Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

→

Archive 30

12 1/2 bitcoins.

Next year, 2016, a miner's reward will half to 12 1/2 bitcoins. Already, after the cost of electricity, there is little profit in mining. Half of all bitcoin miners would have to give up mining to allow the remaining miners to make a profit. What do the WP:RS say? 87.102.44.18 (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:RS say that halving already happened. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

A block halving occurs every 4 years. So far, there's been one halving (50 BTC to 25 BTC), and the next one will occur sometime in 2016. Re the original comment: your prediction isn't inaccurate as the amount of miners shutting down depends on hardware efficiency, cost of electricity, and the bitcoin exchange rate. I don't think any WP:RS has written about the future halving as it it's utterly speculative. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality issues persisting in 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 in the lead section is unbalanced; no legal item or service that can be purchased with bitcoin is listed.

• 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: "The United States is considered more bitcoin-friendly than some other governments." shows American focus. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

The first claim that only illegal items are mentioned is because a large segment of the sources focus in on the illegal things. This isnt a neutrality problem in the WP sense. WP:NPOV does not require that the information be balanced, but that we as editors are neutral and reflect what the sources say. AlbinoFerret 19:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a neutrality problem, since the WP:NPOV requires editors to "strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject". To put this into context, the information that bitcoin can be used to buy Xbox games and Windows apps has been covered by overwhelmingly greater body of reliable sources than the information that child porn can be bought using bitcoin. Yet, the former information is not listed in the lead section, while the latter is. That makes the lead section blatantly unbalanced. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

That some other area of the topic isnt covered in the lede is not a problem, but a lack of effort by editors to include it. AlbinoFerret 15:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not see any "lack of effort". There is no reason to list items that can be bought with bitcoin in the lead section. That applies also to the child porn, to the stolen credit card details and drugs. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I made the edits I perceived necessary to address the remaining issues. Now I consider the remaining issues resolved. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Paragraphing and summary sentences

Apparently @Ladislav Mecir: has taken issue with edits that introduced paragraphing and summary sentences. I encourage you to express why you have an issue with the content below. Your recent editing behavior appears to be obstructionist not contributory. I encourage you to contribute to the page. Fleetham (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I justified my edits to indicate that I have taken issue with the removal of cited informations. Unnecessary formatting changes cannot justify the removal. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Well you're welcome to put back cited material make and changes to summary text as well. I'd prefer you do that than revert. Fleetham (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sourced information that has been in the article is by consensus. If someone reverts its removal it is clear there is no consensus to remove it. It is the responsibility of the person seeking a change to change the material, not the person who wants to keep it. AlbinoFerret 19:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Wisely spoken,AlbinoFerret, amen.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Bitcoin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Replaceinkcartridges (talk · contribs) 02:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC) This article has been nominated by User:Yoshi24517 for GA status. As someone who has not significantly edited this page, I think that it is well-written, the use of unnecessary jargon is kept to a minimum, and established citation needs little improvement.

An average wikipedian who knows nothing about Bitcoin can find meaningful content in this article. The only problem is the semi-rare edit wars. I think good article status should be granted to the page. This article should be reviewed for it through discussion.

Consideration I welcome the GA review. One caveat: Until 2 days ago the problem of edit warring pointed out above has not been 'semi-rare', but almost continuous, which made the article very unstable, thus not meeting the WP:Good_article_criteria#The six good article criteria At present, I predict a 30-day window of stability until February 11, 2015, during which an editor involved in edit warring and numerous board filings, that had kept the site unprotected until January 11, has been blocked. After this date, I predict -based on the editor's 4 year history of disruptive editing- edit warring will resume. Reviewers should keep that in mind and consider that the article, even if makes it through the review in 30 d, might be delisted soon afterwards. Disclaimer: I am a regular contributor to this page since 2/2014 and thus will not participate in the review. wuerzele (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) --Wuerzele (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thats a fair point. Realistically, that may be the sole reason this article has not been nominated for GA status sooner.

The GA criteria states "Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute." I took data from 1 September to 1 January to test this. Starting in September this article contained 16520 words. In October it contained 16982 words. It dipped in November at 14817 words and went back up to 19277 in December. In January it leveled out at 20120 words.

Exactly a 3600 word difference. This difference shows relatively good growth, but I can see what you mean by edit warring.

This is an important consideration to take into account and it may stop this article from reaching GA status.Replaceinkcartridges (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Replaceinkcartridges:I did contribute a Units section. P.S. I declare my WikiCup participation. Yoshi24517^Chat _Absent 21:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

(stalking) Just popping my head through the door, I notice as I write this there is a small edit-war about whether "Bitcoin" in a quotation should be in caps or lower case. I share Replaceinkcartridges' concern that this article may not be stable enough to pass GAN at this time, but it's his review so I'll stop the stalking and duck out here..... Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Replaceinkcartridges:So...Final results? Yoshi24517^Chat _Absent 01:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Yoshi24517 I did a lot of thinking about it, and at this point it probably doesn't meet the criteria.

Looking at the GA criteria, the article does not meet all of them. The article does not provide broad coverage and gets to far into the weeds. For example, the etymology section is unneeded and could easily merged with the history section or introduction. Done.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Another example is As protection from confiscatory policies, talking about Argentinians using Bitcoins to fight confiscatory policies is unneeded. Done.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

As @Wuerzele pointed out, edit warring is a problem in this article. Therefore, rendering the article unstable and raises concerns of a lack of neutrality.

But, I do still agree with what I said in my original paragraph. This article has meaningful content and can provide valid information. Although it is obvious this article needs improvement. I think waiting a couple days before assigning a rating would be a good idea as suggested in the GA review guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Replaceinkcartridges (talk • contribs) 02:57, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Tagging: @MusikAnimal: What do you think? If so, please promote. Yoshi24517^Chat _Absent 01:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, just popping in to say that I'm both a Wikipedia editor and an active follower/user of Bitcoin and its technologies. If you're looking for a neutral input from someone who understands both Bitcoin and Wikipedia's guidelines, please ping me. Good luck with the GA! -Newyorkadam (talk) 07:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Newyorkadam's suggestions

Alright, I couldn't resist and just took a quick read through the article. @Replaceinkcartridge: I hope you don't mind me making these comments, as it is your GAR– please let me know if you'd rather I stay out of it.

• Section 4.7, "Declarations of death", needs a lot of work. It's literally one sentence that doesn't explain anything– it just lists different news websites calling Bitcoin dead. As a reader I'd ask, What exactly is this section trying to tell me?.
• I think Russia should be mentioned in the Legal section– it's a large, powerful country that has taken a stance against Bitcoin. In general, I feel like the legal section is incomplete. A huge discussion point of Bitcoin is the legality of it, and the section seems too weighted on the US section. Check Legality of Bitcoin by country for reference.  Done. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 17:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

• Also, there appears to be too similar (albeit one being much smaller) legal sections– try merging these. --Wuerzele (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• The article doesn't mention (what I assume to be) Bitcoin's two largest discussion forums, Bitcointalk.org and /r/bitcoin on reddit– it's in these two places that the (again, what I assume to be) majority of Bitcoin's community converges. It also doesn't mention IRC, through which Bitcoin in general, along with development, pricetalk, trading, and mining, is discussed. However, I'm not sure if these modes of discussion should be mentioned– just putting the idea out there.
• Just a side note, not related to this GA– I can't believe there isn't an article on Bitcoin mining. We'll have to make one...
• Does etymology needs its own section? It's only two sentences– perhaps merge it with another section. Done! --Wuerzele (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• Perhaps a leadership (or something similar) section? Might want to have the Bitcoin Foundation have its own section, considering its influence. Also, maybe discuss the Bitcoin Center NYC. I can provide pictures if needed as I've visited it!
• Might want to discuss QR codes and Bitcoin's URI scheme, both of which are important for sending and receiving Bitcoin. However, this may be better suited in a new article like "Usage of Bitcoin" or something.
• The top of the article does a good job with pictures, but the bottom 3/4 has hardly any– perhaps obtain some pictures of different things discussed (like a screenshot of CryptoLocker).

I would love to see Bitcoin at GA status and it's something I've been meaning to do–– please do let me know if you need any help. Thanks! -Newyorkadam (talk) 07:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Thanks for the review, I have also briefly read through the article so I want to address all of your points.

• Section 4.7 was most likely included as a passive-aggressive way of saying that the media has been wrong about Bitcoin for half a decade. The section is not exactly something that belongs on an encyclopedic website.
• I agree that Russia should have a mention in the legal section. Norway is also worth a mention because it is the largest non-EU European economy.
• I don't necessarily think that Bitcoin related forums are notable to the currency. Fourms on the Internet are always changing and are made up of members with diffrering opinions. In a few years the fourms will most likely not be relevant.
• The wiki page on Bitcoin Mining was deleted roughly 4 months ago. Bitcoin mining is notable enough to warrant an article, it should be remade.
• As I pointed out earlier I think the Etymology section should be merged with the history section or introduction.: Done!--Wuerzele (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• Bitcoin doesn't have a 'leadership' per-say but I agree that prominent organizations deserve to be mentioned.
• Maybe the QR codes and URI schemes could have a subsection under the Transactions section or the Buying and selling section. Done!--Wuerzele (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
• I was thinking the same thing about the pictures in this article. The security section could easily have more images because malware is not protected under copyright.

Thank you for adding this to the GA review. All of these claims are valid to this article and should be addressed. This article currently does not meet the GA criteria but I do think it will in the future. This might be a good place to end the review as roughly a week has passed since the beginning of the review. Replaceinkcartridges (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Damnit, sorry for all of the edits. Repinging as I spelled it wrong– @Replaceinkcartridges:

I forgive you for misspelling my user name.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Replaceinkcartridges (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 00:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Can I just throw in another comment? At the moment, I'm wonder whether it would be appropriate to add {{jargon}} to this article. Now, I don't like drive-by templating, but I think sentences like "The system is peer-to-peer; users can transact directly without needing an intermediary" and "Transactions are verified by network nodes and recorded in a public distributed ledger called the block chain", up-front in the lead, don't mean anything to a layman reader who might wonder if you can use bitcoins to buy a loaf of bread in Tesco (and that's a serious point, this article is ranked within the top 100 most important articles and about 2.2 million people view it every year). That is a must fix for a GA. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Final Verdict

This review has unfortunately proven the article does not meet all of the GA Criteria. Stability and broadness are currently not maintained in this article.

I have added a GA status not meet tag to this this page. If the article reaches GA criteria in the future, a new GA reassessment is welcome. Replaceinkcartridges (talk) 03:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sourced Information

In two edits by Fleetham he has removed sourced information. AlbinoFerret 20:10, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make sense of the following, be my guest:

In December 2013, finance professor Mark T. Williams forecast a bitcoin would be worth less than ten U.S. dollars by July 2014.[149] In the indicated period bitcoin has exchanged as low as $344 (April 2014) and during July 2014 the bitcoin low has been $609.[note 9][150] In December 2014 professor Williams said: "The probability of success is low, but if it does hit, the reward will be very large."[151]

The sourced info I removed is in bold. It's clearly a non sequitur. Another edit did remove sourced info from unknown site "redherring.com" but I think you were correct to replace it and the content it cited, as that site turned out to "look totally legitimate upon cursory inspection." Fleetham (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, I went ahead and again removed mention of Tom Draper from the VC section. Is it very important to you for nearly one quarter of the section to be devoted to background story on how the father of someone who heads a bitcoin-focused VC thing also is really keen on bitcoins? Fleetham (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

"It's clearly a non sequitur" - let's discuss this one, since it is not clear to me. According to the corresponding article, non sequitur is a logical fallacy "where a stated conclusion is not supported by its premise". So, what exactly you find to be the premise, and what is the conclusion? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

As long as it makes sense it should stay because it appears to be well cited. But I don't know what that sentence means in context. Can you rephrase it so the meaning is clearer? Fleetham (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, I do not understand your answer. Can you reformulate it to explain what is the premise and what is the conclusion in your stated "clearly non sequitur"? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Well I can only apologize if you don't understand English. Literally meaning, "it does not follow" a non-sequitur would be something like the last sentence in the following paragraph:

"Bees are only seen during the Summer months, as they hibernate in Winter. They sleep in burrows except in taiga regions, where they are more commonly found in fallen trees. It's really grand to see the colors of Fall!"

See, the last sentence has no relation to the topic of the paragraph, bee behavior during Wintertime. Fleetham (talk) 08:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Fleetham, How is a sarcastic attack like "Well I can only apologize if you don't understand English." related to improving Bitcoin? You cry foul, WP:PA, when there are none, and then this. A double standard.- and btw : you wrote non sequitar.No good English for sure. --Wuerzele (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

This is not Bitcoin according to Fleetham. This is a wikipedia article with multiple editors. You dont get to call the shots on every bit of information, its done by consensus and in this case its clear you have none for this material that has been in the article some time. If you want it removed, try an RFC to see if you have consensus to remove it. AlbinoFerret 14:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Well said. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Fleetham, I would advise you to adopt a more civil approach towards your fellow editors here; Ladislav Mecir made a simple and reasonable request for clarification from you (using language that was about as polite and collegial as possible) and you're response was a passive-aggressive dig at his ability with English (which is utterly competent from all evidence here, for the record), rather than responding with any kind of argument for your case on terms of policy. To make cryptic assessments of another editor's abilities, rather than providing policy justification for your perspectives, is the very definition of a personal attack under our behavioural policies. Furthermore, you are engaged in edit-warring on the talk page to remove comments critical of you. This is also a violation of policy; if you feel that a comment directed against you has violated our guidelines, you are free to seek out administrative review of that comment, but you are not allowed to remove another editors contributions in a discussion space. Persist in either of these behaviours and the manner will have to be referred to an administrator or ANI. Snow talk 10:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

My reading of the last sentence is that Williams is saying there is a low chance of bitcoin significantly exploding in value. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 00:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Mentioning words as words

WP:WORDSASWORDS states: "Use italics when writing about words as words, or letters as letters (to indicate the use–mention distinction)." Taking the contents of the Bitcoin#Etymology section, this is how the text looks now:

The word bitcoin is a compound of the words "bit" being itself a compound of the words binary and digit, and "coin", originally meaning wedge, stamp, corner.[97] The white paper that is the basis of bitcoin[10] frequently uses just the shorter "coin".

, and this is how it would look applying WP:WORDSASWORDS:

The word bitcoin is a compound of the words bit being itself a compound of the words binary and digit, and coin, originally meaning wedge, stamp, corner.[97] The white paper that is the basis of bitcoin[10] frequently uses just the shorter coin.

My question is whether there is a consensus to apply WP:WORDSASWORDS in the article in this and in similar cases. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:WORDSASWORDS is part of the Manual of style, a WP guideline. It should be followed, I dont think its necessary to have consensus to follow it. As its a guideline its possible not to follow it, but those situations should be rare, and by consensus. AlbinoFerret 15:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I wanted to be sure since Fleetham deleted many cases of WP:WORDSASWORDS as "nonstandard". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Two "history" sections

It does not look good that there are two "History" sections (a main section and a subsection) in the article. Any idea how to improve this? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The subsection is under 'Wallets'. I suggest renaming that to 'Reference client' as it currently only covers the reference client. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 09:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Good idea Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:06, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ladislav, I have never liked this either but it was low on my list.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Vendors accepting bitcoins? They require exchanges. Bitcoins always require dollar backing.

Do we need to clarify the reference here to vendors accepting bitcoins? According to the author of "Bitcon", every vendor he checked actually requires that you go through an exchange. And in the fleeting moments of people actually accepting bitcoin as bitcoin, they themselves immediately exchange it for dollars. There seems to be no validity to the notion that bitcoins themselves can exist without dollar backing.Tgm1024 (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

What source would you use for this? AlbinoFerret 16:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

You overlooked that there already is a note related to this. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Where?Tgm1024 (talk) 19:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Note 12 is what I think you are looking for. AlbinoFerret

No, that says that transactions can occur without an intermediary. The claim by the author of BitCon (during an interview on NPR) is that not one of the places claiming to take Bitcoin actually do so: they require an immediate transfer to dollars beforehand. If there is validity to this, then it should probably be spelled out wherever we list vendors "accepting bitcoin as payment".Tgm1024 (talk) 19:50, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I have not read the book, but unless he specifically mentions companies at best you have a general opinion. While you could add the information as the opinion of the author, sourced to their book. It would be better to have specifics on each listed company that accepts bitcoin from reliable sources. Otherwise it could be easily worded to become original research by syntheses. AlbinoFerret 02:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

surge in Bitcoin page views on 23 Nov 2014- your opinion?

I am curious to hear what people think about the dramatic surge of Bitcoin page views from regularly 5,000 to 8,000 at the moment to >62,000 on November 23 see page view statistics here. I have a possible explanation but do not want others to be biased by it.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:04, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, there is a bug that occasionally results in an unnaturally high page view count. Not sure if it's fixed yet. A recent relevant discussion is here. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 09:31, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Does this system have protection against someone just writing a bit of code to view the page ~50,000 times? If investors thought they could manipulate the value of bitcoins by increasing the number of views of a webpage they would. 87.102.44.18 (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

That is impractical to guarantee protection against and any investors speculating based on a Wikipedia pages viewcount which can be manipulated isn't making a very safe investment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.168.27.10 (talk) 06:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Summarizing the "Criminal activities" section in the lede

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the lead include information related to bitcoin's use in online black markets? Fleetham (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Since the Bitcoin lede contains information related to bitcoin's use in online black markets the question is How should it be included ?--Wuerzele (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a wording mentioning criminal activities that has achieved some consensus with its inclusion to the lead secton of the article:

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

Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

The RfC proposes no specific text, and accordingly cannot be cited as evidence for support for any specific text. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. This has been widely discussed and documented in WP:RS sources which detail, among other things, why cryptocurrency is prone to such uses and whether that is a fundamental flaw in the concept which underlies Bitcoin. SPECIFICO talk 18:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• No. Yes. The lead section of the Bitcoin article did summarize the fears of illicit activities in the past, and it is planned to also mention them in the future. See the #Neutrality dispute on the contents of the lead section where it is discussed how it shall be done in a neutral way. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:13, 22 December 2014 (UTC) I express my agreement with the above wording mentioning fears of criminal activities in the article lead section. Changed my mind after reading the opinion of Markbassett. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Yes. It is self-evident that use of Bitcoin in illicit transactions is frequently discussed in reliable sources. Accordingly, it should both be covered in depth in the body of the article, and referred to in the lede. As to appropriate wording, since this RfC offers no specific proposal, I can neither approve nor disapprove here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
• No. I feel like the entire section contributes to the unbalancing of this article. Melody Concerto^talk 05:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• No Cut the lead to a short summary of the article item, leave more detail for the article. The lead does not include other topics that are more common in the article and stopping before this last para seems appropriate. The lower article is where to cover "Bitcoin has been a subject of scrutiny amid concerns ..." Markbassett (talk) 13:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
• Yes WP:NPOV calls for us to include all significant viewpoints in reliable sources in proportion to their coverage in those sources . This is a core policy of WP. It should be mentioned in the article. It appears to be more than a minor viewpoint and should receive as much coverage as reliable sources give. The lede should present all major controversies, this appears to be one and has sizeable coverage in the article. WP:LEAD AlbinoFerret 01:54, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
• Yes. The bot sent me. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section clearly states that article introductions should "summarize ... any prominent controversies." Given the extent to which Bitcoin has been documented for use in money laundering, tax evasion, contraband, and even assassination services, I recommend that a full paragraph of the introduction be devoted to the controversies. EllenCT (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
• Yes. The guideline at WP:LEAD tells us to summarize in the lead section all significant themes presented in the article body. Since illicit usage of Bitcoin is a significant theme, it must be summarized in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
• Yes: I agree with Binksternet above. Based on the portion of content devoted to the subject, the summary should have at least one or two neutral sentences summarizing the alleged criminal activity. Praemonitus (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
• Split: If this is really a significant subject in reliable sources perhaps this would be better suited in another article of its own that can go into detail. There can be a link and a brief summary here. Chillum 00:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, absolutely Don't forget that Wikipedia attempts to be encyclopedic, more information is better than less, and the history of Bitcoin should undeniably be accurately and fully described, including how it is being used. Damotclese (talk) 17:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes. summoned by bot. I have nothing to add to the arguments given above: lead should summarize the article, so i'm in favor of a full paragraph of the lead dedicated to it. And it's a relevant topic in relation to bitcoin, much more so than the relative notability in relation to money in general. PizzaMan (♨♨) 13:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - Sources clearly establish these factors as significant to the developing uses and technical mechanics of the currency. Let's be careful not to let these matters overwhelm the lead, but mention there most certainly seems appropriate. Snow talk 02:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Qualified NO. I agree with the trend of the remark by Markbassett, though the detail I am hardly interested in. The topic certainly should be included in the text body, though less specifically. A general problem with bitcoins is not so much that they can be used for black-marketeering or racketeering, but that they can be used under conditions not under legal control or scrutiny of any fiscal authority, permitting activities such as money laundering, illegal currency exchange, and indeed black-marketeering as well. This automatically makes them attractive to criminal elements, of which B-M activities are just one example; as a result special mention of B-M rather than the general theme of criminal use unbalances the lede right away. Anyway as it stands the lede is cumbersome, incoherent and not very helpful to the reader. Retain just the essential parts, properly structured, and put everything else into the main body. Some of current lede material could go into an introductory section if desired. However, if suitably articulate and relevant mention of the topic were to appear in a suitably (re)structured lede, I wouldn't complain. JonRichfield (talk) 11:19, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes Bitcoin has far-reaching potential as a digital currency, but it's primary usage so far has been in criminal activities over the internet. Agree with AndytheGrump and others. Dmrwikiprof (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Yes - Sent by a bot although I'm sure no one cares - Anyway since it's been used in a dodgy way we should add a few sentences in the article. –Davey2010^Talk 03:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Honestly I feel like the entire section tends to lend to the unbalancing of the article as a whole, I'd like to see it completely removed, but I understand that may not quite be in the interest of being encyclopedic. If not removal outright, we should be requiring stricter neutrality from our sources and in the writing of this section so it's not a slam on the cryptocurrency. No one can dispute criminals do criminal things, so that's not an irrelevant fact, but I don't believe it's really useful in an article about this currency, except where it has significantly affected the history of bitcoin, like Mt. Gox did. Melody Concerto^talk 05:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The question by Fleetham looks simple, but it actually isn't. The corresponding neutrality dispute is not yet closed and it is above in #Neutrality dispute on the contents of the lead section. All interested Wikipedians are welcome to take part in the dispute. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Does the article on the United States dollar discuss its use on the black market for the purchase of drugs and other illegal products? Does the lead mention such use in that article? bd2412 T 17:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

One would assume not. That is however irrelevant. What matters is to what extent published reliable sources discuss the use of Bitcoin for such purposes - and the evidence is clear enough that they very frequently do. Wikipedia bases article content on published sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

@BD2412: @AndyTheGrump: what is much more relevant is the fact that Fleetham is trying to disrupt the ongoing neutrality dispute at #Neutrality dispute on the contents of the lead section by creating other parallel disputes dealing with the same subject but representing a significantly one-sided version of it. This is an invitation to take part in the dispute and see complete arguments not just the one-sided and significantly inaccurate oversimplification by Fleetham. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No. What is relevant in a discussion regarding the lede of an article is whether it accurately represents the balance of opinion in reliable sources. My response to the question "Should the lead include information related to bitcoin's use in online black markets?" is that yes, it should - because that reflects the way that Bitcoin is discussed in such sources. I am not interested in squabbles about who said what, or whether one person considers another's viewpoint 'one-sided'. That isn't the question this RfC addresses. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Then you simply ignore the fact that:

• the lead section always did summarize fears of bitcoin-related illicit activities
• the only thing disputed is not whether it should summarize, but how to do it in a neutral way

If you do not take part in the dispute, you are missing all this. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Given this view, please register your "yes" in the survey section above. SPECIFICO talk 18:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir, I would appreciate it if you refrained from accusing me of 'ignoring' things. This RfC asked a specific question, and I gave a specific answer. That is the purpose of RfCs. If you wish to create a RfC on specific text, do so, and I will respond. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

To notify the editors taking part in this dispute: Fleetham also filed a NPOVN issue related to this. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@EllenCT: "Given the extent to which Bitcoin has been documented for use in money laundering, tax evasion, contraband, and even assassination services, I recommend that a full paragraph of the introduction be devoted to the controversies." - my notes:

• Bitcoin has been used for criminal activities. That is not a "controversy".
• The documented criminal activities are theft and black market cases.
• The "assassination services" are mentioned in the media only as allegations in only one case.
• The "money laundering" is discussed in the media as "unlikely", "low reliability", etc., due to the public character of the block chain ledger. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

And tax evasion? [1] EllenCT (talk) 10:06, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there are opinions that consider tax evasion a theoretical possibility and opinions that don't. However, it looks as minor theoretizing, and not as an actual criminal activity, taking into account that no actual cases are known or publicly described. Compared to the total amount of bitcoin-related sources, this is not very significant. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:39, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The lede also is to describe why bitcoin is notable. Notability is based on the coverage of the topic in reliable sources like news sites. There is significant coverage of bitcoin on those things you point out. They should be in the lede, it isnt just about describing it. AlbinoFerret 12:56, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Sankin, Aaron (October 10, 2013). "Bitcoin is the offshore tax haven of the future". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 28 December 2014. is a reliable source with an excellent overview of the controversy involved with using bitcoin for tax evasion. Pagliery, Jose (March 31, 2014). "New IRS rules make using Bitcoins a fiasco". CNN Money. Retrieved 28 December 2014. is another, along with its primary source "Application of FinCEN's Regulations to Persons Administering, Exchanging, or Using Virtual Currencies". fincen.gov. US Treasury Department Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. March 18, 2013. Retrieved 28 December 2014. EllenCT (talk) 19:37, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi EllenCT, fyi IRS rule is covered and contained in the article(ref 210). The 2013 'offshore tax haven of the future article' is speculative, would need an actual article about it to report it as an actual criminal activity. Thanks for reminding everyone of the FinCen rule, which was there -It had ALWAYS been there- I wrote the regulation section. It looks like it may have disappeared in the perpetual unreasonable cutting by you know who- you can see today, as of this hour. --Wuerzele (talk) 05:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Wuerzele This might be of interest. This one might be better link. I love looking for sources. AlbinoFerret 17:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Albino Ferret, thanks. Both sources confirm concern for, but unproven tax evasion. --Wuerzele (talk) 08:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Wuerzele Concerns can be used in WP articles as concerns, it doesnt have to have been found to have happened, something I have learned in my time on Electronic cigarette. I have a feeling it will be found to have happened at some point in the future. AlbinoFerret 04:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Copyvio

Please go to this website: https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Bitcoin&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1

Let me know what you guys think.Yoshi24517^Chat _Absent 18:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

What do I think? That the 'Copyvio Detector' shows that two different articles on the same subject will often use the same words, or word-pairs. There is no evidence from what I can see that significant passages have been copied from one to the other. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I see that the 'Copyvio Detector' program has similar idea of meaning as the program used to translate "Out of sight, out of mind." back and forth and ending up with "Blind idiot." Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree w Andy and Ladislav.--Wuerzele (talk) 10:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Bitcoin is dead

Bitcoin is dead. This should be acknowledged in the article. Kraainem (talk) 20:50, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Please provide a WP:RS reference for the assertion that Bitcoin is dead. SPECIFICO talk 20:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Kraainem, Bitcoin's value went down to $171.41 on Jan. 14. Yes, there's been a lot of "disappointment", "enduring problems" and "erosion of confidence" in an opinion piece Bitcoin is latest victim of disinflation by Edward Hadas on Reuters January 16, 2015 , but I havent read it's dead recently. Unless you refer to death prognoses Jonathan V. Last in Bitcoin Is Dead from Mar 5, 2014 in the Weekly Standard or Taylor Owen from Vice News Bitcoin Is Dead — Long Live Bitcoin on March 24, 2014, or aBlog Bitcoin is (Nearly) All Dead from December 17, 2014. As of today, Bitcoin has died 38 times in reliable sources since 2010; you can read all the bitcoin obituaries here--Wuerzele (talk) 02:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir added a section today on the "Death of Bitcoin" and it reflects what you pointed out Wuerzele. That so called experts have said its dead for a long time and it hasnt happened yet. AlbinoFerret 03:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Kraainem to a certain point that something along the lines should be mentioned, but I dont think an extra section is needed. Since there are at least 38 pronouncements of death, it would be nuts / boring to list them all. I think one sentence of this apparently enduring phenomenon is enough like: "As of January 2015, reliable sources have pronounced Bitcoin dead at least 38 times. Almost half of these pronouncements were made in December/January 2015." Would you all agree with this,AlbinoFerret, Ladislav Mecir, AndyTheGrump, SPECIFICO?

I would like to see an information like "Pronouncements of bitcoin death occurred as soon as 2011." Also, I prefer the sources to be named for readers to know who publishes the informations. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

ok Ladislav, but how would you like to select, which ones of the 39 sources you'd like to list / use ? I added the stats website to the section--Wuerzele (talk) 08:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

"how would you like to select, which ones of the 39 sources youd like to list" - that is a problem, indeed. How about picking the most renowned ones? (do not know how many) Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Not the way to go, its boring. as i said i dont even think an extra section is needed. I think collapsing ALL in one sentence of this apparently enduring phenomenon of pronouncing it dead is enough like: "As of January 2015, reliable sources have pronounced Bitcoin dead at least 29 times.(CNBC source by AlbinoFerret)" ( unsigned comment by Wuerzele link )

I kind of like the section, it shows a controversy over time. I think its big enough and the selected deaths show it really isnt a one time thing. AlbinoFerret 15:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

DiogoCão, you've now twice reverted the sourced sentence - it would be more productive and WP asks editors to discuss here. The fact that the source I cited is a blog doesnt scratch me that much - strictly speaking we use blogs all the time; but it's the QUALITY that counts- the blog I cited http://bitcoinobituaries.com lists all the sources and you can go and check them and they are 100% there - I call that quality. --Wuerzele (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

'Obituaries'

There seems to be some resistance to actually using a factual name for this section. 'Obituaries' relate to persons. Bitcoin is not a person. Accordingly, the section needs to be renamed. Assuming it is kept at all. Frankly, I can see little merit in separating out differing forecasts and statements regarding the future of bitcoin from each other. It looks to me like spin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The section was requested above. See "Bitcoin is dead". The sources do not forecast, they declare bitcoin dead. It is a misinterpretation to say that the source "forecasts", when it says "bitcoin is dead", when it writes an obituary, declares bitcoin "expired", etc. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of whether these are statements or forecasts, they are not obituaries. Nobody died. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

The sources say: "Bitcoin is dead", "obituary for bitcoin", etc. I do not think we are allowed to correct the sources, whatever it is we think about it. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTCRYSTAL QuentinUK (talk) 14:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I dont think that the 'Obituaries' section is trying to forecast or look into the future as WP:NOTCRYSTAL requires. The sourced claims are making statements that bitcoin is dead at the specific dates mentioned. The section isnt speculating that it will be dead, but listing all the comments to show an ongoing controversy over time. AlbinoFerret 15:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It clearly is not dead. That can be proven, but this an expression of the Trough of Disillusionment, there are many sources that say this and it is a more realistic description of what's happening. So this section would be better called the Trough of Disillusionment. QuentinUK (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Which sources say that? And on what Wikipedia policy grounds should we assume that their opinions are any more 'realistic'? 12:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

GIYF QuentinUK (talk) 13:27, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Price?

Perhaps we could create a bot that updates the BTC/USD price every hour or something. We could put it in the infobox. Thoughts? -Newyorkadam (talk) 23:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

I don't think this is appropriate for an encyclopedia. This will not get past WP:BTR anyway. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely agree w ☃ Unicodesnowman.--Wuerzele (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Current price edit

In a related edit. diff The current price was added. I am not so certain the source is reliable. I placed a tag. If it is reliable, perhaps an external link would sole the issue above. AlbinoFerret 17:52, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is reliable, it doesn't belong in an encyclopaedic article. We don't list prices, exchange rates or similar data - it changes too often to be useful, and anyone wanting the information can get an accurate figure elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:57, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, there's even WP:NOPRICES. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Andy.--Wuerzele (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

So AlbinoFerret says the figure might be from unreliable source and is uncertain about is it correct or not, and Andy says that anyone wanting the information can get an accurate figure elsewhere. Nice contradicting argumentation! The article clearly should give some idea of bitcoin conversion rate to dollars, otherwise readers are left to wonder, if the exchange rate is closer to 0.01 BTC/USD or closer to 1000 BTC/USD, as this is something that can have several orders of magnitude differences. WP:NOPRICES, which is about types of non-articles, does obviously not apply to this question. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 10:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Andy. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

@jni My whole concern was the reliability of the source. I really didnt think it was reliable, but placed a tag and figured to get input from others. WP:NOT also applies to content, and it is WP policy so we should follow it. But I am not sure WP:NOPRICES applies as there is no sales going on, we are not dealing with sales but exchange rates. The exchange rate is interesting information, but it changes a lot, especially with bitcoin, Adding the exchange rate to the page itself is questionable because the rate changes way to quickly. AlbinoFerret 15:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

How about a Bitcoin Price Ticker Widget from a reliable exchange in the article, for example: "

<script type="text/javascript" src="//widget.coindesk.com/bpiticker/coindesk-widget.min.js?529348"></script>"Kraainem (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)It is constantly updated minute-by-minute. Kraainem (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Suggestion withdrawn: I can see that it would be advertising for the supplier of the widget and that is not allowed on WP. Kraainem (talk) 21:55, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

The exchange rate of bitcoin **is** the price of bitcoin. There is little encyclopedic value in the current price of bitcoin, IMO. Also, JS cannot be included on wiki pages. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 02:38, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, the encyclopedic treatment on WP of any price would the following: WP should show that there is a price for an item if this were true in the real world. In the case of bitcoin: WP should show that there is a constantly changing price for bitcoin expressed in terms of most fiat currencies and that these prices can be accessed at generally reliable exchanges; then giving links to the most notable (biggest) of these global exchanges. I am sure all stock exchanges described on WP have links to the actual sites. For example, I note that the NYSE has a link on WP to its site. That is not a deliberate act of advertising these exchanges. The same is true for any commercial site described on WP with a link to the actual site. That is what WP is: an encyclopedic reflection of the real world. I think the same should apply to the bitcoin price and exchanges. Kraainem (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Your opinion appears to be entirely contrary to policy laid out in WP:NOT: "An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is a source and a justified reason for the mention." We neither routinely include share prices nor exchange rates in articles, nor provide links expressly for the purpose of determining them. I see no reason whatsoever why the price of bitcoin should be treated any differently than the price of shares in General Motors or the U.S. dollar-Nepalese rupee exchange rate. If you wish to propose a change to the WP:NOT policy, you are of course free to do so in the appropriate place, but meanwhile, it is still policy... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I am not advocating any changes in WP policies. What I am trying to highlight is the following: prices are set in markets and the markets or exchanges for bitcoin are not adequately reflected in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraainem (talk • contribs) 15:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Does Bitcoin "Appeal to criminals"?

Original wording:

The appeal of bitcoin to criminals has attracted the attention of financial regulators, legislative bodies, law enforcement, and media. They listed money laundering, financing of illicit activities, theft, fraud, tax evasion, and use in black markets as possible. As of 2013, the criminal activities centered around theft and black markets. Officials in countries such as the United States also recognized that bitcoin can provide legitimate financial services to customers.

My issue is with the wording "the appeal of bitcoin to criminals". I do not see any citations that support that statement. Let us be clear: Money appeals to criminals (and everybody else). So do cars. Air appeals to criminals (they like to breathe it). The implications of the statement is that Bitcoin appeals to criminals MORE than other payment systems. Subsequent citations in this paragraph do not address this question directly, and where it touches on the subject, it references the opinion of individuals who are presumably neither bitcoiners nor criminals (law enforcement and financial regulators). Therefore their opinion on this matter is not authoritative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandrewstone (talk • contribs) 21:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Gandrewstone (talk) 21:09, 4 February 2015 (UTC) Proposed revision:

Bitcoin contains features that prevent illegal activity such as fraud, and the publicly-visible ledger and not fully anonymous transactions allow bitcoins to be traced by law enforcement. At the same time, bitcoin's irreversible internet payments possibly appeal to criminals and has attracted the attention of financial regulators, legislative bodies, law enforcement, and media. They listed money laundering, financing of illicit activities, theft, fraud, tax evasion, and use in black markets as possible. As of 2013, the criminal activities centered around theft and black markets. Officials in countries such as the United States also recognized that bitcoin can provide legitimate financial services to customers.

References

The lede is supposed to summarise the article body - and the article body clearly and unambiguously documents the verifiable links between bitcoin and criminality - there is no 'possibly' involved. As for your material on fraud prevention measures and tracing by law enforcement, I think we'd need better sources than btctheory.com (hardly impartial) and pando.com to justify inclusion, and neither belong in the lede. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:17, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Gandrewstone (talk) 21:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC) Money appeals to criminals. I do not see verifiable links between bitcoin and criminality beyond that of money and criminality or automobiles and criminality. For example from the FBI report: "The FBI assesses with low confidence that malicious actors will exploit Bitcoin to launder money." So the FBI is guessing (with LOW confidence) that Bitcoin may be used to launder money in the future. But USD are used to launder money today.

From the article on Silk Road: “This goes to show you that though this is an anonymous currency, if you use it for illegal purposes, you will get caught,” Bruen said.

The article: "Bitcoin Comes Under Senate Scrutiny" is all about what MIGHT happen:

“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 (US senators)

Does that sound like what US senators would say about something that "appeals to criminals"?

-- Gandrewstone (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC) In regards to my btctheory.com source, unfortunately experts are by definition not impartial. At the same time, this isn't a matter of opinion. Unlike the credit card networks, the structure of the bitcoin protocol prevents the mass theft of information that can be subsequently used to make transactions. The ultimate citation here is the Bitcoin source code. Unfortunately everyone who is capable of reading and understanding it is subsequently labelled as "biased".

This article is based on published reliable sources,. and no on contributors interpretation of what they think Senators might or might not say. And since such reliable sources frequently discuss in depth the links between bitcoin and criminality, per WP policies, this article must do likewise. WP:NPOV policy is not open to negotiation.

(P.S. - please sign your comments at the end, not the start) AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:50, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You consistently make statements without supporting quotes, yet I am consistently making statements supported by quotes from both the originally cited sources and the new sources that I am proposing. Please cite actual quotes where "the links between bitcoin and criminality" are discussed, and quotes that substantiate the claim of "the appeal of bitcoin for criminals". Gandrewstone (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not proposing elimination of any of the original citations or other information. I am suggesting that the unsubstantiated bias that "bitcoin appeals to criminals" be removed, and that some citations describing why bitcoin aids law enforcement be added. Gandrewstone (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Read Bitcoin#Criminal_activity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Still not seeing an authority making statements that Bitcoin appeals to criminals, that Bitcoin criminal activity exceeds that of criminal activity in other currencies etc. Surely you are aware that criminal activity in USD vastly exceeds that of Bitcoin, and Silk Road constituted a negligible amount of drug trade, notable only in its brazenness... Where do we go from here? I'm reading the wikipedia article on consensus and I really think you are not behaving correctly here. I am suggesting a small word change that you have not shown to be backed up by citations... a word change that removes possible bias from the article. I am also adding new citation that provide additional information to the reader. I am not removing any existing information. Gandrewstone (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Our article does not state that 'Bitcoin criminal activity exceeds that of criminal activity in other currencies'. It does however follow the sources, which frequently link bitcoin with criminality. That is what the sources say, and that is what our article will say, per policy. It will not include misleading spin about 'possibly' appealing to criminals, because we do not lie to our readers. And as I have already explained, your material on fraud and traceability does not belong in the lede. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

You are causing the article to lie to your readers when you state that bitcoin appeals to criminals. I am not asking you to remove your sources. I am asking you to realize that money is frequently linked with criminality and so therefore the fact that bitcoin is linked with criminality does not mean that it "appeals to criminals" more than (say) the dollar does. In fact, as I'm sure you know, there are orders of magnitude more crime in dollars than bitcoin. We cannot know today whether that is because dollars are less secure or whether it is because bitcoin is less common, however this article makes one assumption in its statement "bitcoin appeals to criminals". The material in the lede is dated and contains broken links. And if ANY material about bitcoin and criminality belongs in the lede then it should be a balanced, unbiased approach.

You have consistently not defended your position with any relevant quotes from source material so I am going to proceed by removing the "appeals" wording. I will leave the citations out if you prefer. Gandrewstone (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:OR. Your personal opinion as to whether bitcoin appeals more or less than the dollar to criminals is of no relevance to article content whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

No in fact it is YOUR personal opinion which is of no relevance, because you are advocating a particular phraseology that is not supported by the citations. Until you can find a citation that says "bitcoin appeals to criminals" you should not insist on that phrase. Gandrewstone (talk) 23:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

How about the U.S. Attorney General, as quoted in the WSJ: "Virtual currencies can pose challenges for law enforcement given the appeal they have among those seeking to conceal illegal activity". [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The sources say that bitcoin has been involved in criminal activity, there was a RFC on it. The sources say it appeals to criminals. AlbinoFerret 23:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

As I'm sure you can tell by the context, the U.S. Attorney General is not using the phase authoritatively there -- he's using it conversationally. He is not saying bitcoin featured in many of the criminal prosecutions we pursued, therefore it is appealing to criminals. However, I thank you for that citation -- it was refusing to click load in my browser but I finally found it by searching the title in Google -- and I will agree that its existence returns this discussion to a matter of opinion between you and I, and frankly you've exhausted my interest in this topic. Perhaps we can revisit it in a year when, as the convictions roll in, it becomes even more obvious that Bitcoin actually has features that make it unappealing to criminals. Please save this discussion! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandrewstone (talk • contribs) 23:39, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

It appeals/appealed to criminals because it was believed to be anonymous. In the early days many sources said it was anonymous and people believed it. It is only recently that people are admitting that it is not anonymous after all. Then this "attraction" is outdated, but it is one of the reasons it was used by online criminals on Silk Road, and is still used by cybercriminals when asking for payment to stop DDOS attacks, and unlock cryptolocked hard drives. QuentinUK (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Introduced in 2009?

Woudn't "launched in 2009" be more to the point? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I think bitcoin is more of a protocol / concept than a service / company, and IMO launched is more commonly used to refer to the latter. But either wording sounds fine. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 08:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Either way, it was introduced in 2008. -Newyorkadam (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

The lead section too long for the article of this size?

TheMagikCow marked the lead section too long for the overall length of the article. Comparing the length of the lead section of the 7 World Trade Center featured article to its overall length, it is obvious that he made an error. That is why I remove the template. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is presently 56kb of readable text. Per WP:LEADLENGTH a lede of 4 paragraphs is appropriate. The lede paragraphs dont look to big, I dont see the problem. But we are in the area where splitting off a section of the article to its own page starts to make sense. The closer we get to 60-70kb the need will increase. WP:SIZESPLIT AlbinoFerret 16:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both, Ladislav Mecir and AlbinoFerret. My problem with the lead is less length than the heavy (and IMO) unnecessary markup with refs and also notes, as pointed out by Unicodesnowman below.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Heads up on offsite canvassing

This article was linked today on the Reddit bitcoin sub, so regular editors might expect an influence of new accounts who don't understand WP policies on RS and N (as evidenced by the posts in that discussion). N^oformation ^Talk 01:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks,Noformation. It s interesting to see what some select folks think about this page. It'd be hilarious, if it wasnt so sad to read what prejudices a few people throw around about us editors, obviously without any own observations.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the biggest misunderstanding on that page is neutrality on wikipedia. Neutrality isnt that we give equal treatment to each side. But we are neutral in bringing forth what sources say. AlbinoFerret 14:29, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

payment system- online or not?

Guys, can we briefly discuss payment systems here? I have seen this go back and forth a couple times now, reverting and reinserting "online" without discussion. IMO a payment system is NOT always an online network. Maybe increasingly so, but go to the wikipage and look for the def. Adding the qualifying ‘online’ implies a distinction, verbal clarification. Unless and until Bitcoin is a household name or all payment systems on this planet are online I think it is ok to add online. In an article that big we shouldnt be stingy about this one word. Kraainem,AlbinoFerret and Ladislav Mecir what do you say?

My opinion:

• The definition of payment system contains: "The payment system is an operational network..."
• The word "online" just restates that the payment system is a network, which is superfluous. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Additional problems with the edit:

• The edit does not refer to a source

(the lede doesnt have to...--Wuerzele (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC))

• It is not clear what exactly the editor means, i.e., what, according to the editor, is a difference between a "payment system" and an "online payment system". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Payment systems within banking self-evidently long pre-date the internet. And no, the internet is not the only network. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I do agree that the Internet is not the only network. However, "online" is a general word that applies to any network. If the goal is to mention the Internet, then why such unclear formulation? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

No, 'online' does not remotely apply to any network. Snail mail is a network. The road system is a network. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Online refers to being on the internet in common usage. A network could be offline. A payment system could also be used to describe how checks were handled in the past. Checked in at a bank (cashed) entered into a local computer to keep track of the transaction and then physically sent to another place to recoup the funds to the bank that cashed it. AlbinoFerret 18:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"Online refers to being on the internet in common usage" is how I see it too - existing in the world. Generally (maybe not absolutely): no internet and it means no bitcoin payment network. Kraainem (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"Online refers to being on the internet in common usage." - maybe in your usage, but is your usage also supported by reliable sources? The sources I see do not use the "online payment system" formulation, preferring to name the Internet explicitly. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

We are not writing the article for reading by reliable sources, but the general English reader. It is usually best to go with how language is commonly used for that purpose. AlbinoFerret 20:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

All: thanks for the civil discourse Ladislav, when you get a chance, could you plse suggest how you'd like to resolve the dispute. Is it possible that your understanding of "online" is different from the 4 editors that posted here? In American English ( and British/ Canadian/Australian English I assume) online really does mean "on the internet". see wikipedia def. --Wuerzele (talk) 05:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is really anything much to dispute here - the lede cites multiple sources which describe bitcoin as "online currency", [3][4][5][6] and the meaning seems clear and unambiguous to me. How does omitting this word improve the article? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Bitcoins do not have to be "online" in order to be transacted or stored. Hence, cold storage, physical person to person transactions, and also, this thing. http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1qbeab/a_bitcoin_atm_which_allows_buying_and_selling/.

My opinion is that it does not add to the clarity of the formulation. I see in Wikipedia that "online" generally means "in a connected state". That is why I objected. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The payment system of bitcoin is not just an online system. Large sums of bitcoin are stored on computers that have never been connected to the internet. Most functions of the bitcoin network are made more convenient by widespread internet access, but it is not required for its function. The bitcoin system could exist soley as a HF radio network, for example. All that is required is a means to transfer information for the network to function98.65.203.162 (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It also appears that refering to bitcoin as a payment system is more common than refering it to an online payment system.

Google this phrase: bitcoin "online payment system" 95,700 results Then Google this phrase: bitcoin "payment system" 367,000 results and subtract the results that include online (95,700) = 271,300 Therefore the term "payment system" is associated with the term bitcoin approximately 3 times more often than "online payment system" 98.65.203.162 (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The google searches are probably due to the fact that it is obvious that the payment system is online. Even offline transactions need to be brought online to complete the transaction. Chillum 22:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

If its so obvious then why use superfluous words in the article's lead description? We should use the common terminology. Transactions never have to be brought back online. There are even bitcoin ATMS which exist offline. http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1qbeab/a_bitcoin_atm_which_allows_buying_and_selling/ Information could also be transfered by radio signal if one wished. All that is required is a method to transfer information, not neccessarily through the internet. 98.65.203.162 (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Reddit is not a reliable source. AlbinoFerret 23:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Haha, remember that this source isnt going into an article. If proving that the atm exists is what it would take to convince you fine. Otherwise I wont bother. 98.65.203.162 (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Since we are discussing edits to the article, the source used to make points should be a reliable source. Reliability is necessary for all points. Using a reddit link proves nothing, on the talk page, or the article. AlbinoFerret 23:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you have a source for your statement? Or am I free to ignore it just as you ignore the link? 98.65.203.162 (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure WP:TALK#OBJECTIVE. AlbinoFerret 03:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, the reason we would state the obvious is because it is an encyclopedic article on the subject. It is not superfluous, it is descriptive. Chillum 23:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, then why is VISA's network described as simply an "interbank network" rather than an "online interbank network"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plus_%28interbank_network%29 98.65.203.162 (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I know several people who submit their VISA cards using phones, heck VISA predates the commercial use of the Internet. I don't really get your point. Payments through bitcoins can only be made online. Chillum 23:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You could call a bitcoin company on the phone and buy bitcoins that way as well. But the merchants, whom the several people you know do business with and bought things with for their card, connect to the VISA network do so through the internet to verify payments. Sure, at some point in the past they used another method, but this is the reality today. My point here is that the Visa network and the Bitcoin network are not so different in this regard. Both networks have online and offline elements. They are mainly different in that one is centralized and the other is distributed. 98.65.203.162 (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

"online payment system" or "distributed public ledger"

There was a discussion earlier about whether bitcoin should be referred to as an online payment system, or simply a payment system. I think that discussion missed the mark entirely. While a payment system is one of the first uses of the system, it is more accurately described as a "distributed public ledger". Almost anything that requires consensus could be facilitated by the bitcoin network, such as smart contracts, property deeds, ID verification, notary functions, etc.

Athough its functions as a payment system should certainly be discussed prominently in the article, simply calling it an online payment system in the introductory sentence is misleading.

Examples:

http://www.wired.com/2014/10/world_passport/

http://observer.com/2014/10/worlds-first-bitcoin-marriage-to-be-held-at-disney-world-this-weekend/

http://www.hedgy.co/

98.65.203.162 (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you are confusing bitcoin with the blockchain. While blockchains can be used for a variety of purposes bitcoin is most certainly a payment system. Chillum 18:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm referring specifically to bitcoin. The entire bitcoin system functions to maintain the bitcoin blockchain, hence it is a distributed public ledger. The bitcoin blockchain and its maintainance IS Bitcoin. There can be other blockchains, but what we are discussing is bitcoin itself and in particular. These contracts that give bitcoin its status as different from a simple payment system reside on the Bitcoin blockchain and are maintained by the Bitcoin network.98.65.203.162 (talk) 18:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is disputing that it is a distributed public ledger. However nothing you have said contradicts that it is indeed an online payment system. Chillum 19:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

My argument is not to discredit Bitcoin's use as a payment system. My argument is that its function as a payment system is just one of many uses, and it would be more accurate to refer to it as a distributed public ledger initially in the article. One could then go on to describe the possible functions of this ledger. What is occuring now is similar to describing an electron as a means to power your iphone before describing it as a subatomic particle. By referring accurately to Bitcoin as a distributed public ledger, you also remove the problem of people being confused by its description as a payment system when they thought it was a currency. Currency and payment system are both simply possible functions of the distributed public ledger. 98.65.203.162 (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You can write a message on a $20 bill, it does not make it note paper. Just because something can be used for purposes other than what it was designed for does not mean much. Chillum 20:22, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It is well known that the creator of Bitcoin advocated for developers to experiment with all possible functions of the bitcoin system beyond simply currency or payment system. He even included a partially finished distributed marketplace in the original code. http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/21bdki/fun_fact_the_original_satoshi_bitcoin_code/ 98.65.203.162 (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

talk you confirmed (agreed) that bitcoin is first and foremost an online payment system when you stated "It is well known that the creator of Bitcoin advocated for developers to experiment with all possible functions of the bitcoin system" "beyond simply currency or payment system." Kraainem (talk) 00:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a bizzare argument to make...How does responding to an allegation that something is "simply a payment system" by claiming that is "beyond simply a payment system", prove that its "simply a payment system"? The wording of that statement was my own, not the creator of bitcoin's, if you were confused by that.96.38.120.194 (talk) 04:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It is still an online payment system, that description is not innacurrate. The article already mentions that it is a distributed public ledger where it described that blockchain. Chillum 20:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Its also not inaccurate to describe an electron as a thing to charge your phone with. What I'm saying is that those two sentences should be swapped so that bitcoin's core essence, a distributed public ledger, is reflected in the first sentence, and its functions such as payment system and currency are mentioned afterwards. 98.65.203.162 (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Bitcoin implements several interesting technologies including a distributed ledger but it is at its core a payment system. I find your analogy to the electron unconvincing in that it does not seem to parallel this issue. I suggest we both wait for somebody else to weigh in on this so that we can better judge consensus. Chillum 20:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

How then do you explain the fact that some people think that Bitcoin functions better as a "store of value" than a "payment system"? The possible uses of Bitcoin itself are debatable. But no one claims that it is not a distributed public ledger. Instead of the electron analagy, think instead of gold. The wikipedia article for gold correctly first describes it as an atomic element rather than potential uses, such as a store of value or currency. 98.65.203.162 (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Once again pointing out that bitcoin is another thing does not stop it from being a payment system. I am not going to argue this with you as your arguments are a bit repetitive in nature. I think it will be more productive to wait for other opinions than to go back and forth. Chillum 21:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Since my initial post, I have only been responding to your comments, so if you think my arguments are repetitive, it is because I am responding to a repetitive argument. You can choose to respond further or not, as I will wait for more feedback, but bitcoin's status as a payment system, due to transaction volume limits and fees, is debatable. Just as its status as a currency or store of value are debatable. The same applies to gold. How would you feel if someone labeled gold as a "store of value" in the first sentence of its article. People undoubtedly use it as such, but defining it as a store of value in the first sentence is limiting and misleading. Possible functions should, as is custom in encyclopedic articles, be described later. 98.65.203.162 (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Bitcoin is a payment system that uses a distributed ledger. Its not one or the other. AlbinoFerret 22:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, agreed. Bitcoin is a payment system, the blockchain is a distributed ledger. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 22:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Bitcoin is the system used to maintain the distributed ledger. The ledger is the only thing that matters here. Any attempt to separate the two is nonsense. 98.65.203.162 (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Here's a thought experiment: Can bitcoin work on some level without the blockchain? Yes. I grab my ECDSA keypair representing a bitcoin address, sign a transaction sending it to someone else, and tweet it on Twitter. Someone else using Twitterchain can verify the signatures and inputs/outputs are proper, and then spend their new coins in Twitterchain.☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

How could you ever verify that funds have not been doublespent without the blockchain? If you use some centralized method to do so its not bitcoin anymore, its an inefficient bank. The distributed public ledger is what makes bitcoin, bitcoin. 98.65.203.162 (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

BitcoinThe blockchain is distributed public ledger that was designed to facilitate a payment system (see whitepaper). Bitcoin is a payment system. I don't think it is debatable that bitcoin isn't a payment system (even if it may not be a scalable one, re 7TPS). It might be good to include distributed ledger applications in a new section, but the lead should have an accurate and concise description which is 'payment system'. After all, Firefox is a "web browser", not a "HTML markup parser". ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2015 (UTC); ; edited 22:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually this is a good example, but it is different because Firefox is managed by a company called Mozilla who has a CEO that markets it as a web browser in particular. The creator of bitcoin presented it as a currency, payment system, store of value, escrow service, and more. To pick one function and label it as such would be misleading, hence, describing it as that what makes all those things possible, a distributed public ledger, is more correct. 96.38.120.194 (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It was also designed to be a currency. Why then isnt its currency function displayed as prominantly as its payment network function? Peter Thiel thinks you have it backwards https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/paypal-founder-peter-thiel-bitcoin-opposite-paypal/ 98.65.203.162 (talk) 22:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thats changing the topic of this section. AlbinoFerret 01:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

No it's not changing the topic. The point I was making is that bitcoin should not first be described as a payment system for the same reason that it should not be described as a currency. Those are derivative functions of the distributed public ledger, which are multitude and debatable as to which function is paramount. If you actually look at the value flows and storage, bitcoin is currently more utilized as a store of value than a payment system. We should not steer the reader into thinking it is one or the other when it is both, hence why the more fundamental term "distributed public ledger" is more appropriate. 96.38.120.194 (talk) 03:55, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

That is incorrect thinking, it is both, but not one or the other. It is a payment system that uses a distributed ledger. Removing either part is factually incorrect. Payment systems dont have to have a distributed ledger. A distributed ledger is not tied to a payment system. AlbinoFerret

Maybe I did not describe my proposal well enough. I'm not advocating "removing either part". Currently, In the first sentence, bitcoin is labeled as a payment system, then the article goes on to describe it as a ledger. I would like to change that intial label from payment system to "distributed public ledger", and then describe its functions, such a payment system, later. Both parts remain, just their order of introduction as concepts to describe bitcoin with has changed. The fact that payment systems don't have to have a distributed ledger is irrelevant. However, the fact that a distributed ledger is not tied to a payment system is exactly my point. The distributed ledger (bitcoin) could be used only for contract enforcement, if people choose to use it as such. Bitcoin could be used only as a store of value, and many people use it as such. You said, "A distributed ledger is not tied to a payment system." I would point out that it is also not limited to, or necessarily function primarily as, a payment system. Which is why starting the article with the words, "Bitcoin is a payment system" is misleading. It really does make sense if you think about it. I'm not sure why this change would cause so much controversy. All content would remain and the article would be much more clear and concise. 98.65.203.162 (talk) 19:35, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Because the lede. where you point out the problem, is a summery of the entire article. Focusing one one area is wrong. Even in the article, focusing on one point is wrong. Its inaccurate. You are also making suggestions that have no firm form, you might do better to propose specific changes referencing the line you want to change. You will need consensus to do anything, and so far you have none. AlbinoFerret 20:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh. Explain then how am I focusing on one area moreso than you are? You are right about suggesting specific chages though. 98.65.203.162 (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you are confusing mechanism with purpose. Its purpose is an online payment system. The distributed ledger is one of the mechanisms it uses to do this. You might as well argue that we should call it an elliptic curve cryptography contract system. There are plenty of clever mechanisms used by bitcoin but they all come together to make an online payment system. Chillum 20:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This is good and gets to the point. My question is who are we as wikipedia editors to decide bitcoin's purpose? There is a healthy debate as to whether bitcoin better serves the purpose of currency, payment system, store-of-value, contract validation, etc. The truth is that it can be used for all those things, so first descibe it as what it is that makes all those things possible functions. Distributed public ledger is the most commonly used term that has been used to accurately describe what it is, and doesnt delve into detail such as elliptic curve cryptography which are not unique to bitcoin. The distributed public ledger, however, is unique to bitcoin and the altcoins, of which bitcoin was first. 98.65.203.162 (talk) 20:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You have made your point well and I am pretty sure people understand your point. I also think it has been rejected by the majority of editors here. Chillum 20:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I will consider other ways that I can help clear the resulting confusion. 98.65.203.162 (talk) 21:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

After reading through the article again, "payment system" seems to be an acceptable way to start the article. I'm sceptical of placing the term "online" before it though. You can look at the section "payment system- online or not?" earlier on this page. Toward the end I've presented some more information that would be relevant to a decision. 98.65.203.162 (talk) 22:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

How exactly does one get the their transaction into the distributed block chain other than online? This really sounds like a new proposal. You keep changing what it is you are arguing for. Chillum 22:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

98.65.203.162, thank you for bringing up the point that the blockchain is not limited to monetary applications (if I may condense, correct me if I am wrong). I put Decentralized Autonomous Organization under external links for starters; maybe it will make it into the body of the Bitcoiin page, if there are enough WP:RS one day. However,...

First, I had hoped you'd bring some WP:RS to bolster your somewhat vague argument of the "discussions out there" about the "multitude of functions", 98.65.203.162. The links you threw out in the beginning are not really helpful or solid enough: Hacker Dreams Up Crypto Passport Using the Tech Behind Bitcoin is a short blurb, Bitcoin marriage is more of a curiosity, and Eliminate Bitcoin Volatility with Smart Contracts for Hedging is a commercial website you couldnt even put in external links; the other two maybe.

Second, unless and until you bring reliably sourced concrete evidence that Bitcoin is used as something else than an online payment system by more than a couple of start-ups, I too am against changing the first sentence. This is wikipedia, an encyclopedia, delivering yes, reliably sourced, fundamental information. Its not rationalwiki- they may accept your edit actually. I have nothing against extrapolating on a topic at the edges (=the end of teh page) into future developments, but not in the first sentence of the lede.

Lastly, all of us have started editing at WP once, I dont know how many of us registered folks have been anonymous IP's for long and been productive, but fact is: messing with the very first sentence of a highly visited page as a newbie will always be highly contested. Don't take it personal. To wit, there's people here who've worked on the page in incremental steps for years.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate quote

ponzi scheme dispute section states "U.S. economist Nouriel Roubini, former senior adviser to the U.S. Treasury and the International Monetary Fund, has stated that "bitcoin is a Ponzi game"." If you actually look at the source the quote is inaccurate. The quote actually says, "It is btw a Ponzi game." 96.38.120.194 (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You're correct, and I've gone ahead and changed the quote to reflect this. Fleetham (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit war in the Reception section

Fleetham made numerous changes in this section by this edit today, which he incompletely described in the edit summary "Paragraphing, places quote from like individuals together, adds better source tags". The edit is not neutral. By moving the opinion of François R. Velde down in the section, something Fleetham has long pursued before his block, leading to numerous editwars with Ladislav Mecir. Fleetham's edit gives the Wired .com opinion the top, which states "in the estimation of many leading economists, bitcoin is a fatally flawed idea shaped by people who don’t really understand how money works." He also inserted a new, unnecessary editorializing sentence "Some economists employed by the Federal Reserve System have applauded bitcoin"

I reverted the edit, since it upset the existing chronological order, which is easier to append to and a transparent organizing principle. Sorting by 'like individuals' however is very dicey and controversial. Opinions?

Without any discussion, Fleetham reintroduced the edits here 10 min later, inserting "Some economists employed by the Federal Reserve System have praised bitcoin" This is by definition edit warring.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Calm down, I've reverted the edit. Please be careful not to let your edits contravene WP:OWN, as you have established a pattern of trying to prevent changes to the article. Fleetham (talk) 05:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting yourself. If you could stop your WP:Mock allegations against me, that would be even better.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit 647046975= 8 changes at once

welcome back from the one month block Fleetham. I'd appreciate if you start slowly- there were 7 too many questionable edits at once in this, your last edit. we previouly discussed not having another "history" subsection for example, so I d appreciate if you didnt make that change. please only add sourced material.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think it's best to refrain from asking people not to make changes cf. WP:OWN. I'd be happy to bring this up with an admin if you insist. Please detail what you dislike, and I'll work to accommodate your feedback! Fleetham (talk) 07:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Wuerzele, is right. The subsection name is consensual. See #Two "history" sections above to find out how the consensus was built. The same reservation applies to other changes, see the consensus built here at the talk. This is just a normal consensus-building process. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting it isn't. Because Wuerzele has a history of WP:PA, I'm asking him to be more careful to be polite when replying. Fleetham (talk) 00:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Re "to be more careful to be polite when replying". Please revert this WP:PA, as it contributes nothing to the content discussion, but distracts, also by claiming to perceive a personal attack where none actually exists.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)