Wikipedia

Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 26

< Talk:Bitcoin
Latest comment: 9 years ago by Ladislav Mecir in topic Tokyo court decision
Archive 20←Archive 24Archive 25Archive 26Archive 27Archive 28→Archive 30
Latest comment: 9 years ago30 comments10 people in discussion

Discussion

The discussed section contained the text: "It is illegal in at least nine countries: Bangladesh,[242] Bolivia,[243] Ecuador,[244] Iceland,[245] Inḋdonesia,[246] Kyrgyzstan,[247] Russia,[245] Thailand,[248] and Vietnam.[249]"

Having spotted that the "at least nine" text was not supported by any reliable source, I deleted it, below are the reasons why the deletion was necessary. I do not doubt that Fleetham can count, but the findings below prove that he did make serious errors when adding claims, influencing also the correctness of his count:

  • The claim that bitcoin is "illegal" in Iceland cited the "Bitcoin: Market, economics and regulation" source [245]. The cited source contains an information that "Foreign exchange activities with bitcoin [are] illegal." That, however, is a different claim than "Bitcoin is illegal in Iceland". The confusion of legality of foreign exchange activities with the legality of bitcoin results in a serious misinformation, justifying the warning that the claim that "Bitcoin is illegal in Iceland" is not present in the cited source.
  • The claim that bitcoin is "illegal" in Indonesia is based on the warning of the Bank Indonesia, which claimed that bitcoin is not a "legal medium of exchange in Indonesia". The warning, however, does not claim bitcoin illegal, it just correctly claims that bitcoin was not enacted as a legal tender. The confusion of "bitcoin is not a legal medium of exchange" with "bitcoin is illegal" results in a serious misinformation, justifying the tag I used to warn the reader that the claim is not present in the cited source.
  • The warning of the National Bank of the Kyrgyz Republic also does not contain the claim that "bitcoin is illegal in the Kyrgyz republic", which also justifies the use of the tag warning the reader that the claim cannot be found in the cited source.
  • The claim that "bitcoin is illegal in Thailand" also contradicts the cited source, which states: "businesses that have licenses have continued operating bitcoin exchanges in Thailand." This also justifies the tag warning the reader that the claim that "bitcoin is illegal in Thailand" actually is not supported by the cited source.

After I marked the unsupported claims, Fleetham deleted all tags I added stating: 'Removed failed verification tags as sources clearly state things like "making purchases with Bitcoin is illegal in country"' This is not what sources state, as I summed up above. Thus, instead of trying to discuss in here, Fleetham once again chose edit-warring as the method and deleted all the well-justified tags as demonstrated above. (Note that when I mark a claim as unsupported by the cited source, the onus is on Fleetham to prove the claim is correct, which is what he refused to do.) Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:36, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not a legal expert, but trying to put too much detail in the legal section will be difficult since only actual court cases in each jurisdiction will decide whether bitcoin is illegal in that jurisdiction or not. For example: it is stated above: "The claim that bitcoin is "illegal" in Indonesia is based on the warning of the Bank Indonesia, which claimed that bitcoin is not a "legal medium of exchange in Indonesia". Thus, bitcoin is legal as long as you do not use it as a medium of exchange. You can thus legally mine it and legally buy it outside Indonesia and hoard it in the country. It is legal, as long as you do not use it as a medium of exchange. Similarly, intricate and complicated legal arguments can most probably be made for all statements regarding the legality of bitcoin in each jurisdiction in the world. This article is clearly not the space to get bogged down in these legal matters. Perhaps this should be stated as a preamble to this section. Obviously referencing newspaper articles about the legality or not of bitcoin in a country may be encyclopedic, but may be far from correct in terms of the actual legal status in a jurisdiction. Most probably not many court cases regarding this matter have been decided by now. The correct way would be to only allow references to court cases deciding these legal matters in each jurisdiction. Kraainem (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No Kraainem, I disagree with you arguing "complicated legal arguments most probably can be made". No it is actually not complicated and lets cut to the chase: Stick with the case, that Ladislav is making. He is correct: this is sloppy and generalizing referencing, all too well known to us. Thanks for staying with it, Ladislav. You have my support.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
@Kraainem: 'bitcoin is not a "legal medium of exchange in Indonesia". Thus, bitcoin is legal as long as you do not use it as a medium of exchange.' - Not being a "legal medium of exchange" means that the law does not require anybody to accept it as a medium of exchange. The interpretation that it is illegal to use it as a medium of exchange is mistaken. Please consult the legal tender article. Note also, that it is not my onus to convince anybody that my interpretation is correct, it is the onus of the editor adding the claims to the article to demonstrate that his interpretation is correct, which he refused to do. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir, your interpretation of the above term is a perfect example of what I stated previously about only a decided court case can be referenced regarding the interpretation of legal terms: I do not agree with your interpretation: thus, only an Indonesian court can decide the matter at hand - in the Indonesian case. Even a specific law is not the final say: only the interpretation of the courts of the stated law is the final say. Thus only decided court cases can be referenced. I agree with Chillum that it is better to avoid using the term "illegal" altogether. Kraainem (talk) 22:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kraainem: this is where we can easily agree, although I do not intend to go as far as stating that the term "illegal" should be avoided. I merely state that the formulation used in the article is not supported by reliable sources, and should be changed to not misinterpret the known facts.
@Ladislav Mecir: So, to rebut one by one:
Fleetham (talk) 21:35, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of trying to figure out what illegal means in each country we could use a more general statement like "Bitcoin is under some form of restriction in at least..." and thus skip the term illegal altogether. Chillum 21:46, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Chillum, that is a good idea. Kraainem (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, it seems clear from the discussion that the sources actually do not fail verification as no one has brought up subsequent protestations after my clarification. I'm going to go ahead and remove the tags soon. Fleetham (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Well, no. The discussion made it clear that everybody except for you is disagreeing with the current formulation. If you remove the tags, you will do it without any consensus from this discussion, while it was your onus to obtain such a consensus to remove the tags I inserted. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
@Fleetham: "But only two have made it illegal: Iceland and Vietnam." While this looks like confirming that bitcoin is illegal in Iceland, it, in fact, directly contradicts the sentence you wrote in the article, which listed and counted nine countries. It also contradicts the legal status in Iceland: Iceland banned foreign exchange activities. Does that mean that US dollar is illegal in Iceland? No, even though the ban on foreign exchange activities is in effect for US dollars as well! Also note that I am not pushing my interpretation to the article, I merely state that the formulation you use is not supported by a reliable source.
For Indonesia, 'The term used is not "legal tender" but "medium of exchange."' - wrong citation, the term used in the warning is "legal medium of exchange", and it is not my onus to prove any interpretation, since it is not me who is trying to push an interpretation to the article. I insist that the current formulation is not supported by the source that is currently cited.
For Thailand, you are misinterpreting what the cited source states. The cited source is commendably neutral (which is a good and respectable practice we should learn from) stating that while news reports state that bitcoin is illegal, the decision upon which they base their claims is just preliminary and specific to a particular application, and that other businesses continue using their licenses in agreement with the local law. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
For Iceland, the source was written at a time when only Vietnam and Iceland had banned bitcoin. This doesn't mean that CNN Money is wrong when it says "But only two [governments] have made it illegal: Iceland and Vietnam".
For Indonesia, I actually have no idea what your objection is. Perhaps you or someone else can clarify?
For Thailand, the fact that the decision was "initial" or "preliminary" doesn't mean it's wrong especially in the absence of any further pronouncement. Fleetham (talk) 00:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
@Fleetham: "Perhaps you or someone else can clarify?" - it is not necessary at all. As I said, it is your onus to try to obtain the consensus with the action you are proposing, and, as I see it, nobody did express such a consensus yet. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

For Germany, the statement "A German court found bitcoin to be a unit of account.[34]:10" is not backed by the source.--Andreas Linder (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the claim is backed by the source, just read the "Germany" section at page 10 of the source, as indicated. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Wrong. I did read the source. It does not contain the word "court". --Andreas Linder (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Corrected. Thank you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

List of votes

To make it absolutely certain, here is a list of votes related to Fleetham's proposal to remove the tags and keep the sentence as is:

  • Oppose. The claim does not reflect the cited sources correctly. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Kyrgyzstan is flat out wrong, Iceland and Thailand is dubious. Reducing bitcoin's status in Indonesia to 'illegal' is not accurate. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 11:39, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose While the use of the word "votes" isnt the best, this needs to be commented on. WP:VER is all that really needs to be pointed out, and is non negotiable. When sources dont back up the claims, they need to be tagged, if not outright removed. The tags should stay until the situation is fixed. The claims defiantly need to be edited, new sources used that support the claims, or claims and references removed. AlbinoFerret 14:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Claims are sloppily generalized, so improperly referenced, as I stated yesterday.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Abstain Kraainem (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Well, I guess the problem is either the word "illegal" is easily misunderstood to mean "holding bitcoins is illegal" or the fact that bitcoin is illegal for different reasons in different places makes it confusing. I'm sure clarifying that in Iceland buying bitcoins is illegal whereas in someplace else buying a service or good with bitcoins is what's illegal will quickly override any qualms, and this won't need to go to an RfC or the NPOV dispute noticeboard. Fleetham (talk) 03:04, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
this perfectly illustrates that legal status ain't the same as regulation... and who said on this page this was the same?--Wuerzele (talk) 04:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC) again?
@Fleetham: "I'm sure clarifying that in Iceland buying bitcoins is illegal" - It is known that "Foreign exchange activities with bitcoin [are] illegal.", but that is still not the same as "buying bitcoins is illegal". The claims should be correct, and not distorted using original thoughts. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. Bitcoin is illegal in Iceland. See: "It aims to triple this by the end of the year, which, together with other Iceland-based mining firms DigitalBTC and Cloudhashing, will push the country's total bitcoin output up to around $8m per month." Kraainem (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
If Bitcoin is illegal in Iceland, how could someone be setting up Bitcoin mines in Iceland? Furthermore, the article does not contain the words "legal" or "illegal" anywhere in the text. Mrcatzilla (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Mrcatzilla good thinking. read this-Jose Pagliery (2 April 2014). "Where is Bitcoin legal?". Money Cable News Network. Time Warner. Retrieved 9 December 2014. its only the INCOMING bitcoin they regulated. I once had assembled 2 good refs on Iceland, but cannnot find them anymore now or in teh last 1-2 months edits. they didnt survive these edit wars. the above ref was deleted by Fleetham.--Wuerzele (talk) 08:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
@Mrcatzilla (talk), since this is a legal matter, I think it is a good idea if you discuss this with a lawyer. I am just the Devil's advocate. Kraainem (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like WP:SNOW. But the tagged claims should be sourced soon or removed. AlbinoFerret 13:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Upper case Bitcoin.

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Note 7: "There is no uniform convention for bitcoin capitalization. Some sources use Bitcoin, capitalized, to refer to the technology and network and bitcoin, lowercase, to refer to the unit of account.[16] The WSJ[17] and The Chronicle of Higher Education[18] advocate use of lowercase bitcoin in all cases. This article follows the latter convention."

I was going to add the WSJ and/or other source before I saw it here. Note only after my edit at [Cryptocurrency] I saw the "Chronicle of Higher Education[18] advocate use of lowercase bitcoin in all cases [..] This article follows the latter convention."

There are however exceptions: "this is accomplished with a provisional Bitcoin URI scheme" and "Bitcoin Core" (this would be an exception to the ruleexception).

The former could be fixed, or this article changed like I did the other.. Maybe that is not advised. Before people go ahead and revert my edit (most of it), is this for sure the better standard? comp.arch (talk) 09:43, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Bitcoin Core is not an exception, it is a name of a program. It is like Windows with capital W, which is a name of an operating system. Regarding Bitcoin URI - I am not sure whether it is a name of the scheme, and should be capitalized, or not.
Regarding your "Is this the better standard?" question: there was a dispute related to capitalization, and the majority voted (in fact, the vote was unanimous at the time) for lowercase bitcoin. You can find the dispute and the reasons why it is better in the archive. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I see you reverted at the other page. Strictly speaking, consensus here does not apply there.. but I'll act as if it does for consistency (I just didn't know). Agree with "Bitcoin Core", but seems "bitcoin URI scheme" would be according to consensus here. comp.arch (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree with bitcoin URI scheme, but I am not an expert. You should edit it if you think it will be correct that way. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
The way I've generally seen accepted is "Bitcoin" when discussing the protocol and "bitcoin" when discussing the currency. For example,
  • "Bitcoin's typical transaction fee is .0001 bitcoins".
  • "I love using Bitcoin; I'll send you 3 bitcoins so you can try it out yourself."
  • "Satoshi Nakamoto, who invented and created Bitcoin, made the first transaction by sending 10 bitcoins to Hal Finney."
Newyorkadam (talk) 15:15, 6 April 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam
The rule set you mention is just one of the rule sets discussed. You should read the sources mentioned in the article and the talk page archives to know the options and the reasons why a different rule was chosen. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Death spiral

Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

Plse don´t delete content that is presented from a reliable source according to WP:RS666AngelOfDeath (talk) 10:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Google "bitcoin death spiral 2015" and there are 436 000 references. 666AngelOfDeath (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

666AngelOfDeath, I welcomed you on your talkpage - plse look at some of the WP ground rules. what you call references arent necessarily citations in the encyclopedic sense. also, there's a standard on WP how to present citations, so they are stable. plse be aware that re-reverting is considered edit warring, which can be penalized. it's better (normal procedure on WP per WP:BRD) to discuss on Talk right after you are reverted to understand what's going on.Thanks.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
A new section, devoted to the one phrase may be a little much, have you considered adding it to the obituaries section instead? AlbinoFerret 13:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
agree.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I think adding it to the Obituaries section is a good compromise. The point about loss of interest in bitcoin is important and relevant. TimidGuy (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
If it belongs there, it should be attributed, as clearly opinion (not least because whether Bitcoin is 'interesting' is a matter of opinion in the first place), and either marked as a direct quotation, or paraphrased - copy-pasting text into the article without marking it as a quotation is a copyright violation. Accordingly, I've reverted the text until this is sorted out one way or another. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
agree too.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:43, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I should have commented here after I removed the section; apologies. I agree with everything stated above. While 666AngelOfDeath is correct regarding reliable sourcing, we do still have to keep neutral point of view in mind, and I found that the section gave undue weight to this fairly minor bit of trivia. No objections to it being added to the obituaries section as another opinion, but consider whether this point has already been made to death (pun maybe intended). Ivanvector (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Environmental costs comparison

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

I tried twice to edit the sentence:

It has been estimated that the annual environmental impact due to bitcoin mining represents approximately 0.13% of the impact caused by fiat and gold-based monetary systems.

in order to avoid giving a false impression of the result to the reader. Ironically, the source (which, by the way, I doubt can be considered a reliable source by Wikipedia standards, but still provides interesting figures) states

It is important to note that whilst this can be construed as an apples-to-oranges comparison, it is equally important to get a frame of reference of the huge environmental impact of the banking industry, and to illustrate that we must ensure that we avoid having the same negative impact as we have in the past, should Bitcoin be successful and scale to the size of the existing system

So: OK to look at the order of magnitudes just for curiosity, but a comparison is apples-to-oranges.

In the first version of my edit, I did give a comparison (0.13% vs. several orders of magnitude for VISA) which can fall in (a very stretched definition) of "original research". I carefully avoided this now, only writing stuff which is clear from reading the original paper. Please avoid rolling back again, and discuss. --Toobaz (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear: the original paper is, from an economic point of view, totally meaningless, because of huge methodological problems (i.e. problems with Bitcoin are considered as "black swan") and "unsolved counterfactuals" (what if everybody started using credit card?!), so I think a perfectly acceptable solution is to just remove the sentence. --Toobaz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The cited source states: "...the impact caused by fiat and gold-based monetary systems...", while your edit turns it to "...traditional financial and banking systems...". I understand it so that it is your wish to link it to informations contained in another source (a.k.a. synthesis).
  • The text: "However, this estimate excludes any other environmental cost related to Bitcoin (such as specialized websites, ATMs...)" is unsupported by any source (see WP:SYNTH and WP:OR).
  • When your edit is reverted, the onus is on you to obtain the consensus here. Since you rereverted the text immediately without trying to obtain any consensus first, you are violating Wikipedia policies (See WP:EW). Hope this explains how you should handle this situation. Thanks. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:45, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
1 No, I don't wish to link the cited source to anything. The reference I added is informative but not required - after all, it states the obvious. The fact that the comparison is unfair is clearly stated in the cited source, see quote above. We could just report that quote as it is... but I :strongly doubt the page (and the quality of the source to the eyes of the reader) would benefit.
2 Again, this is simply clear in the cited source, as well as in the sentence which is already present, which talks about "mining" only. And again, there would be no gain in only reporting the "negative" assertion ("apples-to-oranges") from the cited source.
3 Yep, I tried to obtain consensus by reformulating the edit, by explaining it in the comment field, and by writing here. Happy to talk to you, finally ;-) (Sure, it would have been simpler for me to just revert the initial edit, and put the onus on the author... but I tried to be collaborative.) --Toobaz (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment: While I do think Toobaz's edit has some problems, I would like to see @Ladislav Mecir: and @Toobaz: resolve these through constructive editing rather than reverts. It does seem that Toobaz has made changes to his original edit in order to make it better conform to the rule (and while it continues to require changes), I encourage both of you to make further edits instead of simply reverting each other's work.
As for the actual argument, the main source looks likely to fail WP:RS... it's a bitcoin-news-only website. Here's some relevant source material for sources whose reliability is in no way in doubt: "Virtual Bitcoin Mining Is a Real-World Environmental Disaster" Bloomberg., "Bitcoin Mining Is Not A Real World Environmental Disaster" Forbes., "Mining Bitcoins takes power, but is it an “environmental disaster?'" Ars Technica.. Fleetham (talk) 22:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
There is no way whatsoever that the CoinDesk piece should be cited for any of its conclusions. It is nothing but a puff-piece full of guesswork, wild extrapolations and wishful thinking. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
@Ladislav Mecir:: just to avoid a loss of time: would you be OK with just removing the whole sentence? --Toobaz (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Looking at this further, not only is the CoinDesk piece unreliably sourced, but the 0.13% figure is meaningless - the number is arrived at without taking into account the relative scale of usage. Accordingly, I have removed it, and ask that it not be restored without prior consensus. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
It looks like there's still around ten coindesk.com sources still in the article. I'm going to go ahead and remove them per WP:RS, too. Fleetham (talk) 21:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Mining

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

When reverting someone else's change because it contained "incorrect claims", basic courtesy requires that you specify what those claims were. – Smyth\talk 11:12, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree and have reverted the revert... please flag those claims that are incorrect or otherwise revert only the incorrect portion(s) of the edit. Fleetham (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't intend to introduce any new claims at all, only to explain the existing material more clearly. If I've misunderstood anything, please let me know. – Smyth\talk 13:11, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Disagree with the edit. Basic courtesy requires that the editor making a copy edit does not alter the sense of the text, which actually happened. Changes altering the meaning are:
  • The edit omitted the explanation of the nonce specific for the bitcoin proof of work, replacing it by a general cryptographic nonce cross link. The problem is that the general explanation does not fit in case of bitcoin. Bitcoin nonce is not used to suppress replay attacks in communication, and it is not true that any random nonce would be accepted.
  • The edit introduces the formulation: "...a cryptographic hash of the new block combined with the nonce produces a hash..." However, the formulation is incorrect, since the cryptographic hash of the new block is not combined with the nonce to produce another hash.
  • The edit removes the explanation why finding the proof of work is tedious - this is based on the fact that for a secure cryptographic hash there is no simpler way how to find the nonce than to try different nonce values one after another until the difficulty target is met.
  • The edit introduces the formulation: "Every 2016 blocks (approximately 14 days), the difficulty target is reset...", which is incorrect. The fact is that every 2016 blocks the difficulty target is adjusted, not reset. The difference is substantial, the network rules make sure that the changes of the difficulty target are not "too big".
I do not claim I found all the problems the purported "copy edit" caused, but for me these are sufficient to revert the edit and go back to the correct original text. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

replacing it by a general cryptographic nonce cross link: The linked article also covers the alternative meaning, and the explanation makes it clear that not any random nonce would be accepted.

the cryptographic hash of the new block is not combined with the nonce: I intended this to be parsed as "a hash of (the new block combined with the nonce) produces a hash". I agree this should be reworded to remove both the ambiguity and the awkwardness.

for a secure cryptographic hash there is no simpler way how to find the nonce than to try different nonce values one after another: True, but I doubt that anyone actually uses the 1, 2, 3... sequence given in the previous explanation, otherwise the fastest miner would discover every block.

the network rules make sure that the changes of the difficulty target are not "too big": According to this, "The difficulty is set such that the previous 2016 blocks would have been found at the rate of one every 10 minutes". That does not appear to set any limit on the size of the change. – Smyth\talk 11:13, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

"for a secure cryptographic hash there is no simpler way how to find the nonce than to try different nonce values one after another: True, but I doubt that anyone actually uses the 1, 2, 3... sequence given in the previous explanation, otherwise the fastest miner would discover every block." - that is based purely on your misunderstanding. It is easy to prove that there is no reason to not use the 1, 2, 3, ... sequence of nonce values. You should read more on the subject instead of trying to mistakenly criticize and delete the explanatory text that is not broken.
"That does not appear to set any limit on the size of the change." - again, do not "correct" what is not broken, please, especially if you do not know what you are doing. See this: "To avoid extreme volatility in the difficulty, the retargeting adjustment must be less than a factor of four (4) per cycle. If the required difficulty adjustment is greater than a factor of four, it will be adjusted by the maximum and not more." (from: http://chimera.labs.oreilly.com/books/1234000001802/ch08.html#difficulty_target )
I have to repeat: the edit intendedly changed the meaning of the text, introducing mistakes and incorrectnesses based on the misunderstandings of the respective editor. As such, it is certainly not a copy edit as pretended, and shall be reverted for introducing the mistakes and incorrectnesses, as well as due to the fact that it simply isn't copy edit. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for correcting me about the difficulty adjustment. It doesn't contradict anything which I actually put in the article, but "adjusted" is a better word so I'll change it. – Smyth\talk 23:55, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

For anyone else who was confused about why it's fine to use the 1, 2, 3, ... sequence of nonce values: the block reward transaction is paid to the miner themselves. Every miner is therefore trying to produce a block with a different set of transactions, so they will produce a different sequence of hashes even if they use the same sequence of nonces. – Smyth\talk 14:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Latest comment: 9 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

I'm thinking of going ahead and removing the individual countries listed in the Legal status and regulation section simply because the information duplicates what's available on the "main" page for this topic, Legality of bitcoin by country. I don't really object to having small subsections about specific countries, but why are the specific countries currently on the page any more or less relevant than the host of others that can be found in the main article? Also, if sub-sections for countries should be kept, the one on the US should be cut down in size. Fleetham (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Disagree - this has been already discussed several times, and there is no consensus with such an edit. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Disagree as per Ladislav.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:53, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
@Ladislav Mecir:@Wuerzele:Well, I plan on reducing the overly massive US section then. And moving the G7 section elsewhere as the "G7" is not a country or even an international organization like the UN. Let me know any qualms prior to these edits please (i.e. discuss don't revert). Fleetham (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Disagree A spinoff is supposed to include what the summery says on the main page. This is not duplication. AlbinoFerret 23:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment: A section in a high-level article should summarize the content of the corresponding sub-article. The US section fails to do this, as it is basically a replica of the very large section in the sub-article. – Smyth\talk 23:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Comment:Information about Russia is incorrect. One of senator proposed to deny "surrogate money", but such law even was not submitted to parliament. In Russian wiki you can found, that bitcoin not deny. Please correct. 89.22.62.25 (talk) 03:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)--Wuerzele (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
thanks. WP cannot be used as a reference to its own articles, though. feel free to correct with wP:rs.--Wuerzele (talk) 22:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

It appears that some people are expanding this section, when we have a septate article on it. It needs to go back to a simple summery with a link to the daughter page. AlbinoFerret 02:32, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

What is taint?

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've been reading conflicting definitions about that crypto/btc 'taint' is. Some say it relates the the link between the address and personal identifiable information, such as a previous address, a term blockchain.info uses. However many get pretty emotional when applying the term 'taint' to proposed black/whitelisting systems designed to (more?) actively trace e.g. heists, hacks because of the impact on fungability.

It seems the community has rejected the existence of the latter taint term, but the former is used, instead? It seems we have two ideas sharing a word. So, how is BTC 'taint' best described? Deku-shrub (talk) 18:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Deku-shrub, fyi this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bitcoin article.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed split of the "Block chain" section

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I oppose the proposed split of the "Block chain" section, because:

"a bill explicitly banning bitcoins is due to become law in Russia"

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In my opinion, this formulation violates the WP:BALL policy. The source does confirm that a russian official promised such an event, but another official source, Russia’s Ministry of Economic Development, expressed a different, opposite opinion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

yes, i agree.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Reliability of CoinDesk

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

This has been discussed several times here. Seeing recent attempts to mark this specific source as unreliable, I am writing this to repeat the known facts establishing reliability of this specific source. The facts are:

Has this been taken to WP:RSN? If so a link to the discussion might be good. AlbinoFerret 14:03, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Done, see WP:RSN#CoinDesk Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Good its a good idea to get opinions of uninvolved editors, lets hope a few more reply. But in any event its a good resource to use.Andy is correct though, it all depends on the use. AlbinoFerret 15:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
@AlbinoFerret: I don't mind, I use Coindesk all the time. I have found a couple things that were in there, and I cross-checked it against other sites. They were all correct. I see no reason for us not to use it in this article. Yoshi24517Chat Online 20:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Summary: 3 weeks later, the discussion at the WP:RSN is unchanged from day 1 and was archived - no uninvolved editor replied, it stayed between Ladislav and Andy the Grump. there was no clear yes or no in my opinion.--Wuerzele (talk) 17:52, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

That is because Wikipedia generally doesn't give a clear 'yes or no' when it comes to the reliability of sources - it depends on what they are being cited for... 18:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

I have brought this up before. Legal status has its own article. We should not be expanding this section. In fact it should be a summary of the other article per WP:DETAIL. Today Fleetham added two new countries Vietnam [1] and Thailand [2]. This section needs a major trim, with just the lede of the legal status page replacing all the specific countries. AlbinoFerret 23:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree about cutting it back down to just a lede with no subsections. Fleetham (talk) 05:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
AlbinoFerret, yes, legal status has its own article, regulation doesnt ( i know you see no differnce there), teh section here is called Legal status and regulation
  • Yes, the section could be a summary of the other article Legality of bitcoin by country. whether it should is another matter. As a matter of fact it has never been, and that is important to note.
  • yes, there have been 2 discussions on this already this year in February
  • [3] and [4], as you know.
  • and before you joined editing here, in October 2014 Fleetham had essentially done what he did now, single handedly quasi-deleted the section without consensus. it took ladislav and me quite some time to restore it.
this time looks no different: preceding the axe Fleetham says he "agrees". agrees with what ? with himself. end of discussion. You, AF had not suggesetd to delete all country subsections, though. you said to summarize and yet fleetham deleted the summarizing sentence explicitly in a separate edit !
AF please check out this discussion, if you want to make big changes on teh Bitcoin page while relying on the other page. the issues mentioned there a year ago remain unresolved. you ll find out the legality article isproblematic, isnt maintained.
To delete good and careful work of more than 2 years in one swift move is nuts. In typical impatient waiting of 2 days for input, Fleetham´s axing is uncalled for, but nothing new, done it as long as i´ve been on this site. I´ll revert. we need way more discussion, it affects both articles. --Wuerzele (talk) 00:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Can anyone explain what the point is of having a separate article on the legal status of Bitcoin if we are going to include it all in the article anyway? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
i did explain.--Wuerzele (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
None! short and sweet. What ends up happening is this article becomes a POV fork as people hand pick the sections they want to include here, not giving the full picture.
@Wuerzele, what I had in mind is pretty much what Fleetham did. Summaries should replace sections that have been given their own pages. The lede is most often a good summary. If regulation does not have its own article, I suggest that material be added to the Legal status page. AlbinoFerret 02:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
please respond to arguments instead of rhethoric, review october discussion. we had a consensus for 3 major countries- nada mas. it was fleetham who added and brought this imbalance about.--Wuerzele (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
I do agree with Wuerzele, it is true that Fleetham imbalanced the text by adding countries that were not included in the consensus. It is also true that the well sourced material should not be deleted, and that a proper merge is necessary. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
If any material was deleted, it shouldnt have been because the section should only reflect what is on the daughter page, it should go on the Legal status page so it isnt deleted. AlbinoFerret 15:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

There is now a merge template on the section, with no discussion section. I would be against any merger to the main article as it is presently 61k of prose and should have something split off, instead of additional info added in a merge. AlbinoFerret 17:24, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

@Albino Ferret:, i put the merger up to save the deleted information.--Wuerzele (talk) 15:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
It sounds like some editors were not following WP:SYNC if material is in danger of being deleted by removing things from the main article. The material should have been placed on the daughter article first. AlbinoFerret 16:56, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

The first sentence describing Bitcoin is misleading.

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

The first sentence describes Bitcoin as a payment system, but this is a misleading term to describe Bitcoin, which is better described as a decentralized ledger.

I would like to know why my edit was reversed. Leotheleo (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

To expand on why I think 'payment system' is a misleading term to use to give a high-level description of Bitcoin, please refer to the payment system page. The first sentence; "The payment system is an operational network - governed by laws, rules and standards - that links bank accounts and provides the functionality for monetary exchange using bank deposits" is wholly inapplicable to Bitcoin. A 'decentralized ledger' on the other hand while being a relatively new term, is less confusing because it doesn't bring in centralized concepts that exist in payment systems, most of which depend on fiat currencies and the banking network. Leotheleo (talk) 08:57, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:No original research - we base article content on material verifiable in published reliable sources - we do not base it on contributors' own analysis (and incidentally, neither do we cite Wikipedia as a source). If it can be shown that 'ledger' is more commonly used as a description for Bitcoin than 'payment system', we can of course make the change - but for now, I'm going to revert to 'payment system'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Leotheleo I am sorry that you were reverted without explanation by fleetham. This should not happen, it is called biting the newbie. i also apologize for grump´s non welcoming behavior. Leo, if you make changes to the first sentence of a WP:GA, you have to be extra sure that you have a case. in fact policy advises you to discuss BEFORE editing in such a situation as you can expect dissent. so please bring sources to defend your claim. the particular term was chosen in a discussion that is archived and you could search for it to see the arguments for it. plse dont forget to sign your edits on talkpages--Wuerzele (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm sorry I'm new to editing Wikipedia pages - I have done some more reading. According to Jerry Brito, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, "at its core, Bitcoin is a completely decentralized ledger system".[1] According to Marc Andreessen, whose company, Andreessen Horowitz, has invested almost $50m in Bitcoin companies to date, "Bitcoin is an Internet-wide distributed ledger".[2][3]

  1. ^ http://reason.com/archives/2013/11/19/bitcoin-more-than-money/print
  2. ^ http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/why-bitcoin-matters/?_r=0
  3. ^ http://www.coindesk.com/marc-andreessen-long-bitcoin-short-apple-pay/
It is more than a ledger, it is a payment system that uses a decentralized ledger. AlbinoFerret 13:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Can we change to this? "Bitcoin is a payment system that uses a decentralized ledger invented by..." Leotheleo (talk) 07:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the first paragraph of the lede does just that. AlbinoFerret 17:03, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocksize Debate

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I think there should be a section on the bitcoin blocksize debate. The core developers of Bitcoin have realized there is a problem, the protocol calls for a limit of 1MB of transactions to be included to the blockchain every ~10 minutes. Thus the bottleneck of Bitcoin is that there can only be around 3-7 transactions per second. We're beginning to experience the limit in Bitcoin's blockchain. So, mainly the core developer [[Gavin Andresen] ]is proposing a hard fork(a split in the network) to a larger blocksize limit. Others push for blockchain to be the "Wire transfer" network where the fees would be great enough to prevent people from spamming the network with coffee purchases and other small purchases. Instead most of these transactions, much like the current financial system, would be done by a third party, where the Bitcoin protocol will only be used to settle balances and wire large amounts of bitcoin, or cold storage. I think we should add a section to Wikipedia for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinba1010 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)‎

I think it's too early for that, I haven't seen the issue getting much attention in the mainstream press, or even on sites like Coindesk. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Can we do this now? There's plenty of sources: https://www.google.com/search?q=bitcoin+blocksize&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=bitcoin+block+size&tbm=nws Mrcatzilla (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

You're archiving this talk page too quickly

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please allow conversations to last longer. It does no one any good to remove them too quickly. A much longer talk page won't hurt anyone.Tgm1024 (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Tgm1024, and welcome back. please feel free to change it, or if you dont know how, suggest a reasonable interval and someone can change the archive bot. which discussion were you interested in that was archived too quickly?--Wuerzele (talk) 18:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

allegedly stolen from sheep marketplace, or stolen?

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Ladislav Mecir: regarding your revert of my revert, defending the sentence "In late November 2013, an estimated $100 million in bitcoins were allegedly stolen from the online illicit goods marketplace Sheep Marketplace, which immediately closed." Yes, per WP:ALLEGE one can use allege, I know. However the source does not allege in my reading (nor use the term obviously). So, please tell me where you think the guardian alleges. --Wuerzele (talk) 14:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

My understanding is that when a theft is asserted, it is always an allegation until proven in court, that is what should be respected, shouldn't it? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
In March 2015 Czech police arrested a man suspected to be the Sheep Marketplace thief when he paid for an expensive house entirely in bitcoins.Blažek, Vojtěch (27 March 2015). "Jak se praly bitcoiny: Miliony z ciziny, vila napsaná na dědečka". Hospodářské Noviny.- there i would use the term alleged, because his guilt has not been proven. everywhere i read about sheep marketplace the theft is acknowledged as such, and i have never seen it doubted.2013 2015 --Wuerzele (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree with Wuerzele. I don't think anyone is alleging that it was a theft... it's acknowledged as that. Fleetham (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Maproom what do you say?--Wuerzele (talk) 16:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I added the word "allegedly" for quite different reasons. The article cited says
The site's administrator reported that a dealer had found a bug in the system which had been exploited to steal 5,400 bitcoins.
But users smelled a rat: they reckoned Sheep had probably been holding far more than that amount, and had returned none of the excess to users.
So, the administrator had alleged that some coins had been stolen, but they hadn't really been stolen. He was, it is implied, preparing to steal them himself. Maproom (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for replying Maproom. I do not see that the sentence in the article expresses what you are explaining above. the Guardian doesnt is straightforward, the alleged is your interpretation. there seems to be no doubt about the theft: "which had been exploited to steal 5,400 bitcoins". therefore i maintain that the term of alleged is more confusing to the reader than helpful. also, you can see how people think along very different lines when this words enters; it removes precision. Ladislav Mecir, you still think it should be in?--Wuerzele (talk) 00:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Again, I think any allegation revolves around who perpetrated the theft not that a theft occurred. In Maproom's example, it is Sheep Marketplace itself who is alleged to have carried out the theft. Fleetham (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion
SUMMARIZE AND REMOVE COUNTRIES
There is a consensus to just remove the countries from the parent article and replace it with a summary style description from the lead of Legality of bitcoin by country and no discussion in the last five days. Esquivalience t 12:55, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

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.

Background The Legal status and regulation section was broken out to its own page Legality of bitcoin by country. The section in the main article has had specific countries added to it, but not all of the countries listed on the Legality of bitcoin by country article. It continues to have countries added.

Guideline The guideline that addresses this can be found here WP:DETAIL which is part of WP:SUMMARY. AlbinoFerret 15:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Questions

A. Should the section use the lede of the Legality of bitcoin by country article as a summery.

Yes This is the common practice. Adding specific countries gives a skewed view of the daughter article. The daughter article exists for a full treatment of the topic, and adding countries to the main page defeats the purpose. AlbinoFerret 17:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes Fleetham (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes a short summary, usually something like the lead of the main article, should be left in the parent article. A link to the daughter article should be there for those who want more detail. Darx9url (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The lede of the other article is quite sufficient as a summary. Details regarding particular countries do not belong in this article - there are far too many, and selecting specific ones is liable to create bias. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

B. Should we leave it as it is and add no more countries to it.

No The addition of some of the conutries gives a partial and possibly skewed view of the daughter page. AlbinoFerret 17:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

C. Should we limit the number of countries included to a specific number. (please mention that number in your response)

Discussion

Well, it looks like we've reached a consensus. I'll wait a short while before implementing the changes. Fleetham (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Please dont make any changes until the RFC is closed. AlbinoFerret 03:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, when will that happen? Fleetham (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
"The default duration of an RfC is 30 days because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time. Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer. Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment" [5] I'd suggest giving it a few more days, and then closing it as a clear consensus if nobody objects. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:19, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I read that but didn't see the 30 days thing. I'd be happy to leave it up a while more. Fleetham (talk) 09:59, 15 June 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.

Repeatedly inserted wrong statement (edit #669398323)

Latest comment: 9 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

As mentioned, Fleetham is repeatedly trying to insert a wrong citation to the article. Mistakes are:

  • the cited source does not mention "That's down from $2.3 in 2014." as Fleetham mistakenly pretends. The fact is that the cited source states: "The only figures on retail sales in bitcoin are estimates and Tim Swanson, head of business development at Melotic, a Hong Kong-based exchange for digital assets, told Reuters global retail sales in bitcoin come to about $2.3 million daily (5,000-6,000 bitcoins)." - note the $2.3 million, not $2.3 as mistakenly mentioned by Fleetham.
  • even if corrected to $2.3 million, the statement made by Fleetham is an incorrect synthesis: the fact is that the previous source citing Tim Swanson and comparing the figures comes to: "it appears there has been very little if any increase in retail purchases using Bitcoin", which is a different conclusion than Fleetham's synthesis. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm a little unsure if you can claim "synthesis," but I'll go ahead and reinclude the material with less contentious wording. Instead of writing, "[1.5 million in 2015 is] down from 2.3 million in 2014," I'll just say, "In 2014, retail purchases were estimated to be 2.3 million." The synthesis--that 1.5 is lower than 2.3--is something I guess I need to allow any reader to make themselves. Fleetham (talk) 11:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
You are probably still making a mistake, trying to compare apples and oranges. You cannot compare the whole year 2014 to 2015, since 2015 has not ended yet. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
No one's doing that; the section makes it clear that the estimate for 2015 is from February. Fleetham (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Unbalanced edit [#667946312]

Latest comment: 9 years ago40 comments4 people in discussion

The referred edit was described to:

  • remove "unnecessary" bolding; - however, the bolding of the word bitcoin was not unnecessary. The fact is, that bitcoin is the name of the article, and that is why it is bold in the lead section at the places where it is defined.
  • completely change a paragraph that seems to be the product of extreme source manipulation - The fact is that the paragraph mentioned the use of bitcoin as a form of payment. That use is known to exist and has been verified by reliable sources. Worse even, the text verified by citations introduced this uncited text: "Bitcoin has found its main uses in online gambling, speculation and the purchase of elicit goods." The text is not just unsourced, it does not even make sense. Moreover, the criminal misuses of bitcoin are mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead, which gives undue weight to the repeated informations making the lead unbalanced.

Therefore, I cannot agree with this unbalanced and essentially unsourced edit removing sourced informations. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Firstly it's not unsourced: "But the currency is still used primarily for online gambling, purchases of illicit goods and services, and speculation,(As all other world currency) according to several people who closely track its use." Secondly I did not deny that bitcoin is used as a form of payment in retail transactions, just that (as the reliable sources state) it's a small proportion of bitcoin usage.Bosstopher (talk) 13:07, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Nevertheless, there still are several problems with your edit:
  • the fact that the criminal activities related to bitcoin are mentioned in the last paragraph, and it is not balanced to use two paragraphs in the lead section for them at the expense of removing the mention of another sourced activity
  • the fact that "illicit purchases" and "speculation" are different cases, and it is not sensible to call them one "primary use"
  • the fact that the source claims it to be "according to several people who closely track its use" - who are they? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:47, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
First, the idea that what Bitcoin is actually used to buy cannot be mentioned "because criminal activities are mentioned once in the lede already" makes me feel the page suffers from pro-Bitcoin bias. Also, who a citation uses as its primary sources isn't really relevant. Wikipedia editors can debate if a source passes wp:rs or not, but there's no Wikipedia policy that says reliable sources should reveal their primary sources or that a source can be challenged if it does not. Fleetham (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
My point is that the "illicit purchases" formulation does not specify what bitcoin is used to buy any more or any different than the "used in black markets" formulation already present. That is why I object to insert it once again to make the lead section unbalanced. Also, the information is dubious, since it claims three different use cases to be one "primary use", while the edit removes other, better and more widely sourced and discussed informations from the lead section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 02:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The supposedly better sourced thing I've removed is from Techcrunch which is far less academic in nature than the MIT Technology review source this information is sourced from. Also you're sourcing it to claim that Bitcoin's use in retail purchases is growing, which isn't actually explicitly stated in the source. All it says is that use of BitPay is growing, it could be that use of BitPay is growing while other retail uses of Bitcoing are in decline. Also a group of ways in which something is used primarily in no way makes information dubious, it at the very worst means its been phrased in a funny way.The article also states that 200,000 bitcoins are exchanged a day but only 5,000 in retail transactions, so the lede as it stands exaggerates the usage of bitcoin in retail markets.Bosstopher (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree and think restoring Bosstopher's initial edit is the best way forward here. Fleetham (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
Bosstopher: "you're sourcing it to claim that Bitcoin's use in retail purchases is growing" - do not be personal, please. It is not me who inserted this specific claim into the lead section. You wrote: "Bitcoin has found its main uses in online gambling, speculation and the purchase of illicit goods" - that is not what the source confirms. In fact, the source is saying that the three above uses are "primary", which cannot be correct, since only one of them can be primary. This is a source of the disagreement here, no consensus on this exists. Another nonconsensual part is the fact that the "illicit purchases" formulation is synonymous with "used in black markets", which is already present in the lead section. You wrote: "Only a small proportion of bitcoin is used in legitimate retail transactions...", which is an opinion ascribed to Tim Swanson, and should be kept as such, instead of being presented as a fact, since the source confirms that it is not possible to determine the specific types of transactions. One more contentious formulation is: "Advocates of bitcoin claim retailers have an incentive to accept bitcoin...", which is not a correct citation of the respective source, in this case the source does not claim it to be an opinion of bitcoin advocates, in fact. Also, according to the style guide, the lead section should mention the facts discussed in the article body, which your formulation does not take into account. Finding out the consensus was not reached, I revert it to the status quo. In addition to the above, please respect that there are other editors of this article like Wuerzele, AlbinoFerret, Jonahtrainer and others, who did not get an opportunity to present their opinion yet. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
"Finding out the consensus was not reached, I revert it to the status quo." I'm unsure how you arrived at that conclusion, as two people are in agreement that the material should stay, and you appear to be the sole holdout. Fleetham (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
The consensus was not reached, since the consensus would need to take into account all the proper concerns raised. Per my above list, there are too many concerns remaining unaddressed yet. {U|Fleetham}}: Note, please, that the wording I reverted to the status quo was not the same as the wording originally discussed. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that "consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable)" according to Wikipedia:Consensus. I think the onus is on you to work towards getting the changes you want especially as the current consensus is in favor of keeping the material. I think Bosstopher's edit brought up legitimate concerns, and you haven't put forward any ideas that address those concerns. Instead, you've stated yours. I think it's best to suggest a compromise that speaks to both sets of concerns.Fleetham (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and restore Bosstopher's edit per lack of engagement soon. Fleetham (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Bosstopher: "The supposedly better sourced thing I've removed is from Techcrunch" - while Techcrunch was cited in the specific case, there are many other sources cited in the article in addition to Techcrunch, like The Economist, Internation Business Times, and many others, who also mention the the use of bitcoin for retail and its growth. It is not a single-souced claim as you mistakenly propose. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment: I agree with Ladislav that Bosstophers edit is unbalanced (creating two paragraphs in the lead section for illicit activities and removing another sourced activity). We have had this discussion for a long time, and the consensus was to not allow illicit activities be stressed in that way. Fleetham was blocked for a month over this. Bosstopher please familiarize yourself with the arguments and check the archives.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we'll go ahead and incorporate Bosstopher's edit into the lede in a balanced way. Fleetham (talk) 10:59, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
If you want to propose something, now is the time for you to do so instead of editing the lead section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
There's no proposal. I'm simply doing what everyone appeared to have agreed on. Did you have a specific concern about my edit? Your edit summary ("please do not circumvent the ongoing discussion") doesn't really let me know what the issue was. Instead, I'm inclined to think that you simply reverted it due to mistrust or some suspicion you had rather than an actual content concern. I'm sure if you look closely at my edit, you'll see that it actually speaks to not only the concerns you brought up prior in this thread but also those of Bosstopher. I'll go ahead and restore my edit unless you respond as I currently am under the impression, per your edit summary, that this is simply a mistake made due to mistrust on your part and there isn't any actual concern or issue. Fleetham (talk) 13:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Fleetham wrote: "There's no proposal. I'm simply doing what everyone appeared to have agreed on." - you are not. For example, you inserted the part: "Advocates of bitcoin claim...", which directly contradicts the respective source as mentioned above. Also, when there is a dispute, you are not supposed to invent a version of yours and enforce it upon everyone else without discussing it. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, so I'll reinclude the material without the word "advocates." Thanks for providing specific feedback. I imagine you have taken the time to be thorough and clearly explain everything you take issue with in my edit, but if that's not the case please do so soon. I will be re-posting the material taking your concerns into account. Fleetham (talk) 22:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I have taken the time to mention all the objections above, indeed. However, you did not take the time to read them. For example, your edit ignores my above: "...there are many other sources cited in the article in addition to Techcrunch, like The Economist, Internation Business Times, and many others, who also mention the use of bitcoin for retail and its growth..." Due to the broad coverage, there was a consensus on the text mentioning this fact to be present in the lead section for long time. Thus, I disagree with the attempts to remove it, and I hope you take the time to read all the objections and the history of the lead section discussion related to this. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Another issue I am having specifically with your edit is the fact that it mentioned speculation as a criminal activity in addition to online gambling. Both are dubious. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
The only concern you brought up that there are many other sources that "also mention the use of bitcoin for retail and its growth." However, the source Bosstopher used in the lead, the MIT Technology Review article, is one of the few that is recent (Feb 2015). So, please forgive me for making a mockery of your argument, but are you saying that outdated information should be kept in the lead because there was an outdated consensus to put it there? I'm happy to include other recent and relevant articles, but please show me some. Fleetham (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Fleetham, I advise you to check WP:RECENTISM. It is not relevant how recently the facts are published, more relevant is whether they receive broad coverage, which is the case of bitcoin retail growth from exact zero at its inception. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
WP:RECENTISM clearly doesn't apply here. It's defined as "is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view." I'm not advocating we say bitcoin didn't see growth in the past, I'm saying the article shouldn't continue to state that retail use is growing.
I'll go ahead an re-include Bosstopher's edit making sure that any "historical" or past growth is documented as I imagine that will satisfy your concerns. Fleetham (talk) 10:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Fleetham: "I'm saying the article shouldn't continue to state that retail use is growing." - I have to inform you that your informations are very inaccurate. The lead states that the retail use has grown, which is not the same as stating that it is growing now. Bosstopher's edit did not obtain the necessary consensus due to its unbalanced nature. The problems are listed above. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I've gone over your concerns with you and addressed them one by one. The only concerns you have that I am aware of are the fact you didn't like criminal activities being mentioned twice in the lead and the idea that you didn't want information from previously used sources to be deleted. I think I've fully addressed those concerns and have agreed with you on every point you've made. Are there any specific issues or problems I failed to address but that prevent you from endorsing a change here?

Also, while you may not realize it as English doesn't appear to be your native tongue, the phrase "has grown" indicates an action that started in the past and is continuing in the present. Fleetham (talk) 12:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir Please do provide any feedback you have as I will go ahead and reintroduce the material with changes based on your prior feedback sometime in the coming month. Again, I am open and willing to making changes based on feedback you provide and feel the current lede needs to be reworded as it currently misinforms. Fleetham (talk) 22:18, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Fleetham There is no reason to say that the current wording of the lead section is misinforming, taking into account that all cited estimates are by one person who summarizes that "retail volume in 2014 has seen only a little, if any, increase", i.e., he did not say that the retail use is not growing. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
The MIT Technology Review article is pretty clear that growth is slowing stating, "it appears there has been very little if any increase in retail purchases using Bitcoin."
The lede of the wikipedia page currently does misinform for at least two reasons.
1) It suggests that growth is continuing when it actually has slowed.
2) It has too much focus on something most people don't do with their bitcoins--buy stuff--neglecting actual use cases such as hording and online gambling.
As the MIT article states, "Besides gambling, hoarding remains among the most popular things to do with bitcoins... the vast majority of addresses used to hold and exchange bitcoins have been dormant for at least four months. This suggests that bitcoins associated with them were acquired as an investment rather than a means of buying things."
To fix the first issue, I'll go ahead an soon reintroduce the material in Bosstopher's edit taking into account your feedback by making sure that it's clear any growth in retail use has slowed not reversed.
Perhaps the best way to resolve the second problem with the lede is another RfC asking if what bitcoin is actually used to do should be mentioned in the lede? I know that this is something you objected to when it was brought up earlier. Fleetham (talk) 23:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
you are incorrect in stating the lede is misleading by stating growth. you stated the MIT review states 1) growth has slowed.
slowing growth is growth, man ! overall there has been growth, simple fact. Fleetham you have proven to every oldie on this page that you have an agenda to make bitcoin look as bad and horrible as you can. now that Bosstopher arrived you think you can get going with it again? get neutral. --Wuerzele (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually according to MIT review "After some growth in 2013, retail volume in 2014 was mostly flat" i.e. no growth. Also please comment on content not editors. More importantly you're ignoring the more important issue Fleetham has pointed out "It has too much focus on something most people don't do with their bitcoins--buy stuff--neglecting actual use cases such as hording and online gambling. ." Also I posted a detailed critique of what I find wrong with the lede here if anyone wants to read. Bosstopher (talk) 21:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
And the thing is, because bitcoin is so little-used to purchase things (Reuters reported in late 2014 that "actual retail sales using bitcoin remain paltry"), it needs massive growth for the retail use of bitcoin to become relevant. As the MIT Tech Review makes clear, this isn't happening, which makes it all the more urgent to change to lede to reflect what people actually do with their bitcoins. Fleetham (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
There is no need for the growth to be massive for it to be recognized as growth. Many sources recognized and mentioned the growthuh. Tim Swanson never said there was no growth since that is not what he did recognize from his analysis. He only said that the growth was little according to his opinion. There is no source claiming there is no growth. Opposite claims are based solely on WP:OR. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you're missing the point, which is that few to none of the Bitcoins in existance are used to purchase goods or services, and so the lede is lacking because it devotes too much space to retail use of Bitcoin and none to popular uses such as online gambling and hoarding. Fleetham (talk) 09:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Fleetham: "...the point, which is that few to none of the Bitcoins in existance are used to purchase goods or services..." I do understand it is your opinion and WP:OR, but it is in direct contradiction with known reliable sources. Even the last cited Tim Swanson contradicts that. There are sources saying that it is "few" compared to daily retail transactions in USD, that, however, is something else than the statement of the sources mentioning the growth of retail in bitcoin. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
This is not original research this is in the sources (admiteddly few to none is an exaguration). Few bitcoin are used in retail not only in comparison to USD but also in comparison to other uses of bitcoin. MIT technology review showed that 200,000 bitcoin were exchanged a day 5,000 of those in retail. That's only 2.5% of all bitcoin transactions. It may be growing, but we shouldn't just state it's growing and ignore that it's only a tiny tiny sector of bitcoin usage. Bosstopher (talk) 15:07, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
"...is an exaguration" - I am sorry, I do not understand.
"Few bitcoin are used in retail not only in comparison to USD but also in comparison to other uses of bitcoin." - Even if the retail use is small compared to all bitcoin transactions, it still remains unspecified by the sources whether, e.g., illicit use is greater or smaller than the retail use. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: Just to get the discussion back on track:

  • 1) the lede mentions retail use of bitcoins while neglecting more popular uses such as hoarding and online gambling.

I'm sure you agree this should be rectified. In addition to adding a mention of popular uses for bitcoin, do you think the best way to address the issue at hand is to remove all mention of retail use from the lede or simply diminish the amount of space it's provided? Fleetham (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The point is that the retail use is notable, being widely mentioned in the sources. There are many sources mentioning it in addition to the sources cited in the lead section of the article. It is also discussed in the article body, which is required for it to be mentioned in the lead section. Therefore, it is neither acceptable to remove it from the lead section, nor to diminish the amount of space provided to it. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
This is clearly not going anywhere. I'm going to start an RfC.Bosstopher (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

"Number of transactions per month" caption edit

Latest comment: 9 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

The edit #670802992 by Fleetham added a note to the caption together with supporting citation. The problems are:

  • The cited source makes it clear that "The bulk of transaction volume has nothing to do with the actual buying of goods and services." is an opinion by Jeffrey Robinson. Being presented as a fact, it is violating the WP:NPOV "avoid stating opinions as facts" principle.
  • The note relates to the transaction volume. It is unrelated to the image, since the image plots the number of transactions, not the transaction volume. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Not sure I agree with the first point you make but you're right about the second point, it's unrelated to the image and seems like a bit of a shoehorn. I'm reverting. Bosstopher (talk) 10:15, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Ummm, "transaction volume" means "number of transactions." Volume in this case meaning, "the amount or quantity of something." The quote is directly relevant to the graph. Perhaps it should go if it's clearly labeled as an opinion and there's a specific wikipedia policy against that sort of thing... but the quote is talking about what is shown in the graph. Fleetham (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Fleetham '"transaction volume" means "number of transactions."' - Please check transaction volume and number of transactions to see the difference. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Both charts show the same thing. One is denominated in USD and the other in bitcoins themselves. Notice that the chart you name "transaction volume" is actually "transaction volume in USD." Fleetham (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Apologies didn't actually read the second bullet point properly. What I meant to say was that it's a bit of a shoehorn to put it into the caption, because it's not something directly addressed in the image. Bosstopher (talk) 12:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Fleetham 'Both charts show the same thing. One is denominated in USD and the other in bitcoins themselves. Notice that the chart you name "transaction volume" is actually "transaction volume in USD."' - Wrong again, please see transaction volume in bitcoins. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, "transaction volume" really means "transaction value." Fleetham (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, if you want to use an encyclopedia, I use Wikipedia just for sentimental reasons, although the definition is equivalent: "Volume (finance): In capital markets, volume, or trading volume, is the amount of a security (or a given set of securities, or an entire market) that were traded during a given period of time." Restricted to bitcoin it becomes: "Volume, or trading volume, is the amount of bitcoins that were traded during a given period of time." Hope that helps you to understand the notion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
No, I understand now... for bitcoins, "transaction volume" means "volume of bitcoins transacted" not "volume of transactions." Fleetham (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

"Block chain" versus "blockchain" spelling

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Powerful Lomax replaced all occurrences of the "block chain" spelling by "blockchain", claiming that '"blockchain", as a single word, has become the de-facto spelling for the distributed ledger and its supporting technologies throughout the technical community, and in academic and commercial research into distributed concensus systems'. After examining the cited sources, I found out: the "blockchain" spelling is used in 6 cited sources, none of them being an academic research article, while the "block chain" spelling is used by 15 cited sources, including academic research articles. Taking the existing consensus into account (this is not the first time the spelling was discussed), I revert the unsubstantiated edits. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Removed video for now

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've removed the Simpleshow video for now. I found it one-sided and possibly advertorial. I do support having more videos on Wikipedia, so this video is something of a "good try" but I think it is a bit off. Simpleshow is a for profit company who has worked with Wikimedia Austria, see http://simpleshow.com/us-en/explainer-video-workshop-wikipedia-2/ . There's a lot to discuss about this project - mostly good, but some possible problems.

Unfortunately, I'll be gone in an hour for the weekend. Please hold-off on reinserting this video until Monday at least. Smallbones(smalltalk) 14:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Tokyo court decision

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Yesterday the Tokyo District Court published a decision that there are no proprietary rights in bitcoins. A user of the Mt. Gox exchange had sued the bankruptcy receiver, seeking the return of 458 coins he had in an account. But the court found that no proprietary rights existed in the bitcoins. I will write up a proper description if the case and possible implications, but am first seeking opinions on which section it belongs in. I think it lies somewhere between the "Ownership" subsection (1.3) and "Legal Status" section. The court did not talk about the legality of the system, only that no legal rights of exclusive control exist in the coins. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of this issue. In my opinion, the "Design" section and is subsections like the "Ownership" section are meant to describe how bitcoin was designed. The court decision looks more like a "Legal status" issue, which is also suggested by the formulation: "no legal rights of exclusive control exist in coins". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bitcoin/Archive_26&oldid=1049190051"