternative text but I believe a VERY simple sentence that reflects the truth needs to precede the section. I know you dislike simple ( call it oversimplification). I think the current version is unacceptably poorly explained/ difficult to understand and I will flag it.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

A note to the "nonce" notion: it is possible to explain that the word "nonce" is a short replacement for a "number used only once". In case of mining for every new block a new number is needed. Do you think this should be added to the section?

I believe a VERY simple sentence that reflects the truth needs to precede the section. - OK, I think there is a source for a simple sentence I can use. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I know you dislike simple ( call it oversimplification). - actually, I must apologize for my inappropriate wording. The fact is that the formulation Mining is a purely mathematical process. should not be called oversimplified. It is problematic for other reasons that have got nothing in common with simplicity:

• the notion of "purely mathematical process" is largely unknown, uncommon and unclear
• the formulation is uninformative, complicated, and inaccurate when compared to the concise and accurate Mining is a record-keeping service. by David Andolfatto, which is not just more accurate, but it also refutes the statement calling mining a "purely mathematical process". It is not a common practice to call record keeping a "purely mathematical process".

It is the computational search of "a sequence of data called a “block”, that produces a particular pattern when the Bitcoin “hash” algorithm is applied to the data". - while there is a computational search involved, this sentence is not explanatory, it is just superficial. The important information missing is the fact that the block chain is kept practically unalterable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir thanks for the many rounds of edits on that section!

I already said that I am sorry that I dont have an alternative text, and to plse forget the ref 13 example, which you repeatedly bring up. I never suggested to insert it as such, and think we are done discussing it, since you have so many issues with it. what is missing in the explanation of mining is the fact that it is the point of production for the currency unit, like the mint, only virtual and not physical in space. The other thing missing is that mining bitcoin is done "out of thin air". This is why I like the phrase 'purely mathematical process' (or something like that). I disagree by the way that the term mathematical process is largely unknown, uncommon and unclear. It's something a kid in elementary school can relate to.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:14, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

...and plse forget the ref 13 example, which you repeatedly bring up - I am sorry if it feels annoying, but my above contribution served me well as the means to focus on what was missing in the text.

...what is missing in the explanation of mining is the fact that it is the point of production for the currency unit... - I see that explanation already present in the "Supply" section: The successful miner finding the new block is rewarded with newly created bitcoins and transaction fees. As observed by David Andolfatto, miners do the same work as they will do when the network stops rewarding them with new bitcoins. In this sense, it is actually the network creating new bitcoins as a reward for the miners, not the miners themselves. Do you think that it would be useful to add this information in some form to the article?

The other thing missing is that mining bitcoin is done "out of thin air". - The Wire states in [1], Haters love to point out how bitcoin just appeared out of thin air. This suggests that the out of thin air formulation is not describing a fact, it actually presents an opinion. The facts of bitcoin mining already are listed (what mining is, why it is done, how it is done, what the reward is). It is possible to explain opinions, but opinions are not a matter of design. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit #633157351

@Fleetham: - I am glad you copy edit the article, but I disagree that your edit is a "copy edit". The edit is introducing too many errors to be acceptable as a copy edit:

• The sentence, which was previously true, now became false: ...bitcoin is commonly referred to with terms that include the word "currency". Some example are: digital currency, digital cash... - the term "digital cash" simply does not include the word "currency"
• The above word "example" should be in plural, referring to multiple examples.
• The formulation "has some way to go" is what is stated in the cited source, and
  • you either think that your updated formulation has a different meaning (I can agree with such an opinion), but in that case you contradict the cited source, or
  • you think that your updated formulation has the same meaning (I can agree again), but in such case I prefer to use the original formulation, which, in this case, is equivalent.
• The new formulation: "bitcoins are the unit of account" is a mismatch of number, "unit" is singular, and the grammatically correct formulation is "bitcoin is the unit of account". Your edit repeats this number mismatch twice.
• Formulation: Various government agencies, departments, and courts have defined bitcoins differently. looks rather mistaken. I think that many words: "treated", "classified", "judged", ..., look more appropriate than "defined".
• Formulation: Journalists and academics likewise lack unanimous agreement on what to call bitcoins. - the word "lack" is what, e.g., JorgeGabriel disliked recently, and it may not be optimal in this case.
• ...what to call bitcoins ... declared it - another number mismatch.

Taking into account the sum of errors introduced, I cannot help but refuse the "copy edit" characterization as unjustified. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've gone ahead and made many of the changes... feel free to make add'l ones yourself. I'm not sure what you mean about my wording not being equal to the term "some way to go" in the source... And I didn't think it necessary to remove the term "digital cash" from the list of examples. I can't imagine including it will cause any confusion, but if you'd like to go ahead and take it out, please go ahead. Fleetham (talk) 22:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• OK, being asked to look after the "digital curency..." examples I just shortened the formulation to keep it true without needing to delete any particular term.
• As explained above, the "has some way to go" formulation is directly supported by the cited source. Since there is no change in the source, there is no need to change the formulation. That is why I restored the wording.
• The formulation: " and, although bitcoin is the unit of account for the payment protcol and are not used as a unit of account outside of it." is a disaster. Problems:
  • "protcol" is a typo
  • "is ... and are" is still a mismatch in number
  • the formulation: "...although bitcoin is ... and ..." does not make sense, in fact

In my opinion it is much better to restore the previous wording until a better wording is found, the present one does not fit this criterium. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Fleetham, I wholeheartedly agree with Ladislav Mecir. I would have reverted that edit today if it had been possible.

Apart from the points already made I have seen you repeatedly putting the director of the Institute for Money, Technology and Financial Inclusion at the University of California-Irvine prominently at the beginning. I dont see what makes this one prof of Anthropology and Law so special, compared to the universe of voices about this issue. Can you explain? It reinforces my impression that you think (and want readers to think) he is the authority. I have a problem with putting this ONE opinion on the top and prefer where it was all the time, at the bottom. You also again (re)inserted, if I remember correctly, the term "despite this", which is not logical and in general should be avoided because its editorializing.

I dont know why you wrote "journalists and academics likewise lack unanimous agreement"- the beforementioned were academics. And that they are not agreeing on something in flux is a platitude, no need to mention, as the facts speak for themselves --Wuerzele (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, it looks that Wuerzele is right. The formulation despite this is illogical, since it is, in fact, the other way around. It is not true that Professor Irvine expressed an opinion, and others, despite of the opinion, chose otherwise. The truth is that many sources used and still are using the terms like "digital currency", etc., and Prof. Irvine made his single comment despite of the actual use. In this view, the formulation gives undue weight to a single opinion, while the previous wording was more balanced. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, if you take at look at WP:UNDUE, it states that "neutrality requires each article or other page in the mainspace to fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." WP:VER says that "If available, academic... publications are usually the most reliable sources." The fact that an academic whose specific area of expertise is relevant to bitcoin made the pronouncement dictates its superior position in the text. The idea that bitcoin is not a currency is actually more prominent among the sources that wikipedia deems most reliable. Fleetham (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Likewise, the rational behind why bitcoin is not a currency is expressly spelled out by those who discuss the issue, and the idea that bitcoin is a currency seems to revolve around the idea that "bitcoin is a currency because people say, 'crypocurrency' often."

Just because someone says, "crypocurrency" gives us little indication that their viewpoint is "bitcoin is a currency," whereas we know the viewpoint of those who don't think bitcoin is a currency because the theory behind that is spelled out. People will say, "bitcoin is not a currency because of X, Y, and Z," but no such defense of bitcoin as a currency exists. Use of the word "cryptocurrency" is not a viewpoint. Fleetham (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Curiously, citing the actual source used: "The virtual currency — straight up: computer money", i.e., the very source cited calls bitcoin "virtual currency" and "computer money".

Yet another problem is that contradicting your above informations, the source is not an academic publication as you are trying to convince us, but a USA Today article, i.e., just a single source that is in no way more prominent than the other sources mentioning the use of the "virtual currency", etc., notions.

Taking all the known facts into account, WP:UNDUE is more than justified. It is also advisable to note that your informations are heavily biased, and not just in this case. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's a quote from an academic. I'm unsure how that devalues its credibility. Also, you have in no way addressed my primary concern: that the idea bitcoin is not a currency is an actual viewpoint with a theory behind it whereas Wikipedia editors are simply assuming that people who say, "cryptocurrency" hold the viewpoint that bitcoins are money. Again, while there are multiple reliable sources that spell out reasons WHY bitcoins are not a currency, there does not seem to be a single source that explains WHY bitcoins are one. The idea that "bitcoins = money because people say 'cryptocurrency'" is a very poor argument. In fact, it's a Tautology. Fleetham (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Fleetham, you're absolutely right, Maurer is an academic. And I do thank you for having brought him up in that USA Today reference you inserted, which quoted him, albeit 'fleetingly' . I did look Maurer up at the time to learn more about his work and views. And I even inserted a sentence from him under 'political economy' yesterday which, alas, was deleted as being a minority view ! So it goes! As stated above: I dont see what makes this one prof of Anthropology and Law so special to you, that you assign him quasi-authoritative status, compared to the universe of voices about this issue. please reply.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

"I'm unsure how that devalues its credibility." - the credibility of the source is like the credibility of any journal article, since it is a journal article. That is not a problem. What is hurt is the credibility of your claim that the discussed source was an academic publication. As for the quality of the other argument you mention, that is again a problematic thing (straw man), since such an argument is not present in the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the PA. Anyway, perhaps this cartoon makes my point in a more easily digested fashion... Fleetham (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Fleetham, hello-o ! Whom are you talking to?

Which WP:PA? I see no PA and nothing was removed.

The comic is no real reply. Is it to gloss over the serious mistakes you made in the edit? Mistakes that as Ladislav pointed out, are not a one-time problem, and which I consider WP:disruptive editing (see Talk archives). To me at least this cartoon makes no sense in the discussion we are having and looks like you are dodging the issues. --Wuerzele (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I wish to remove the statement: "Volatility has little effect on the utility of bitcoin as a payment processing system."

The statement "Volatility has little effect on the utility of bitcoin as a payment processing system," is not valid. I intend to remove it from the article. The author of the quoted reference actually stated: "I agree with Timothy Lavin that the price swings of the last few weeks are a bad sign for Bitcoin's long-term viability, since no currency with such crazy volatility will ever be trusted as legitimate money." The bitcoin price is still volatile. Price volatility is an acknowledged problem in the bitcoin payment processing system. JorgeGabriel (talk) 17:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The part of the source you cite is not the part describing the utility of bitcoin as a payment processing system. There is a more relevant part of the cited source related to the claim you refer to: In a system like this, it wouldn't matter if bitcoins were trading at $600 or $6 million, since the money would only stay in bitcoin for a millisecond or two before being converted into another country's currency. Another, different source states: ...there are cases where exchange rates don’t matter at all. Online gambling, for example, is all about bearing risk for the fun of it. If you’re putting your cash on a virtual roulette wheel, the volatile exchange rate might only add to the excitement. Similarly, people have begun using bitcoin as a way to tip people on reddit. Here too, it’s hard to see any harm from a fluctuating exchange rate. A final example is international money transfers. People sending money to relatives overseas are already familiar with exchange rate risk. If the time between buying bitcoins at one end and selling them at the other is small, the risk of losing money due to exchange rate changes will be similarly small. I guess that the second source looks better since it lists more cases in which volatility does not matter. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Jorge Gabriel, aside from Ladislavs correct explanation, is it possible that you overread in the sentence you quote from the source, that the author referred to bitcoins volatility as limiting its utility as legitimate money?--Wuerzele (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Even in the USD and other relatively stable currency markets, businesses take out forward contracts to "protect" themselves against the currency risk - in "relatively stable" markets. I noticed on Coindesk - or somewhere - that you can pay 1/2 percent to protect yourself against volatility. 1/2 % is a huge fee. The cost of the protection is not the point. I just think that it is not reasonable to state that volatility has little effect on the utility of the bitcoin payment process system. It has an effect and it is dealt with in the normal way markets dealing in low volatility currencies deal with the matter. And bitcoin is accepted as a high volatility market. The basic premise of the statement is wrong. In my view it has an effect: the normal effect of volatility in a currency market (a virtual currency in this case). JorgeGabriel (talk) 08:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I see the issue has now been addressed in the text. JorgeGabriel (talk) 09:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

A possibility to add a chart

Hi, I added a Huffington Post article containing several interesting charts to external sources. In particular, I find the chart displaying the relative difficulty of mining (the relative difficulty at the time of bitcoin inception being defined as 1, higher number meaning that the mining is more difficult) interesting. If I understand it well, I should not just copy the chart from the article. However, the article contains a reference to the source of the data, which is Blockchain.info, and I can recreate the chart using the original source. Is there a consensus to add such a chart to the "Mining" section? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes add it. Fleetham (talk) 01:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir before going through the trouble of re-creating next time, consider checking with the source if they would "donate" their figures for the commons, for wikipedia. They might!--Wuerzele (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: hi, thank you for the suggestion. (I previously had a negative experience with a request for donation to the article, which seemed like a sure bet to me. Do you think you would be able to get a photo of Hal Finney for the article this way?) The positives of the recreation are:

• I learned how to work with Libre Office (did not use it before, and it looks usable). Next time it will be much easier for me to create a chart.
• can update the charts if such a need occurs
• the recreated charts use a larger range of dates than the Huffington Post article, capturing esentially all data available from Blockchain.info
• I used a logarithmic scale for the "relative difficulty axis" of the relative difficulty plot, which is a natural fit for the growth observed; if you compare Chart #4 in the article using a much smaller date range and the relative difficulty plot, you may find out that there is a significant difference in readability
• I removed the notes and titles from the charts, intending to put them to captions, where they should be more readable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

yes, I know there's always upsides and yes, I saw you did a really very good job. Thank you. tell me whom to write to for a Hal Finney photo (his widow probably?) and I ll do it. --Wuerzele (talk) 08:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: I tried to contact his widow through twitter, but no success. Nevermind. There may be another way. I thought about finding some photos on Internet and asking the respective publisher for donation, what do you think? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2014 (UTC)