Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Analysis of bitcoin price drivers

Hi, I found this source to be interesting. Is it acceptable for the article? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

why not? we have now several arXiv articles. I remember Fleethamn objected to the first one I added and reverted, but not since. but I think the summary, sticking to a short sentence may be difficult. --Wuerzele (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Is it noteworthy? There are many, many theories, models, types of analysis, views out there, technical analysis, Elliot waves, moving averages, etc, etc, about what drives any speculative item´s price. Are you going to cover them all? This one about "wavelets" I have never heard about. I think it fails noteworthiness, for starters. JorgeGabriel (talk) 15:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of bitcoin price drivers is noteworthy. This particular paper is not - in my view.JorgeGabriel (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I sometimes judge remarkableness by looking at the contents of the article. Elliot waves and wavelet analysis have in common as much as astrology and astronomy (they have stars - astrum - in common, similarly as Elliot waves and wavelet analysis have waves in common, and that is not where the analogy ends). Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@JorgeGabriel: I find yet another part of your above comment to be interesting. It is the use of the term speculative item. I am not sure what exactly you mean by that, because, perhaps surprisingly for you, this notion is not notable enough to be explained in Wikipedia. In contrast to that, the subject of the article we are discussing here looks much more notable, let me just point you to the number 259 representing the count of unique citations verifying the claims in the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Please present the paper in the article. I am sure I will find it interesting. I was just thinking that if the article were to address the question about what drives the bitcoin price, then a discussion of the normal ones would be well accepted in the article. I was just surprised that a completely unknown or new view should be the one presented first. Please present the article. I for one will find it interesting. JorgeGabriel (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I am sure once there is a "Bitcoin Price Drivers" sub-section, then all the other normal ones will be added over time. This would be a starting point. I think price drivers should be included. JorgeGabriel (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest. I do not intend to take advantage of the consensus. I think that it will be best to present the interesting findings here to make sure there is a consensus on them. Wuerzele has also the right to check what I intend to present. Just as an explanation, the wavelet analysis is a general tool used to analyse many types of data. It is in no way specific to pricing. Popular applications are: analysis of sound (many modern sound compression methods are based on wavelet analysis), picture and video analysis, studies in geophysics, ... Summing up, wavelet analysis is becoming a common tool to analyze many types of data.

The article analyzed drivers of the exchange rate between Bitcoin (BTC) and the US dollar (USD) between 14 September 2011 and 28 February 2014, and the conclusion was (citations in quotes):

"even though Bitcoin is usually labelled as a purely speculative asset, ... standard fundamental factors – usage in trade, money supply and price level – play a role in Bitcoin prices in the long term"

"increasing prices of Bitcoin motivate users to become miners"

"the prices of bitcoins are driven by investors’ interest in the cryptocurrency"

"Bitcoin does not seem to be a safe haven investment"

"even though the USD and CNY markets are tightly connected, we find no clear evidence that the Chinese market influences the USD market"

The conclusions may depend on the methodology used, but they are obtained using a commonly recognized analysis tool. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Some objective comments: "increasing prices of Bitcoin motivate users to become miners" appears to be a driver for (an increase in) mining and not a driver of the price. "Bitcoin does not seem to be a safe haven investment" is obviously not a driver of the price or is it taken as driving the price down? The statement that "even though the USD and CNY markets are tightly connected, we find no clear evidence that the Chinese market influences the USD market" is disputable since the Chinese market is by far the biggest market in the world with clearly many more trades per second (not just per minute) with always very clear and very detailed trading patterns being formed while this is very clearly not the case in the US market. The US shortest interval trading patterns are very "rough" or undefined: not intricately detailed (showing intense supply and demand market forces at work all across even the shortest price moves) like the Chinese ones. All the different known trading patterns always appear "beautifully" formed in the Chinese market as a result of the volume and intensity of trading taking place. It "appears" obvious - to me - that the Chinese market defines/dictates the market moves.JorgeGabriel (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Some objective comments: "increasing prices of Bitcoin motivate users to become miners" appears to be a driver for (an increase in) mining and not a driver of the price. - you are right, but the fact is that the analysis was performed to find the relations between the price of bitcoin and other factors (let's say "candidate price drivers"). The tools used were able to discern many types of correlations: no correlation, positively correlated, but no clear dependence, negatively correlated but no clear dependence, positively correlated, price depending on the factor, positively correlated, the factor depending on the price, etc. The article simply presents the results obtained. As for the relation between US market and Chinese market - the result was surprising, but it is the result obtained, not something you are supposed to agree with. Perhaps surprising for you, but your comment is not objective in this regard. Nevermind, I do not push for reflecting the results at all costs, that is why I asked here. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Alternative to national currencies

While bitcoin is called an alternative currency, that is not what the section is about. The contents describe the situation when it is used as a hedge against inflation and financial crises. That is why I propose to replace the title by "As hedge". Another alternative that comes to mind may be "Safe haven". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

According to you, the paper you want to present specifically stated: ""Bitcoin does not seem to be a safe haven investment". So, that certainly rules out "safe haven". It certainly is not a safe haven during 99.9% of the time. Only under extremely bad financial conditions in a country, for example, during the crisis in Cyprus, even volatile and decreasing in value bitcoin was seen as a safe haven, but, in order to keep your asset in a place the government cannot confiscate it. If you left your local money or even USD in your bank account, many governments (Argentina) simply go and take your money. During the Cyprus crises there was also talk - at one stage - about depositors possibly being required to make good part of the losses. People went into bitcoin to take their money out of the Cyprus banks. So, only under extreme situations can bitcoin be seen - possibly - as a safe haven for a short time to solve a specific problem. It is certainly not seen as a long term safe haven in the way many people treat gold as a long term safe haven against all the financial problems in the world. Even the idea that it is an alternative to national currencies in any way is wrong in my opinion. It is not real money. It is not legal tender anywhere. It is not relatively stable. It is very wrong to think of it as a hedge against inflation. In the vast majority of the world economy, inflation is rather low: 2 to 10%. Very volatile and generally decreasing in real value bitcoin is definitely not a hedge against normal low inflation. Again, in a very extreme situation of hyperinflation it, of course, could be used as some sort of hedge, especially when it is difficult to buy US Dollars. The current problem is that it is very difficult to put a lot of money into bitcoin as a hedge in Venezuela (hyperinflation) and Argentina (very high inflation) since no-one is interested in accepting the fast depreciating local currencies as payment for going into bitcoin. So, bitcoin is possibly, only a hedge in very rare, very extreme situations. Gold is seen as a hedge all the time. JorgeGabriel (talk) 13:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "As hedge" looks less controversial. As you correctly point out, there is no need for everybody to share the same worries, it suffices if some worried people use bitcoin as a hedge. "Even the idea that it is an alternative to national currencies in any way is wrong in my opinion." - there are reliable source verifying that there is an opinion that bitcoin is an alternative currency, it is also possible that some sources think that bitcoin isn't an alternative currency, although I do not remember seeing that opinion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I think what is important is that the term "under exceptional circumstances, like very high inflation and hyperinflation" should be added. It is used as a hedge, "only under exceptional circumstances." It is not the normal course of business. JorgeGabriel (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

We are discussing the title of the section here. I understand it that you dislike the "Safe haven" title. Am I to understand that you propose a third candidate? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is Alternative to National Currencies being discussed under the Bitcoin Price Drivers section? Is the fact that it is sometimes (very rarely) used by a small number of people as an alternative to a national currency during high inflation being seen as a bitcoin price driver in general? JorgeGabriel (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Typo. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Going back to your original statement: Yes, I agree with you that the title is not correct. I think the last part of the second sentence of your original statement could be a good heading: "Hedge against inflation and financial crises." It is a bit long for a title and I would even like to add "high" to inflation which would make it even longer. Maybe "Hedge against financial crises" could be a good title, since high inflation, in principle, is also a financial crisis. JorgeGabriel (talk) 16:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Also "financial crises" excellently implies that it is exceptional in application - that is, not a general (every day) attribute.JorgeGabriel (talk) 16:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "Hedge against financial crises" looks as a compromise, since the title should not be long. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Speculative bubble

The "Speculative bubble" section presents 5 different opinions ranging from "Bitcoin is a speculative bubble" to the rejection of the term. It is a matter of dispute whether bitcoin is a speculative bubble or not. The section name is not neutral, picking one of the opinions and presenting it as a fact. I am sure that a more neutral section name can be found. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I think since of all opinions cited only the last refutes speculative bubble, the title is justified. If you really worry about it, I think posing the subsection title as a question would do justice. Ladislav, easy does it. Dont fix what ai'nt broken...--Wuerzele (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, Wuerzele, that is not what the sources state, in fact. Even the second opinion that mentions that bitcoin has got many (but does not state all) properties of a speculative bubble, is actually not presenting the opinion that bitcoin is a speculative bubble, and the only opinion we can find stating that bitcoin is a speculative bubble is just the first. Every other opinion states something else. As for your "Speculative bubble?", suggestion, I have got a different idea, which looks more neutral: let's use: "Speculative bubble dispute", or "'Speculative bubble' dispute". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, then I think the section is NOT written well. I wrote the above merely after reading the section, not the sources.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

To explain it: to fit a specification, the thing must have all the properties required, not just some, or many of them. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 03:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

to fit a specification, the thing must have all the properties required.: According to whom? that's no universal law. maybe in your line of expertise/ work/ computer science. in my line of work there's shades of grey with classical vs probbale or likely, not binary. you know i am not an economist but it seems more like a social science to me with room for "probable".--Wuerzele (talk) 03:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

"According to whom? that's no universal law." - well, I (and I bet that you too) would not accept as ice cream something that has all the properties and ingredients of an ice cream except for being frozen. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Nevertheless, my opinion is not relevant. I just observe that there are two citations presenting an opinion that "bitcoin is a speculative bubble" and that there are other (distinct from each other) citations not presenting that opinion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Now, I think that the section is written well. I just want the title to reflect its contents, and my idea of neutral wording of the title is 'Speculative bubble' dispute, or Speculative bubble dispute, whichever is more acceptable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

BTW, another section underwent a similar procedure until it finally acquired a neutral name: "Classification". I understand that some of the editors wanted to underline that bitcoin does not fit the most widely used economic definition of money (and I do agree that it does not), while others wanted to use a title underlining that it is classified as money by some sources, and neither of the titles was neutral. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Article: 'Bitcoin Volatility – The 4 perspectives' as a source

@Wuerzele: your edit #634475859 uses the following justification: "Bitcoin magazine is a primary source". I do assume good faith, but your justification turns out to be poorly researched:

• WP:USEPRIMARY defines primary sources. It states:
  • "In science, data is primary"
  • "A secondary source is built from primary sources. Secondary sources are not required to provide you with a bibliography, but you should have some reason to believe that the source is building on the foundation of prior sources"

Examining the article you marked as a primary source, it is very easy to find out that the sources of the data (the primary sources) used in the article are:

• bitcoincharts.com
• Yahoo! Finance, and
• quandl.com

This makes it easy to judge that the discussed article is a secondary source. Based on this evidence, I find your edit unjustified, and have to revert it for that reason. Hope you will do a better job next time. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Whoa! I merely flagged the source as "third party source needed" And I still think so.

Bitcoinmagazine is a questionable source at this time. I strongly question the independence of writers and the editorial board from the matter. The Executive Producer is co-founder and CEO of BitPay, another Board member is the Executive Director at Bitcoin Foundation, the third is an ardent defender of Bitcoin in his RunForGold enetrprise, another is a Bitcoin developer, running a mining pool and the last is on Bitcoin Foundation’s China Chapter and Director of mybitfund. All members are ripe with a conflict of interest. This introduces bias. The publisher is Coin Publishing Ltd, not independent either, and I wonder if this qualifies as self-publishing. Certainly looks self-serving.

Re primary secondary source:I apologize for writing primary source in the edit summary at 2am or whatever (cut me some slack, man), but the gist is: this magazine should be used as little as Bitcoin.com or bitcoin.org refs.

Before I forget I think your section headings are accurate, but insiderish in their technicality; Please use everyday descriptions, so others can get an idea what's being discussed, if they look at this page. Thanks for your work.--Wuerzele (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You now changed your mind and I should have guessed that and written the section name accordingly? How was I supposed to guess? I was only able to resolve what there was to resolve: revert an incorrectly justified test edit.

I strongly question the independence... - question whatever you like, and please do your research properly first, I see that you did not do it yet. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav, no, the was no test edit! I dont understand why you say I changed my mind ( I didnt) and "do your research properly first", because obviously I did my research first as explained above, and because of that, I think the flag that a third party reference is needed is justified. But: I did not want to edit war so I didnt reinsert it yesterday, before having this discussion about the source. Since you do not respond to my arguments above, that Bitcoinmagazine is not a WP:independent source I will reinsert it. --Wuerzele (talk) 02:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Since you do not respond to my arguments above, that Bitcoinmagazine is not a WP:independent source I will reinsert it. - I did respond, saying that you did not do your research properly. Your above (as I mentioned improperly researched) allegations are suffering from several fallacies. I already observed the "hedging" fallacy - you completely changed the meaning of your words after I refuted your original justification. Now your above contributions also contain the Proof by verbosity fallacy, since there are many (purportedly true), but in fact contradicting each other "reasons" why the source cannot be acceptable. I can refute every of your allegations, but I do not intend to try to refute them all, since that would require me to write a refutation containing more than 10 thousand words. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 03:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: now I see that instead of taking seriously my suggestion to research the problem properly, you hurried up to push your opinion again. Due to the existing hedging fallacy and Proof by verbosity, I cannot refute all what you said above, but I refute enough to prove that your edit #634782486 is not justified by your above arguments. Your current claim I shall refute is: Bitcoinmagazine is not a WP:independent source.

• The first error you made and did not correct yet (although I already mentioned it above) is the fact that the source we are discussing is this article
• now, the author of the article is Radoslav Albrecht,
• while the publisher of the article is CoinDesk Coin Publishing Ltd
• it can be easily found out that the author is actualy an external contributor, not being the member of the Bitcoin Magazine team
• the primary sources of the data conveniently listed in the article and already mentioned above are independent from both the author and the Bitcoin Magazine
• These facts refute your above this qualifies as self publishing, since by WP:USESPS Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same.
• Now to your claim that the source is not WP:IS
• first of all, the data are from independent sources, and the article contains many charts created from the data and explanations of the volatility notion, characterization of bitcoin volatility as high, historic volatility, the analysis how the high volatility of bitcoin may influence several categories of people, and the last section of the article discusses possible causes and observed tendencies as seen in the charts.
• where the article discusses the properties of volatility claiming that the volatility is high, or where it discusses the possible reasons why the volatility is high, its findings are not noticeably distinct from the claims already present in the "Volatility" section. That is why I did not care to mention them. The only part of the article bringing a different subject is the part analyzing the observed trend in the charts.
• The argument you used to support your claim that the source is not WP:IS is: The Executive Producer is co-founder and CEO of BitPay.
• I see more than one reason why this argument is wrong:
  • The Editor in Chief is Ruben Alexander, i.e., a person distinct from the executive producer,
  • while the executive producer is involved in new business development, marketing and customer service, i.e., not in the contents of the articles
  • moreover, even if the publisher was the BitPay, it is unclear how exactly does that make the source "not independent", since the BitPay is known to both sell and buy bitcoins. It is obvious that if BitPay produced bitcoins and then just sold them, its vested interest would be to keep the price high. Similarly it is obvious that if BitPay just bought bitcoins, its vested interest would be to keep the price low. In the case when BitPay does both buying and selling, and lives off fees, the vested interest in price is actually zero.

Regarding your arguments related to Jon Matonis, they have the same level of relevance, but I do not intend to continue, seeing that this rebuttal is already both convincing that you:

• did not do your research properly,
• and are piling irrelevant arguments

Having refuted your justification again, I see that your edit specified above is unjustified, and am reverting it for that reason. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav, I had to look up Proof by verbosity, which I have never heard before. I am sorry that you feel that way. I have no intent to intimidate. I do not see my argument loaded with jargon and appeal to obscure results. So I dont quite understand this.

I know and knew all of what you "pile up" (your term, more justified ) before I inserted the flag, though. your accusations listed above are without substance:

• Re "The first error you made and did not correct yet is the fact that the source we are discussing is this article": I refer to that source, exactly, so there's no error.
• Re "Radoslav Albrecht is an external author" Yes, I know.(Maybe you even know him personally?) That in and by itself does not refute a lack of independence. Many commercial sources will invite external authors, whose view fits theirs.
• Re this qualifies as self publishing is your error, a misquote. I wrote "I wonder if this qualifies as self-publishing." because, yes, it doesnt fit the classic definition, but as I wrote "it looks self-serving."
• Re "The Editor in Chief is Ruben Alexander, i.e., a person distinct from the executive producer." Exactly, as was implicit in my comment.
• Re: "the publisher of the article is CoinDesk"- ?? what does that prove or refute? Besides, the publisher is Coin Publishing LLC., ≠ Coin Desk, to the best of my knowledge, which bought out the previous owner for cash and bitcoins.
• Re "you did not do your research properly." remains an unproven allegation. It is no reply to my argument, that at the core of my flag is the magazine's COI. I believe that Bitcoinmagazine is a source that has a vested interest in Bitcoin. It holds a financial relationship with the topic. Its not neutral and impassionate. Its easy for them to please advertisers etc etc This isnt easy to "prove" and it aint exact science. You are right it is an opinion, as these judgement calls usually are. I hope you understand better what I've meant all along.

I will not reinsert the flag. I have nothing against Albrecht's statement.

But I will change the section heading to what the core of this discussion is about: Is Bitcoinmagazine an independent source for our purposes? And I'd be interested in what other readers/ users think.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Is Bitcoin Magazine independent source for our purposes? - while this question looks relevant to you, it actually isn't. The independence depends on the topic as the WP:IS makes obvious. You are contradicting yourself when stating: "I refer to that source, exactly, so there's no error." while asking "Is Bitcoin Magazine independent source for our purposes?". Regarding the Bitcoin Magazine, that is not the source. As you already acknowledged, the source is the "Bitcoin Volatility – The 4 perspectives" article, and the proper way, therefore, is to ask whether the Bitcoin Volatility – The 4 perspectives is a WP:IS. Also, it was me who wrote the title of the section and I know how the title looked. You are simply using a hedging fallacy, trying to edit the title all the time. Due to the misrepresentation of WP:IS and other reasons such as the fact that this is a talk page and there is no need to change the wording other editors use and due to the hedging fallacy resulting in recurring attempts to reformulate the section name, I think that it is appropriate to use something neutral that won't need to change with every contribution. I change it to: "Article: 'Bitcoin Volatility – The 4 perspectives' as a source".

As for the Proof by verbosity fallacy, I do not wonder that you don't understand, neither do I. Instead of explaining that it means "verbose to reasonably deal with in all its intimate details" as stated in List_of_fallacies#Informal_fallacies, the link redirects to Proof by intimidation, which purports that "Proof by verbosity" is a purely "mathematical" fallacy. This is an obvious inconsistency in Wikipedia, similar to another where I was recently redirected to a largely unrelated explanation of a dissimilar term. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Re "Radoslav Albrecht is an external author" Yes, I know.(Maybe you even know him personally?) - the fact that you know that Radoslav Albrecht is an external author demonstrates enough that you do know that the article is not self-published by WP:USESPS. Your above words, however, convince me that you ignore this information known to you and state I wonder if this qualifies as self-publishing regardless. Piling invalid arguments surely qualifies as a "Proof by verbosity" fallacy. Another obvious fallacy is the suggestion that I may know the author personally. No, I do not. What I do know personally is the contents of the article. I read it to learn more about bitcoin volatility. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

the publisher is Coin Publishing LLC - thank you for mentioning it, correcting the citations in the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Enhancing the "Price and volatility" section by adding a chart

Hi, I think that it is possible to enhance the "Price and volatility" section by adding a chart to it. There are already two sources containing charts related to the subject. One of the related charts is the chart #7 in the Bitcoin Charts, Finally article. The Bitcoin Volatility – The 4 perspectives also contains charts depicting bitcoin volatility. I guess that it would be best to take the above mentioned chart #7 as the basis. There are some issues I am having with the chart, though:

• The chart depicts only a small part of available historic data.
• The volatility is calculated on a 14-day basis. That is not standard, more common is to calculate volatility on a 30-day basis. The Bitcoin Volatility – The 4 perspectives does that.
• However, even the standard, 30-day basis seems to be much better suited for established assets or currencies than for the nascent bitcoin. The author of the Bitcoin Volatility – The 4 perspectives article acknowledges this fact stating that the volatility calculated this way "jumps from moderate values to values beyond 30%", while, in my opinion, it does not make sense to present such "moderate values", because they do not, in fact, represent the true volatility of bitcoin. The true volatility of bitcoin calculated on a yearly basis is, as professor Mark T. Williams also cited in the section revealed, significantly larger than 30%. Therefore, my idea is to add a "Price versus volatility" chart to the section, using a larger range of dates and volatility calculated on the yearly basis. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a chart would be good. A picture is worth a thousand words. Obviously, the chart has to be a log scale chart.JorgeGabriel (talk) 11:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

OK Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thinking of it, it makes sense to use the log scale for the USD/bitcoin axis, while the volatility axis and the date axis will look best linearly scaled. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:58, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course. The correct term is semi-log chart. However, the popular use in the press, etc. is to use log scale when they mean semi-log. Log-log scale is very rarely required. JorgeGabriel (talk) 13:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Ponzi scheme

@JorgeGabriel: your recent additions to the "Ponzi scheme dispute" section are unrelated to the subject. There once was a "Ponzi scheme" subsection in the "Criminal activities" section, which contained the news you are referring to, using even better sources than your contributions. The contents was removed by Fleetham. Please discuss here if you want the contents to be restored, I do not object against it, I just insist that this particular contents is not subject to dispute and does not belong to the "...dispute" section where you put it. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I would appreciate it if the contents could be restored. I do think it is noteworthy that there are sporadic instances of ponzi schemes using bitcoin. I agree with you that it is not relevant to the dispute whether the entire bitcoin concept is a ponzi scheme or not. JorgeGabriel (talk) 22:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I had a look at the article: the "Criminal Activity" subsection definitely needs a Ponzi Scheme subsubsection. JorgeGabriel (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, it is strange to deal with "Ponzi Schemes" in two locations. It seems logical to deal with it in one location. In order to justify two locations for dealing with the same subject, very distinctive headings should be used. I have no suggestions, at the moment. JorgeGabriel (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I restored the contents to the "Criminal activities" section. Feel free to improve it. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Report of the Federal Council (Switzerland)

Note 14 should be translated into English. This is the English Wikipedia. JorgeGabriel (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

To explain the note: per WP:A#Language it is possible to use foreign language sources if there are no equivalent sources in English. (In this case there aren't, the report by the Federal Council (Switzerland) is not available in English.) In such case, per WP:A#Language, " the original-language material should be provided too, preferably in a footnote, so that readers can check the translation for themselves", which is what I have done. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I follow the logic. JorgeGabriel (talk) 13:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I just found the English translation of the document, replacing the citation. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Achieving neutral point of view

To recap, before Fleetham made his edit #633586783, the wording of the note #7 was:

Bitcoin facilitates illegal trading like USD, gold, etc. It is like cash in facilitating illegal trades. The difference is that bitcoin transaction history is publicly available, while cash transaction history is not. Bitcoin also facilitates legal trading.

Fleetham justified his #633586783 as follows: "add further info to footnote for balance". I think that it is OK to achieve the WP:NPOV, but the current result is actually violating the policy, and here is why looks like needing a closer inspection:

• the first step to WP:NPOV is:
  • "Avoid stating opinions as facts", but also
  • "Avoid stating facts as opinions"
• Andolfatto's claims are all stated as facts, here is the list:
  • bitcoin facilitates illegal trading
  • USD, gold and cash also facilitate illegal trading
  • the difference between bitcoin and cash in facilitating illegal trading is that bitcoin transaction history is publicly available, while cash transaction history is not
  • bitcoin also facilitates legal trading
• To obtain the neutral point of view we need to check whether any of the claims listed is disputed. Here we may try to use Fleetham's help, since he added a bunch of other opinions intending to balance the note:
  • The Washington Post calls it "the currency of choice for seedy online activities" - I do not see this claim as a claim disputing any of Andolfatto's claims, is there a consensus on this? Otherwise, we need to know which of the Andolfatto's claims it contradicts.
  • CNN refers to it as a "shady online currency" - the same opinion
  • Bloomberg states that the ability to purchase child pornography online "seals Bitcoin’s virtually amoral status" - and once more the same opinion, I see it so that Andolfatto's claims do not speak about "moral" or "amoral" status
  • Eventually, let's see if any of Andolfatto's claims is disputed by a different source? For example, is there a source contradicting that bitcoin facilitates illegal trading? (Or contradicting some other claim?)
• After we are done with this examination, we can proceed further, I am pausing here to obtain the necessary input. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• This edit is unecessary and does not need to be expounded upon in the introduction to Bitcoin. Considering every government currency facilitates and is used for Illegal trade, it is not necessary to go into such great detail early in the article. It has been researched that less than 1% of Bitcoin's total volume is of illicit nature.[1] I respect Fleetham contributions but I believe this entire paragraph is flawed, and their could be a later subsection about controversy.
• In addition In June 2014, GQ journalist Marshall Sella concluded that what remained of the Silk Road black market site was one of the few places where one could purchase items for bitcoins.[28] is entirely a false comment, just because it is cited by a journalist. Less than 1% of bitcoin volume is drug related you can buy almost anything with bitcoin including donate to wikipedia.
• Please correct the false statement about where Bitcoin can be purchased: [2]

Creationlayer (talk) 11:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC) - My comments are as follow (apologies if formating is not standard)

Hi, Creationlayer. Welcome to the dispute. I slightly edited the formatting just in case you want to know how it is usually done:

• Use ':' at the start of the text to indent it. (this helps a reader to understand that you are responding to the previous contribution)
• It is preferable for your signature to follow your contribution.
• I replaced the ref. you used by an external link. This form is preferable for the talk page.

To your list of places where bitcoin can be used to purchase goods or services: indeed, the text explicitly mentions just the Silk Road, not mentioning any other place. You are right that it is not neutral, and it has to be balanced. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC) The same reservation is true for the list of items that can be purchased with bitcoin. The paragraph contains this list: "child pornography, credit card details, and drugs", while not listing any legal goods or services. Creationlayer is right that it is unbalanced. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't think I fully understand the argument... I'm not sure where in WP:NPOV it states that material can only be added if it directly challenges material that already exists in the article. I think it's very clear that Mr. Andolfatto's view and that of the major new sites differ when it comes to bitcoins and illegal purchases. The major news sites seem to view the ability to purchase things like child pornography as having a major impact on their perception of bitcoins and its "moral status" while Mr. Andolfatto's statements do not address stigma or public perception. Basically, I don't believe that Mr. Andolfatto's statement covers "all of the significant views" on bitcoin being a facilitator of illegal trades. WP:NPOV states that "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."

I'm not sure where in WP:NPOV it states that material can only be added if it directly challenges material that already exists in the article. - you are right in what you are saying. There is no such statement, but I do not think I pretended there is one, did I? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

So, when you talk about bitcoin being a facilitator of illegal trades, one view is that "bitcoin facilitates both legal and illegal trades, and another view is that "because bitcoin facilitates illegal trades, it has a stigma." Ladislav's argument seems to be that because neither of these viewpoints directly contradicts the other, only one view should be represented in the article. Fleetham (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav's argument seems to be that because neither of these viewpoints directly contradicts the other, only one view should be represented in the article. - of course not, that is a misunderstanding. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Summarizing the above discussion, it looks that there is no contest that Andolfatto's views in note#7 are presented correctly and in a way compliant with WP:NPOV. Thanks, Fleetham, that is what I wanted to know. Now to the need to balance aspects, which is what Fleetham appears to be worried about. Indeed, there is a requirement per WP:NPOV to represent the aspects giving different points an appropriate weight. Here are the facts:

• as Fleetham correctly pointed out, the other claims inserted to note#7 present a different information than Andolfatto's claims, namely the fact that The major news sites seem to view the ability to purchase things like child pornography as having a major impact on their perception of bitcoins and its "moral status"
• following the Andolfatto's claims there is an editorializing sentence starting with "Despite this", which builds a false impression that the claims contradict each other, which they do not, as Fleetham acknowledges.
• the "moral status" claims added to note#7 are copies of the text already present in the article
• Andolfatto's facilitation-related observations are not represented in any other place in the article, they are only in note#7

Summing up, the editorializing "Despite this" is misleading and inappropriate. The claims inserted to the end of note#7 are already present in the article. Deleting them from note#7 will improve the readability of the note, while not disbalancing the text of the article in any way. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:34, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

As explained here, I removed the duplicates of the claims already present in the article. (see edit #635351791 and the justification I wrote here. Fleetham reverted using this unjustified revert. I do not start any edit war, I am just pointing out that:

• the revert was unjustified
• the revert worsened the readability of note#7, making it much longer
• the revert inserted copies of the claims already existing in the article. It is not true that balace can be achieved by repetition of claims, quite the opposite is true. I see the repetition as an obvious example of undue weight. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's not really polite to post your view on a talk page and then remove cited material saying you're doing so "per talk." That indicates that a consensus was reached when in this case none was. Again, I struggle to understand the meat of your argument--it seems that for you, it's repetition of material that is most offensive. As I see it, that's what the lede is for... to summarize the article. Perhaps the material should be removed from the note and placed in the lede itself? That would allay your stated concerns of repetition (the lede is nothing but a repetition of material stated in the body of the article) and the readability of the note (moving the material to the lede would reduce the note's length). Please let me know what you think! 11:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Fleetham: You wrote: it's not really polite to post your view on a talk page and then remove cited material saying you're doing so "per talk." That indicates that a consensus was reached when in this case none was. - I do not think this is the proper forum to discuss politeness. However, I see this as the proper forum to discuss accuracy of statements:

• regarding my purported removal of the cited material: you justified your edit #635045120 as follows: replaced "despite this" per talk page request. This confirms that you were aware of my summary finding that the editorializing "Despite this" is misleading and inappropriate. and that The claims inserted to the end of note#7 are already present in the article. Deleting them from note#7 will improve the readability of the note, while not disbalancing the text of the article in any way.
• Taking into account that you did not take the opportunity to respond to the finding while being aware of it for some time, I find your claim that there was no consensus inaccurate and misrepresenting verifiable facts.
• In the light of the finding that the cited claims remained in the article, your formulation remove cited material is yet another claim misrepresenting the known facts.

Re: --it seems that for you, it's repetition of material that is most offensive. As I see it, that's what the lede is for... to summarize the article. - frankly, I do not think there is something "offensive" in the text of the article. I just see a problem with readability of the note - the note is not supposed to restate the text that can be found next to the place where the note is used. To not forget about the due weight in relation to the purpose of the lead section to summarize the article:

• The article currently cites 267 distinct sources.
• The lead section contains 5 paragraphs.
• The duplicate text added to the note#7 cites 3 of the article sources, i.e., it represents 1% of the cited sources.
• The paragraph #4 already summarizes claims verified by those 3 sources, specifically it says: Bitcoins are used to purchase illicit items—including child pornography, credit card details, and drugs—at deep web black markets,... In June 2014, GQ journalist Marshall Sella concluded that what remained of the Silk Road black market site was one of the few places where one could purchase items for bitcoins. This summary looks quite sizeable in relation to the actual weight of the cited sources.
• Your question: "Perhaps the material should be removed from the note and placed in the lede itself?" disregards the fact that the summary already is present in the lead section. I cannot believe that you honestly think that restating all claims once more would give the 1% opinion the due weight. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Fleetham I dont think your #633586783 edit was reasonable. I agree with Ladislav. I dont agree with your reactions and replies above, which are more emotional (accusation of impoliteness) than guided by facts. It's neither fair nor justified to say Ladislav is pushing his opinion. You two may have differences in opinion, and I see yours incorporated, but you for one are not adhering to WP rules by using editorializing and repeating. I find it very unwise to employ WP:ICANTHEARYOU, it's passive-aggressive and ultimately uncooperative. --Wuerzele (talk) 19:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, forgive me for being WP:BOLD, but I moved the statements to the lede themselves. The main issue is one of fairly representing the major viewpoints on the issue per WP:NPOV, and I suggest editors reference this rule when they continue to discuss their agreement or disagreement with this decision. Simply saying, "I don't agree with you because I think you are emotional" isn't really a valid way to reach a rule-based consensus. Please remember that WP:NPOV states says "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." Fleetham (talk) 22:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, the significant views must be represented fairly and proportionately. That is why I spent the effort to calculate the proportions. Your edit #633586783 may have been WP:BOLD. However, repetition in general is not the proper way to WP:NPOV, and my proportional analysis reveals that the repetition not only did not bring any improvement as far as the proportions are measured, making a disproportionate mess of note#7. What is worse, your edit #635363006 still remains an unjustified revert going against the consensus that demonstrably existed at the moment you did it. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Fleetham: This is a dispute handling the neutrality of the article. To remind you, there have been these findings related to your edits:

• edit #633444683 violated WP:NPOV - As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased.
• edit #633445806 violated WP:NPOV, trying to "dispel" the opinion your previous edit #633444683 deleted from the article
• edit #633586783 put undue weight to opinions by unnecessarily repeating them
• edit #635363006 was an unjustified revert going against the existing consensus
• edits #635438273, #635438747 and #635439305 were disruptive edits ignoring the ongoing neutrality dispute explicitly warning you against unbalancing the article by unnecessarily duplicating claims (@Wuerzele: I had to warn Fleetham.) Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I reverted the contents of the paragraph #4 of the lead section to the status quo. That does not mean I am content with its present wording. There are issues that must be handled:

• The first sentence of the paragraph claims: Bitcoin has been a subject of scrutiny..., while the cited source states: A pair of Senate committees will hold hearings... It is not possible to use the will hold hearings.. formulation referring to an expected future event to confirm that the event actually did happen. (I mark the claim as dubious to signal that this issue must be resolved.) Moreover, the hearings had some result/results, and it does not make sense for the Wikipedia to inform about them using an article that just expects the hearings to happen. Alternatively, if the consensus turns out to be to just understand the hearings as a "historic" event, it may be possible to move this part to the "History" section.
• It is possible to summarize the opinions criticizing bitcoin, but it is necessary to give a properly weighted short summary, not a duplicate of formulations presented in the article body. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'd prefer that you "comment on content, not on the contributor" per Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Let's keep the conversation civil and focused on achieving a rules-based consensus. Fleetham (talk) 13:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

A simple explanation, if you did not notice it yet. All the edits listed above by me are edits related to the note#7 and the issues we are discussing here. I did not refer to any unrelated issues irrelevant to the present discussion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

No, no--it's not about "unrelated issues." It's about making WP:PA. Please be polite. Fleetham 22:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I continue the discussion about the content with respect to the neutral point of view. Above I proposed that the first sentence of the paragraph #7 of the lead section misquoted its source, pretending that the hearing actually "has been" held, while the source clearly stated that it was written by The Washington Post journalist Ryan Tracy on 5 November 2013 before the event started. The same Washington Post journalist Ryan Tracy wrote on 18 November 2014 2013: 'U.S. authorities, appearing Monday [18 November 2014 2013] at the first-ever congressional hearing on virtual currencies, outlined the pitfalls and promises of bitcoin amid concern the anonymity and decentralized nature of some virtual currencies can help facilitate crimes. The hearing provided a financial lift to bitcoin as U.S. officials, who have previously highlighted the currency's role in money laundering and other illicit activities, called it a "legitimate" financial service.' This is the actual report from the hearings containing facts from the hearings, not a preview written before the scrutiny started. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC) This demonstrates that the current first sentence of the paragraph #4 is nonneutral in presenting the preview opinion as a fact, instead of properly using the facts from the source informing about the event. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Taking into account that it is infeasible to list all items that can be purchased with bitcoins in the lead section, it is also inappropriate and nonneutral to list all illicit items that can be purchased with bitcoins. Therefore, the list of illicit items should be removed from the lead. Similarly, it is infeasible to list all opinions on bitcoin, therefore, to be nonneutral, it is also not avisable to list all the opinion Fleetham tried to introduce. Also, it is infeasible to list all the merchants offering goods or services for bitcoin, therefore one should not single out Silk Road either. To not leave out important informations, I propose to use this formulation replacing the current wording of the paragraph #4:

The first-ever U.S. congressional hearing on virtual currencies was held on 18 November 2014 2013. Authorities appearing at the hearing outlined the pitfalls and promises of bitcoin amid concern the anonymity and decentralized nature of some virtual currencies can help facilitate crimes. At the hearing, the officials who have previously highlighted the currency's role in money laundering and other illicit activities, called bitcoin a "legitimate" financial service.

The text is verified by above mentioned Washington Post article. The proposed wording represents the concerns that bitcoin can be used for illicit purchases balanced by the result of the senate hearings. Importantly, this wording also respects the reservations presented by Creationlayer, and does not present journalist opinions, but facts. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that you refrain from mentioning "anonymity" since that is very questionable right now. I remember seeing a report on the web about bitcoin transactions not being anonymous any more to investigating authorities with highly developed tools with them saying something about "even when they (the bad guys) use Tumblr".JorgeGabriel (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. To make the formulation both neutral as well as consensual, I propose this updated wording of the paragraph #4:

The first-ever U.S. congressional hearing on virtual currencies was held on 18 November 2014 2013. Authorities appearing at the hearing outlined the pitfalls and promises of bitcoin amid concern the virtual currencies can help facilitate crimes. At the hearing, the officials who have previously highlighted the currency's role in money laundering and other illicit activities, called bitcoin a "legitimate" financial service.

Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

"Can" should be "could", shouldn´t it? JorgeGabriel (talk) 18:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, the source says "can", and it is not the only source stating that. Actually, I do not doubt bitcoin can facilitate illicit trades as well as legal trades. (I know that there are criminals preferring cash for privacy reasons.) Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

What I mean with using "could", the conditional tense, is that we are not 100% sure that bitcoin would be used for criminal activities. Anything we state about crime is uncertain. Only if it were to be used as such (a condition, not a certainty) then "bitcoin could help to facilitate crimes". Using "can" means we are 100% sure bitcoin is used in crime and thus we are 100% sure bitcoin can falilitate those crimes. We are not 100% sure of that since we are not 100% sure of the crimes. We normally use "could" when we are not absolutely sure about something in the future. The proposed statement makes it look as if it is a good thing that bitcoin can do: great! bitcoin can facilitate crimes: that seems to be a good thing bitcoin is doing. What we actually wish to state is that only if bitcoin were to be used in criminal activities, then it could facilitate those crimes because of this and that. JorgeGabriel (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I do admit I am being a little pedantic. It is not that serious a matter. You can ignore it too, if you so wish. JorgeGabriel (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

What I mean with using "could", the conditional tense, is that we are not 100% sure that bitcoin would be used for criminal activities. Anything we state about crime is uncertain. Only if it were to be used as such (a condition, not a certainty) then "bitcoin could help to facilitate crimes". Using "can" means we are 100% sure bitcoin is used in crime and thus we are 100% sure bitcoin can falilitate those crimes. - and you think you are "pedantic" ;-). Now here is what "pedantic" looks like:

• I think that can facilitate does not mean that it is used that way. It just means that when used that way it will facilitate. As opposed to that, could facilitate means that the facilitating aspect is less certain.
• Wikipedia is not about what "we" think, it is about what the sources claim. In this case the source claims "can".

I understand your "You can ignore it too, if you so wish." to mean that we actually achieved the necessary consensus on the neutral wording of the paragraph #4, and therefore on the wording of the section. Thank you for your cooperation. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

:-) JorgeGabriel (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: thank you for correcting the mismatch in dates. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Creationlayer: @JorgeGabriel: @Wuerzele: - you may have already noticed that Fleetham made edits contradicting the consensus achieved above. I warned him that he is disrupting the consensus, but did not succeed to convince him to stop. The only way how to proceed further is if one of you tries to convince Fleetham to stop making edits that are not compatible with the WP policies. Thank you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Edits by Ladislav Mecir

90 minutes is not enough to establish a consensus, especially given that many of us work 9-5 jobs and can't keep monitoring your constant stream of edits. So I restored the content that you removed (thus pushing a biased POV). Vladimir old chap I think you need to take a small wiki-break from wiki-editing. You're constantly reverting and editing people's edits to push your pro-bitcoin agenda and there's hardly an opening for any other properly-cited yet somewhat-negative-to-bitcoin-aficionados to get a word in. Why not get off the computer and take a small holiday? When you come back, the article will be in much better shape. BoA-BTCopsec-14 (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

As I see, your account is younger than the consensus you are trying to disrupt. Please try to read Wikipedia policies and rules first. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, consensus is not "disrupted", it is changed. Secondly, your account is younger than a lot of the consensus you try to change, but that's equally irrelevant (and yes, I've seen the age of your account). - Aoidh (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Lack of consensus in lede

There doesn't appear to be a current consensus on how the lede should deal with the issue of criminality and bitcoin... While one editor (Ladislav) appeared to have gotten a consensus that the phrase "bitcoin is a subject of scrutiny" should be removed, the entire paragraph that began with that quote was removed and replaced by what appeared to be POV-pushing material... I went ahead and removed the "subject of scrutiny" phrasing from the lede, but further changes should be discussed. There's no firm consensus on removing an entire paragraph related to bitcoin being used in online black markets. Fleetham (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Your disruptive edits trying to override the consensus achieved above are not welcome. Regardless of your opinion, you were not supposed to start disruptive editing. You know better what the Wikipedia policies are. If the consensus was achieved, then you are not supposed to override it on your own. If you pretend it was not achieved, then the proper way would be to continue discussing instead of making disruptive edits. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Please don't act like you own the bitcoin page. Have you read WP:OWN? It is clear that you have a particular point of view to push regarding Bitcoin and will ceaselessly revert, label as vandalism or otherwise mess with edits that any other editor makes that don't fit with your particular point of view. I claim that it is you, Mr. Mecir, who is the main disruption to this article and call on you to solemnly reflect on your actions and whether you are, in fact, keeping with established Wikipedia policies. BoA-BTCopsec-14 (talk) 01:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Not being a criminal, I have never read (never had an interest in reading) the subsection about black markets until today. I have contributed content regarding Ponzi schemes since it is in my area of interest, namely finance. Having now read the subsection titled Black Market, I think that it is an excellent subsection and a summary of it should definitely appear in the lede. On a conceptual basis, I think I agree with the view in the subsection that bitcoin´s success has a lot to do with how perfect it is for criminal activity. Bitcoin wants to be money. It is not money. The closer bitcoin could get to money, the more successful it would be and the more it would be used in crime which would be good for bitcoin. A virtuous loop? :-) Money is perfect for crime and always will be. However, no-one would today try and do away with money because it is perfect for crime. The same applies to bitcoin. I am sure that the more perfectly bitcoin is used for crime, the more successful it will be in the future. In this respect, bitcoin has a lot of bad luck in the fact that transactions can be traced. That makes it worse for crime and also less like money. A doubly-whammy bad luck for bitcoin. So, bitcoin supporters should hope for (support) the perfection of bitcoin for crime.JorgeGabriel (talk) 12:23, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The lede is supposed to be a summary of what is in the body of the article. Is the following version a summary of what is in the article? "The first-ever U.S. congressional hearing on virtual currencies was held on 18 November 2013. Authorities appearing at the hearing outlined the pitfalls and promises of bitcoin amid concern the virtual currencies can help facilitate crimes. At the hearing, the officials who have previously highlighted the currency's role in money laundering and other illicit activities, called bitcoin a "legitimate" financial service.[26]". To me it appears - after a glance at the article - that this is not a summary of what is in the text. This is new content - not already in the article. Am I wrong? JorgeGabriel (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

...the more it would be used in crime which would be good for bitcoin... - while your opinion on this may be interesting, it is not appropriate here. The purpose of this talk is to discuss the contents of the article, not what is or isn't good for bitcoin. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

...This is new content - not already in the article. Am I wrong? - yes, the hearings are already described in the article, and the reference to the hearing was present in the lead section for long time before the neutrality dispute. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine. JorgeGabriel (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

I've added Ladislav's text about someone saying "legitimate financial service" at a US congressional hearing to the lede. It looks like there's a clear consensus to add this material. Fleetham (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Also please note that the same WSJ article used to cite the above-mentioned content also says the sole Senator who attended the hearing "expressed concern that virtual currencies are being used for crimes, including 'selling weapons, child pornography and even murder-for-hire services.'" Fleetham (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Bitcoin Foundation

A recent editor removed sourced content that explained that while many bitcoin thefts have occurred, the Bitcoin Foundation states that theft is impossible. The note left explaining this removal stated: "The Bitcoin Foundation clearly claims that theft is impossible if and only if the private key is secure. If that weren't the case, the system would not work. In every single instance of theft, the key was improperly secured."

This is false. The Bitcoin Foundation states, in full, "Cryptography is the key to Bitcoin's success. It’s the reason that no one can double spend, counterfeit or steal bitcoins. To ensure that Bitcoin is a viable money for both current users and future adopters, we legally protect the protocol and its many lawful, productive uses.". See this page.

No where in that is mention of securing private keys. Please take more care when editing...

Are you looking to have your edits reverted? Apologies in advance if that's a WP:PA... Fleetham (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

What is false? If it were possible to steal Bitcoin without first stealing the private key, the system would not work. This is a fact. I believe it is painfully obvious that Bitcoin Foundation does not state that the theft of a private key is impossible. "Cryptography is the key to Bitcoin's success" clearly assumes that the private key is kept private, not leaked in any fashion. I am reverting your revert. That statement adds nothing but confusion, especially if you read the following few sentences. Mrcatzilla (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Your statement itself may or may not be false. It may be absolutely factually true that you cannot ever steal bitcoin if the privatekey is properly secured (a proposition requiring varying levels of effort as in all cryptography, and admitting various definitions of "secured") - but this is not the proposition the Bitcoin Foundation makes. Sourcing commentary on bitcoin to The Bitcoin Foundation may have problems of its own, but you can only use a source for what it says. You cannot infer what they mean by "Cryptography is the key to Bitcoin's success". That no one can steal bitcoin is a pretty broad statement to make and it may be untrue without your qualification 'no one can steal bitcoin that has a properly secured private key'. But we're editors, not writers, and it is not for us to rephrase a statement to go beyond the literal interpretation of its text via synthesis or original research. Raeft (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I do believe our goal here is to create a reliable fact-based encyclopedia despite contradictory claims by different sources ripe for misinterpretation, is that not so? If so, I think it is reasonable to attempt to understand what the Bitcoin Foundation is implying by "Cryptography is the key [...]" Mrcatzilla (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Is it not true that all bitcoins exist only in the blockchain?. Thus, what were stolen were the access to the private keys or the private keys. All bitcoins "lost" or "stolen" in the past, means, in fact, that the access or the actual keys were lost or stolen. It is absolutely impossible for the bitcoins to leave (be removed) from the blockchain. Even the lost or stolen ones are still in the blockchain - now without legal owners? Or is that statement that "all bitcoins only exist in the blockchain" wrong? JorgeGabriel (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking here. Yes, Bitcoins only exist in the domain of SHA256, they have no other representation. Yes, the only possible way to swipe Bitcoin from the rightful owner is to somehow steal the private key. Bitcoin does not have a concept of legal ownership. The proof of ownership is the knowledge of the private key. If the knowledge of the private key is shared among more than one party, then at best you get shared ownership, until one of the parties who knows the private key moves the money to a different, non-shared, address, securing individual ownership. My point here is that the Bitcoin Foundation clearly assumes that the private key is not shared in any way, otherwise "Cryptography is the key [...]" is simply not relevant. The qualifier is implicit, but that doesn't mean we should intentionally misinterpret the claim. Mrcatzilla (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

"moves the money to a different, non-shared, address, securing individual ownership." You are wrong here, aren´t you? Nothing gets "moved" and there is no "money" involved. Bitcoin is not money. The bitcoins stay put in the blockchain - forever. The private key gets "secured" in a new location that is only accessible by one keyholder? JorgeGabriel (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC) I concede the key is moved. Not the bitcoins. Is that correct.? JorgeGabriel (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Obviously, your statement: "Bitcoin does not have a concept of legal ownership." cannot possibly be correct? JorgeGabriel (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems you have a misunderstanding of how Bitcoin works, I am going to attempt to correct that.

Bitcoin is essentially a reincarnation of the Rai stones, with the exception that instead of recording the ownership history of the token by oral tradition "everyone in the village knows that stone belongs to John", Bitcoin uses a decentralized cryptographically secure ledger (the block chain) to record ownership history. In addition, Bitcoin is an automaton and is completely disconnected from the physical world, unlike the stone money that was tied to actual persons. To solve the issue, Bitcoin uses a public-private key cryptosystem where ownership of tokens is recorded as belonging to a particular public key. To spend the money belonging to a public key, a transaction must be created using at least one input (a transaction to the address) and one output (a public key of any address). This transaction must be cryptographically signed with the private key in order to be deemed valid by the network. Thus, the blockchain being public knowledge, anyone can create and sign a transaction using the private key corresponding to the spending address, provided that they know the private key.

Very good example: the private key of the brainwallet created by using the passphrase 'correct horse battery staple', a "good" password mentioned in a popular xkcd comic, public address 1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T, is public knowledge: 5KJvsngHeMpm884wtkJNzQGaCErckhHJBGFsvd3VyK5qMZXj3hS (you can check this yourself at brainwallet.org). Thus, any money sent to that address is up for grabs for literally anyone in the world. Whoever grabs it first and sends it to an address that no one else knows the key to is the new actual owner. Take a look at the transaction history on that address: https://blockchain.info/address/1JwSSubhmg6iPtRjtyqhUYYH7bZg3Lfy1T

I hope I have sufficiently explained why Bitcoin has no concept of legal ownership. It is self-evident if you know the above.

Also, Bitcoin is clearly money as it is a tradeable token of value. Mrcatzilla (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me summarize the state of this dispute. After the edit #636087685, there was this sentence:

There have been many cases of bitcoin theft[39] despite claims made by the Bitcoin Foundation that theft is impossible.[221]

While both parts of the sentence are properly sourced, the whole sentence fits the description at WP:SYN stating: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Thus, the sentence is a synthesis of the published material. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Biggest Bitcoin purchase.

Article mentions the biggest Bitcoin purchase of a $500,000 Bali house, yet in Estonia a $1.3 million manorhouse has been reported to have been bought for Bitcoin. Two sources in English: http://news.err.ee/v/economy/53ba6308-7ca1-4b4a-9a52-0156165267d6 http://hans.lougas.ee/2014/03/bitcoin-can-buy-you-a-1-3m-manor-house/

Synthesis in the lead section

The formulation:

Although its status as a currency is disputed, media reports often refer to bitcoin as a cryptocurrency or digital currency.

Fits the definition of WP:SYNTH since it combines different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion that the claims may contradict each other, while no such implication is present in the source. To correct it, I propose to replace the formulation by:

Media reports often refer to bitcoin as a cryptocurrency or digital currency. The status of bitcoin as a currency is disputed.

Keeping the citation already present in the article to verify the claims. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:42, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Support Mrcatzilla (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

True.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute on the contents of the lead section

Issues

• claim: "Bitcoins are sometimes used to purchase illicit items—including child pornography, credit card details, and drugs—at deep web black markets" The list of services and items that can be purchased with bitcoin is unbalanced - The illicit items are obtaining undue weight, since there is no legal item or service listed that can be purchased with bitcoin.

• claim: "[bitcoins] are seized by authorities when such sites [black markets] are shut down." - The general conclusion is a synthesis of the informations contained in individual sources.

• claim: 'Tennessee Department of Financial Institutions Commissioner Greg Gonzales said “(Digital) currency is defined as an electronic medium of exchange that does not have all the attributes of real currencies,”' - there is a dispute how to classify bitcoin. The dispute is described in the "Classification" section of the article. It is not neutral to pick one opinion and put it to the lead section.

• claim: 'Tennessee Department of Financial Institutions Commissioner Greg Gonzales said “(Digital) currency is defined as an electronic medium of exchange that does not have all the attributes of real currencies,” a clear warning sign that bitcoin is risky.' - Wikipedia is not supposed to judge whether an opinion is clear.

• claim: "Additionally, bitcoins can be stolen,[27] and chargebacks are impossible.[21]" - this claim is repeating the information contained in the previously mentioned warning of the European Banking Authority. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• claim: "Developing countries are less receptive." makes a causal claim that is not cited, and should be cited or removed. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

In his revert #637305164 Fleetham wrote: "Discuss this on talk", while that is exactly the opposite of what he is doing. Pretending there was some consensus on his changes. Since that is actually not the case, I revert the head section to the consensual state following the last neutrality dispute and open this new dispute to find out whether there is any new consensus on the neutral wording of the section. I summarize my opinions here:

• The section contains five paragraphs, the fourth one summarizing the fears related to possible illicit uses of bitcoin. The fifth summarizes the regulatory situation in USA and China. The opinion on the relation of the US government to bitcoin naturally belongs to the fifth one, and it is confirmed by its own sources. This is why I think that there is no need to duplicate it to the fourth paragraph.
• The fourth paragraph contains, and contained for quite a long time the information that there were fears by officials higlighting the role of bitcoin in illicit activities, that such fears preceded the first ever senate hearing in November 2014. Using a source that referred from the hearings, replacing the previous source by the same author which preceded the hearings, it was added that at the hearing the officials stated that they see bitcoin as a legitimate financial service. The above proposed wording removes the substantial information about the fears preceding the hearings. That is the second point in which I disagree with the newly proposed wording.
• It is not neutral to list all illicit items that can be paid with bitcoin in the lead section, since it would need to be balanced by legal items that can be paid with bitcoin. Such lists are not summarizing and don't belong to the lead section.
• Similarly it is not neutral to introduce the darknet marketplaces using bitcoin in the lead section, the lead section is a summary and it also cannot contain legal marketplaces using bitcoin either. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, please avoid WP:PA. This is likely the second or third time that I've had to remind you to do this. You say that discussing the issue is "exactly the opposite of what [I am] doing." I'd like to point out Talk:Bitcoin#Regarding removal of black market gloss in lede. I repeatedly attempted to engage you in discussion on this very issue on that thread. Again, please be careful when talking about other editors and "focus on the content not the contributor" per WP:PA.

Secondly, I think a summary of the criminal activity section is warranted in the lede, and it doesn't appear you disagree. Am I correct in thinking this? Fleetham (talk) 22:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Fleetham's first action after this dispute was properly announced at the talk page is that he changed the status quo. That is not how a proper discussion Fleetham asked for can look.
• I consider it pointless to revert Fleetham's one-sided edit #637388139 trying to circumvent this discussion after it has started. For the record, the state before the edit was: [3]
• I listed the reasons why recent Fleetham's changes are nonneutral. The summary of fears of illicit activities was in the lead section before Fleetham one-sidedly and without consensus made his edits.
• This dispute was started to give Fleetham the opportunity to achieve a change of consensus. However, Fleetham just proved that his preferred way of editing is to do what he wants and requiring other editors to discuss. It is not clear what can be discussed, if Fleetham disrespects any results of dispute that he dislikes, and relies on enforcing his will through edit warring.
• I maintain that the addition of a list of illicit items/services that can be bought with bitcoin is not neutral, since there is no balancing list of legal items and services that can be bought with bitcoin, nor it is the goal of the lead section. The lead section is supposed to contain summaries, not lists of items.
• I maintain that the naming of the Silk Road black market is not a neutral treatment of bitcoin markets, since there is no balancing list of legal markets where bitcoin can be used, nor it is the goal of the lead section to contain such lists.
• I also maintain that any sourced information that is not discussed in the article body does not belong to the lead section per the manual of style.
• This list explains the reservations I have with respect to Fleetham's editing practices not respecting the ongoing dispute and his attempts to make the lead section biased by incorporating whole lists of illicit items and mentions of Silk Road without respecting the necessity to rely on summaries and balanced views in the lead section.
• Observing the edit warring behaviour at two article sections today, I warned Fleetham also at his talk page to stop making the disruptive edits, being actually the second editor to do it, Wuerzele being the first to warn him. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• I point out that Fleetham repeatedly states the reasons why he put the material to the lead section. He never tried to address the objections related to the nonneutral character of his edits, which is the main reason why this dispute is taking place. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think the best way forward would be to come to a mutual agreement how best to summarize the criminal activity section in the lede. I'm not really sure how to respond to most of your comments many of which don't appear content-related. Fleetham (talk) 12:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

So, again no discussion of neutrality at all? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to engage in a content related discussion, and I'm sure we can hammer out a summary of the criminal activities section that is mutually agreeable. Fleetham (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is about the neutrality of the contents. Any note on that? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes. Let's work together to create a lede summary of the criminal activities section that is mutually acceptable. Fleetham (talk) 22:34, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Fleetham, when you say 'we can hammer out', I expect that you include me too, because your long term habit to refuse to communicate with me is incompatible with consensus. (I am still waiting for an answer to my question why you propose what you propose in another section about the lede above, 3rd reminder).

BothLadislav Mecir and Fleetham: the discussion is getting extremely spread out on way too many sections. I think non regular editors will be/are confused. There is PLENTY material on NPOV of lede on Talk:Bitcoin already and repeats of repeats are unconstructive. Please avoid repetition, muddled writing, and unnecessary digressions. Let's all improve the signal-to-noise ratio, be concise, focus and get to the point. --Wuerzele (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, Wuerzele. I will add a brief summary below. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Brief summary

The WP:NPOV dispute at #Achieving neutral point of view has been resolved on 27 November 2014, by inserting a paragraph summarizing the fears of illicit uses of bitcoin.

Fleetham requested a discussion to change the consensus. Instead of discussing a change as declared, Fleetham inserted a duplicate of the list of illicit items that can be bought with bitcoins from the "Criminal activities" section.

That is not acceptable, being an unbalanced change, and a change not adhering to the policy to put summaries of contents of the article body to the lead section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

End of the brief summary

Just to reiterate--I'm happy to participate in content discussions. Maybe you should ping me when one starts to occur? And thanks for recognizing that the lede is a place to put "summaries of contents of the article['s] body." Fleetham (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

To make things straight for other editors, this is a neutrality dispute that has been properly announced using the "POV-section" template, and started due to Fleetham's request. Since then, Fleetham announced his willingness to discuss the neutrality of the section here, but disproved his willingness making these edits that were found nonneutral and nonconsensual: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8].

(For interested editors, notice that Fleetham made himself one of the "above par" sources of the article, as his "as far as I know, bitcoins are ALWAYS seized when online black markets have been shut down" statement demonstrates, and an authority to remove sources he considers "below par" without a proper justification.)

Wuerzele TyHeers Scott Illini Pgan002 Creationlayer Mrcatzilla TimidGuy Chrisarnesen Richardbondi please check this balancing

Proposal

• This was the state of the lead section when the NPOV dispute started
• I propose to keep the wording of the lead section as when the dispute started, and change just the fourth paragraph of the lead section text, enhancing it to:

In 2013, U.S. financial regulators and law enforcement agencies and senators Tom Carper and Tom Coburn expressed concerns that bitcoin can be used for illicit activities.[9] At the senate hearing, held on 18 November 2013, the officials, who emphasized the role of bitcoin in criminal activities prior to the hearing, called the currency a "legitimate" financial service.[10]

End of the proposal

Justification:

• the changed wording is more specific in attributing the opinions
• the changed wording reflects the meaning of the source summary information, yet it uses a distinct formulation
• this wording both summarizes the concerns related to illicit activities using bitcoin, as well as presenting the summary in a neutral way, balancing the concerns with the finding that the currency is called "legitimate" financial service by officials Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2014 (UTC) editor pings corrected --Wuerzele (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like your proposal would be better discussed here: Talk:Bitcoin#Copy + paste from news article in lede. Fleetham (talk) 13:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, the problem I have with the proposed text is that it deviates greatly from the citations. The first source you use doesn't appear to support the idea that in "2013 U.S. financial regulators and law enforcement agencies and senators Tom Carper and Tom Coburn expressed concerns that bitcoin can be used for illicit activities." For example, when mentioning the two Senators, the source reads, "By summoning officials from the executive branch to talk about bitcoin, lawmakers are signaling that virtual currencies should be a priority. Sens. Tom Carper (D., Del.) and Tom Coburn (R., Okla.), the top lawmakers on the Homeland Security panel, have also asked several financial-industry regulators and law-enforcement agencies for information about their policies on virtual currencies." Asking regulators and law-enforcement agencies about their policies is quite far removed from "expressing concern."

Furthermore, in your second sentence, you write that "at the senate hearing the officials... called the currency a "legitimate" financial service." This is misleading, as it makes it appear that all the officials previously mentioned were in agreement on bitcoin being a "legitimate" financial service. Only a DoJ official is quoted in the source using the word "legitimate."

Finally, the wording makes it seem that authorities who prior emphasized the use of bitcoin by criminals no longer did so after the hearing. This is untrue, as at the hearing itself a DoJ official stated, "the anonymity of virtual currencies appeals to criminals and poses a challenge for law enforcement" and the sole Senator in attendance expressed concern that virtual currencies are being used for crimes, including "selling weapons, child pornography and even murder-for-hire services". Also, at the hearing "officials from the U.S. Secret Service... and the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network detailed successful investigations into criminals using bitcoin..."These are quote from the hearing itself, not before it.

I've coped and pasted the WSJ sources below because they are behind a paywall.

First citation

Bitcoin Comes Under Senate Scrutiny

By RYAN TRACY

CONNECT

Bitcoin is about to get some time in the Capitol Hill spotlight.

A pair of Senate committees will hold hearings on the policy issues raised by virtual currencies in the coming weeks, according to Senate aides, a development that comes amid growing attention from government regulators to digital forms of money.

Bitcoin, a currency that is essentially a computer code and is not backed by any government, has seen its value surge this year because of interest from retailers and investors. But government agencies have also stepped up their oversight of the loosely regulated currency amid fears it could be used to facilitate criminal activity.

The two Senate hearings – the first to focus on bitcoin – are likely to examine how regulators are responding to the new forms of payment, the aides said. Potential points of discussion include how financial-industry regulators will watch over investment in the new currencies and how virtual currencies might impede tax collection or facilitate trade in illegal products out of the sight of law enforcement.

No dates have been set for the hearings and the witness lists are not final, but representatives of the government and private sector are expected to testify. The hearings will be held by the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs and by a subpart of the Senate Banking Committee, the aides said.

By summoning officials from the executive branch to talk about bitcoin, lawmakers are signaling that virtual currencies should be a priority. Sens. Tom Carper (D., Del.) and Tom Coburn (R., Okla.), the top lawmakers on the Homeland Security panel, have also asked several financial-industry regulators and law-enforcement agencies for information about their policies on virtual currencies.

In an Aug. 12 letter, the senators cited a number of policy concerns, including a Texas case this year in which a man was charged with running a bitcoin-related Ponzi scheme and a May Government Accountability Office report that said the use of virtual currencies could lead to lost tax revenue.

“As with all emerging technologies, the federal government must make sure that potential threats and risks are dealt with swiftly; however, we must also ensure that rash or uninformed actions don’t stifle a potentially valuable technology,” Messrs. Carper and Coburn wrote in their letter, which went to the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the Department of Justice and the Treasury Department.

22:57, 17 December 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleetham (talk • contribs)

It is this part of the source: "senators cited a number of policy concerns, including a Texas case this year in which a man was charged with running a bitcoin-related Ponzi scheme and a May Government Accountability Office report that said the use of virtual currencies could lead to lost tax revenue" supporting the idea that senators expressed concerns that bitcoin can be used for illicit activities. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Second source

Authorities See Worth of Bitcoin

By RYAN TRACY CONNECT Updated Nov. 18, 2013 11:56 p.m. ET WASHINGTON—Senior U.S. law-enforcement and regulatory officials said they see benefits in digital forms of money and are making progress in tackling its risks. The price of bitcoin, the most common virtual currency, soared to a record following the comments.

U.S. authorities, appearing Monday at the first-ever congressional hearing on virtual currencies, outlined the pitfalls and promises of bitcoin amid concern the anonymity and decentralized nature of some virtual currencies can help facilitate crimes. The hearing provided a financial lift to bitcoin as U.S. officials, who have previously highlighted the currency's role in money laundering and other illicit activities, called it a "legitimate" financial service.

Is Bitcoin another flash in the pan? Or are the early investors onto something -- that will make them rich? WSJ's Jason Bellini has #TheShortAnswer. More Price Zooms Ahead of Hearing Read the Regulators' Testimony Bits and Pieces Mystery still surrounds Bitcoin. Its creator -— or creators -— has remained anonymous and specific details surrounding the history of the virtual currency remain fuzzy. Still, buzz is growing. Here's a rough timeline of the Bitcoin evolution.

View Graphics

"The Department of Justice recognizes that many virtual currency systems offer legitimate financial services and have the potential to promote more efficient global commerce," Mythili Raman, acting assistant attorney general for the department's criminal division, said in testimony before the SenateHomeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who didn't attend the hearing, said in a letter to senators that virtual currencies "may hold long-term promise, particularly if the innovations promote a faster, more secure, and more efficient payment system."

Enlarge Image

Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman, at hearing. Associated Press The price of bitcoin soared early Monday after the officials' statements were widely reported. On one exchange, Tokyo-based Mt. Gox, the price topped $700. Bitcoin traded at about $13 in January.

The total market capitalization of the bitcoin economy now exceeds $8 billion based on recent prices, according to the website Bitcoincharts.com.

The congressional hearing is the first of two being held this week, with the Senate Banking Committee expected to hear from a senior Treasury Department official and a Massachusetts banking regulator on Tuesday. Despite interest in bitcoin, Monday's hearing was attended by only one member of the Senate panel, Sen. Tom Carper (D., Del.), who chairs the committee. Other senators were still en route to Washington after spending the weekend in their home states.

Enlarge Image

Gabriel Scheare uses the world's first bitcoin ATM in October at a coffee shop in Vancouver, Canada. The ATM, named Robocoin, allows users to buy or sell the digital currency. Getty Images Sen. Carper didn't outline any legislative proposals for digital money and said he was focused on gathering information. "Virtual currencies, perhaps most notably bitcoin, have captured the imagination of some, struck fear among others and confused the heck out of the rest of us, including me," Sen. Carper said.

Bitcoin is a four-year-old virtual currency that isn't backed by a central bank and can be traded on a number of exchanges or swapped privately. Its price has vaulted to records in recent weeks, fueled by investor views that the virtual currency can have a credible future as an alternative to traditional methods of payment. A number of merchants are accepting bitcoin as payment because the transaction costs associated with the currency are generally lower than those with credit or debit cards.

The skyrocketing prices of bitcoin, along with the use of the currency by both online and brick-and-mortar retailers, have caught Washington's attention. Regulators have warned money-transfer businesses they must follow the same rules as established financial institutions, including complying with anti-money-laundering laws. Authorities have begun meeting with other government agencies to follow new developments, including one led by the Federal Bureau of Investigation that is tracking emerging threats related to the technology. Last month, authorities disclosed they took down Silk Road, an online marketplace for illicit goods that used bitcoin as a form of payment.

At a Monday Senate hearing, Jennifer Shasky Calvery of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and Mythili Raman of the Department of Justice Criminal Division discussed the matter of virtual currencies such as Bitcoin. (Photo: AP) U.S. law-enforcement officials outline the pitfalls and promise of virtual currencies at the first-ever Senate hearing on the matter. Aaron Lucchetti reports on the News Hub. (Photo: Getty) From the Archives Bitcoin Couple Leave Wallet Behind (Nov. 14, 2013) Hire Boosts Bitcoin Credibility (Nov. 14, 2013) For Virtual Prospectors, Life in the Bitcoin Mines Gets Real (Sept. 19, 2013) Bitcoin Primer: What to Know

Video: What's a Bitcoin?

Ms. Raman said that while the anonymity of virtual currencies appeals to criminals and poses a challenge for law enforcement, U.S. authorities have "been able to keep pace with that, and we've been able to develop protocols and strategies to address it."

At Monday's hearing, officials from the U.S. Secret Service, which investigates counterfeit currencies, and the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network detailed successful investigations into criminals using bitcoin or other currencies.

Jennifer Shasky Calvery, director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, said virtual currency transactions are still relatively small in value compared with global criminal proceeds.

She said she didn't believe the virtual currencies had exposed significant gaps in current law. "We feel like we have a pretty good basis to act," she said. Ms. Shasky will attend Tuesday's Senate Banking Committee hearing.

Sen. Carper said he is "encouraged that maybe it's possible to have the benefits of virtual currencies and to actually be able to not facilitate" criminal activity.

However, he also expressed concern that virtual currencies are being used for crimes, including "selling weapons, child pornography and even murder-for-hire services."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleetham (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 22:57, 17 December 2014

And this part of the source: 'U.S. officials, who have previously highlighted the currency's role in money laundering and other illicit activities, called it a "legitimate" financial service.' directly supports the second sentence. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

To accomodate to the style of the lead section, and to account for the fact that Fleetham does not support the idea to mention senators Caper and Coburn, here is an update to the proposal:

Proposal

• I propose to keep the wording of the lead section as when the dispute started, and change just the fourth paragraph of the lead section text, enhancing it to:

In 2013, U.S. financial regulators and law enforcement agencies expressed concerns that bitcoin can be used for illicit activities.[11] At the senate hearing, held on 18 November 2013, the officials, who emphasized the role of bitcoin in criminal activities prior to the hearing, called the currency a "legitimate" financial service.[12]

End of the proposal

How about the below?

At a 2013 US Senate hearing on virtual currencies, law enforcement officials, who had emphasized the role of bitcoin in criminal activities prior, recognized that cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin provide legitimate financial services.

Fleetham (talk) 22:15, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

This version is too short at the expense of understandability, that is why I prefer the longer version. The second advantage of the longer version and the proposal is that the text uses two sources, one describing the situation before the hearings started, and the other reporting from the hearings. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's no reason why we can't use two sources with the shorter version, but how about the below, which is a bit longer? This one is understandable and describes the situation before the hearing started and at the hearing themselves.

US law enforcement officials and regulators, who had emphasized the role of bitcoin in criminal activities prior, recognized at a November 2013 US Senate hearing on virtual currencies that cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin can provide legitimate financial services to legitimate customers.

Fleetham (talk) 02:01, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

In order to

• incorporate the above changes proposed by Fleetham and
• make it clear where the respective citations will be introduced and
• improve wording by suppressing repetition, I come with this updated

Proposal

• I propose to keep the wording of the lead section as when the dispute started, and change just the fourth paragraph of the lead section text, replacing it by:

U.S. law enforcement officials and financial regulators, who had emphasized the role of bitcoin in criminal activities prior,[13] recognized at a November 2013 U.S. Senate hearing on virtual currencies that cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin can provide legitimate financial services to customers.[14]

End of the proposal

Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks like we have consensus. I'll add it to the lede. Fleetham (talk) 07:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Please wait until others, @Wuerzele: @TyHeers: @Scott Illini: @Pgan002: @Creationlayer: @Mrcatzilla: @TimidGuy: @Chrisarnesen: @Richardbondi: have the opportunity to express their opinion, thank you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:47, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir, FYI:@Wuerzele: doesnt ping/ leave a note alert on one's page. I thought I let you know, so you dont interpret lack of response of the above editors here as implicit agreement. I will change these to pings, since I see this as a justified/ formal edit of the talk page in your favor.--Wuerzele (talk) 17:05, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you correctly guessed that I wanted to ping the editors, thanks. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Achieving consensus on paragraph 4 and 5

Ladislav Mecir, I only agree with the proposed sentence, if it indeed replaces the litany of evil /black market gloss as Fleetham calls it, which he inserted as a 4th paragraph of the lede, as was previously discussed. --Wuerzele (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

A summery of the "Criminal activities" section has long been in the lede, and I suggest a separate thread if you want to discuss making changes to it. This discussion has, until now, revolved around including a mention of the 2013 US Senate hearing on virtual currencies in the lede not how best to summarize the "Criminal activities" section. Fleetham (talk) 11:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

"This discussion has, until now, revolved around including a mention of the 2013 US Senate hearing on virtual currencies in the lede not how best to summarize the "Criminal activities" section." That is patently false. You, @Fleetham: already agreed with my proposal "to keep the wording of the lead section as when the dispute started". Thus, I think that there already is a consensus that the wording of the lead section shall be as when the dispute started, the only exception being the fourth paragraph, which will have a different wording. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:34, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: I interpret your above concern so that you actually do agree with my proposal to use the wording of the section as when the dispute started, with the sole exception of the change to the wording of the fourth paragraph as negotiated. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir, Yes I agree.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Since when does "keep the wording of the lead section as when the dispute started" mean remove cited material? I certainly did not agree to that. The "Criminal activity" section should be summarized in the lede, and I've started a separate thread to discuss this. Fleetham (talk) 22:52, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

There never was "keep the wording of the lead section as when the dispute started", there always was explicit: "keep the wording of the lead section as when the dispute started" referring to the specific version of the text, and you agreed with that specific wording. Also, it is not true that keeping the list of possible illicit purchases only in the corresponding section without placing its duplicate to the lead can be called "removal of cited material". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:16, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It's very clearly not neutral in its current form, absurdly so IMO. This article should be primarily about the technology. Instead we have multiple references in the lede for the fact that bitcoin can be used to buy child porn. I can't even look at the article that I spent so much time on earlier this year it's so bad and biased now. I really appreciate the efforts of everyone who tries to hold the line against Fleetham and the other bitcoin haters. I just don't have it in me anymore. Chris Arnesen 16:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The article should 'be about' whatever reliable sources consider relevant. Which clearly includes the usage of Bitcoin for illicit purposes. AndyTheGrump (talk)

I assure you that the article contains the information about Bitcoin being used for illicit purposes, thank you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 03:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Recent proposal

Whatever the case, the statement "a clear warning sign that bitcoin is risky" is unsupported opinion and should be removed. "Developing countries are less receptive." makes a causal claim that is not cited, and should be cited or removed. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Survey to the proposal

• Support removal of both texts. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to replace nonneutral opinion by a fact

The opinion "Tennessee Department of Financial Institutions Commissioner Greg Gonzales said “(Digital) currency is defined as an electronic medium of exchange that does not have all the attributes of real currencies.”" gives undue weight to a particular opinion in the moneyness dispute. I propose to replace the opinion by a fact: "The status of bitcoin as a currency is disputed." Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Survey to the proposal

Support substitution of fact. @Ladislav Mecir: any objections? Yoshi24517^Chat _Absent 22:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

So, are we done here? Is everything fixed? I wanted to see if we could nominate this for a good article. Yoshi24517^Chat _Absent 22:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't look like there are anymore problems. Archiving to Bitcoin Archive 22, and nominating per WP:GA Yoshi24517^Chat _Absent 22:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)