Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Legal status and regulation

Remove Russia from the list. At the moment bitcoin is unregulated. However, according a proposed legislation it will be legal to buy, sell and use abroad. At the end bitcoin would be as any foreign currency in Russia. Here is the link [1]. About bitcoin at the bottom of the page. It's official government newspaper. Essentially, the proposed law is similar to the Swiss law where bitcoin define as a foreign currency as well.

If anyone still think that it's illegal, please provide the link to legislation what outlaw it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.100.120 (talk) 07:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Ruling on BitCoin "Not being Money"

Saw this article today from the conclusion of the trial in Miami relating to BitCoin, and whether or not the Florida state judicial system recognizes the currency as actual money. An interesting and relevant decision, just wasn't necessarily sure where the info might fit within the article here as it stands. Let me know what you guys think. Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 20:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Comatmebro, such findings and discussion fit best to the "Classification" section. Note also that there is an older federal case coming to a different conclusion, and that the orthography of bitcoin is described in the "Etymology and orthography" section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Understood - seems a bit contentious to add this early on so I will leave it out. Thank you for your feedback! Cheers Comatmebro User talk:Comatmebro 22:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Info

This looks like a good source [2] and perhaps can put some of this information into the Privacy section of the article such as a paraphrase of this information from that source: Blockchain’s immutability could eventually run at odds with existing regulations, too. For example, the United States Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation S-P all require personal financial data to be easily redacted. In the situation of these blockchains nothing is ever 'redacted'. Earl King (talk) 06:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I am interested in good sources discussing bitcoin privacy. However, in the discussed source, there are formulations like:

• "Richard Lumb is Accenture’s group chief executive for financial services."
• "At Accenture, we agree..."
• "...Accenture clients are asking how they will defend the “right to be forgotten” rules..."
• "At Accenture, we’re working with leading academics on a prototype that would enable blockchains..."

Since the author is an employee of a commercial subject, presenting the wishes of its customers and its commercial plan to create a blockchain prototype competing with bitcoin, the article is not an independent source on bitcoin properties. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:06, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The fifth paragraph of the lead section shall be deleted

Here is why:

• Per WP:MOS, "...newly added information does not automatically always qualify as important enough for the lead. Information newly added to the article should preferably be placed in the most appropriate section or sections."
• The cited source explicitly states that the newly mentioned theft was not as important as the Mt. Gox theft in 2014.
• The newly mentioned theft, while it may be notable enough for news, is not important enough for the lead section of the article, because the article subject is bitcoin, not theft.
• The text of the fifth paragraph violates the copyright of the cited source.
• The text of the fifth paragraph is contradicting the fourth paragraph, where theft is mentioned, stating that "theft ... has also been an issue for bitcoin users", which makes no sense in the context. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You appear to have a major conflict of interest with your involvement in the subject here. Also giving a false edit summary while reverting is not good. Since you are a public person in regard to this subject as anyone can see by Googling of your name and the subject extra caution is needed. Removing the information from a major source and denying that hacking has been a big issue and is completely worthy of lead mention makes me think you are trying to white wash the information in the article in a promotional way. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Earl King Jr.. I see that you failed to address any from the above points, actually, you even failed to discuss the issue. You only mentioned, "denying that hacking has been a big issue", while ignoring that theft is a subject of the fourth paragraph of the lead section as mentioned above. In addition to that, you failed to WP:AGF. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes but it is you that is removing information from the article and perhaps sugar coating it that way because you perhaps are conflicted here. Also you did lie in your edit summary. Hacking and theft is a big deal. Your involvement is how big in these issues? Conflict of interest could preclude you from editing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I did not remove any information from the article, you may find everything in the article body as indicated above in the list you are still failing to address. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Note: you are still failing to WP:AGF. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

You are apparently in a conflict of interest given the large large public persona you have in regard to these issues on the larger internet. That is not outing since you are a public figure that is involved. Removing mainstream information that is well sourced about this subject, what ever your motives, seems very iffy to me. It appears you are removing this big reported news story because you do not like it. If you are involved as you appear to be you must maintain neutral presentation and good sources. The lead also reflects the body of the article. Another reason not to remove this aspect of the cyber coin world. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Earl King Jr.. You failed to address any of the above points I made, trying to discuss some accusations of yours that are largely irrelevant for the matter. Could you, please, start to address the above points, finally? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:23, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, well saying things like The newly mentioned theft, while it may be notable enough for news, is not important enough for the lead section of the article, because the article subject is bitcoin, not theft. end quote from Mecir. Sorry I do not know what to say about your argument though to me it does not make sense. It was a huge story of theft reported on by a major media article and it is about hacking in general and particularly about that situation that happened. I do not think your question is really relevant therefore about theft and bitcoin not being an article about theft. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a not a news website. If the MtGox theft is not in the lede, a theft of lesser importance should definitely not be in the lede. Mrcatzilla (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Topical news is an inherent part of any subject if it is significantly reported on and that was. MtGox perhaps should be mentioned also in the lead in the same area. An integral part of this subject is the supposed difficulty of stealing anything. If that premise is violated it is big news. The idea of code as law or contract or whatever is under the microscope with these thefts and these thefts are widely reported on in financial circles. Earl King (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

"An integral part of this subject is the supposed difficulty of stealing anything." - it is not. Consult Straw man. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:43, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Chat unrelated to the topic

I don't get why it is that you are resistant to cleaning up the article, as in better presenting with better quality sources. Its a given now that CoinDesk and sources like that are not good. Also I removed things in the article that were tagged because of sourcing issues. Also things with low quality citations. Earl King (talk) 07:07, 10 September 2016

Your last contribution is not related to this discussion. If you want to discuss unrelated issues, you are free and welcome to discuss them separately. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

While I agree with Earl King in regards to removal of sources like CoinDesk, I'm not sure if we can ask Ladislav Mecir to refrain from editing simply because he is a real person who likes bitcoin. Earl states that Ladislav has a "large large public persona... in regard to these issues," but I was unable to find any real link between the name and bitcoin when I googled it. Fleetham (talk) 22:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can edit as long as it is not promo, advert or non neutral. Maybe your Google is not working 'Ladislav Mecir bitcoin' under Google spills out loads of trivia. Earl King (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

POV in "Ponzi scheme concerns" section

The "Ponzi scheme concerns" section has been a subject to this RfC. The discussion resulted in consensus to perform heavy edits for neutrality. In reaction to that, a WP:CONSENSUS to change section wording to [3] was established.

This recent edit added a paragraph to the section. In my opinion, the added paragraph disbalances the section:

• The paragraph contains just the opinion of professor Eric Posner from this article; but his opinion is already cited in the second sentence of the section. The repetition of his opinion in the second paragraph is giving his opinion undue weight.
• The choice of claim used in the second paragraph looks unfortunate. The claim that bitcoin has "roots in American psyche" looks nonneutral, taking into account that the majority of sources do not find bitcoin more "American" than it is Australian, European, Chinese or Japanese.

Therefore, I propose to revert the wording of the section to the indicated and consensual WP:STATUSQUO. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

False statements above. You propose?? You reverted before your so called proposal, so that is a very duplicitous statement. This is not a good way to edit. Consensual status quo? Stop using that phrase for removing stuff you do not like [4] No. Many citations call it a pyramid type of ponzi scheme and the article needs to reflect that also in as strong a way as possible to reflect published reports of which there are many. The jury is out on what it actually is but sentiment is strong both ways. The promoters want to delete the citation and the information. Neutral editing suggests keep it and perhaps expand it. Earl King (talk) 10:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

To help you, I want to draw your attention to the fact that you did not address any of the above issues. You also never tried to obtain WP:CONSENSUS with your edit, and, in addition to the reasons you failed to address, per the summary, your edit was also reverted by Rebroad for its poor quality. Regarding my previous revert: per WP:BRD I am entitled to revert your edit when it does not present a neutral point of view, which was the case here. Being reverted to WP:STATUSQUO, you tried to enforce it through edit warring. I do not intend to edit war with you, that is why, instead of reverting again, I proposed it should be deleted, and it was deleted as proposed, by another editor, wanting to improve the quality of the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

By accusing other editors of edit warring in content disputes you undermine your credibility pretty much to 0. Another editor warned you about that on your user page but you failed to get the message. I suggest you adopt a more congenial approach, collegiate, what ever and edit cooperatively. (talk). Thankyou. Earl King (talk) 06:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Ponzi scheme number two and biased editing pro bitcoin

An editor is removing sourced information from the article apparently because they are bitcoin enthusiasts. The information has three mainstream sources [5]. By removing the well sourced section and leaving the status quo section mostly done by bitcoin enthusiasts we have a problem of implying that bitcoin is really o.k. spoken by authority and not to worry, while many in the mainstream media considers it a scam ponzi or pyramid concept. By removing the information an unbalanced promotion of bitcoin seems apparent by that editor. Earl King (talk) 04:04, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Your additions to the section were deleted before not just by me, but also by Rebroad simply because they were nonneutral, giving undue weight to one side of the described discussion. I pointed you to a talk above, where you can see that the balance of various opinions is a result of an extensive discussion, in which many Wikipedians participated. In addition to repeating the arguments of just one side, in your recent edit you:

• misrepresent the opinion of Matt O'Brien, who actually never stated that "bitcoin is still 'a little bit' of a Ponzi sceme or pyramid scheme". Notice also that the grammar you use is wrong.
• you also deleted the "citation needed" tag which I added to the first sentence of the section, signaling that to confirm opinions of "various journalists", more than the opinion of one journalist is needed
• add this reference, which does not reveal what does it confirm
• add this reference, which does not confirm the claim about Matt O'Brien

Consensus on citations in the first sentence of the lead section

The first sentence of the lead section is:

Bitcoin is a digital asset and a payment system created by an unidentified programmer, or group of programmers, under the name of Satoshi Nakamoto.

References

Per WP:LEADCITE, "The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." Currently, such a consensus does not exist on the recently added third citation (the Daily Herald citation) in the list. These are the reasons why the disputed citation should be removed:

• The fact that the creator of bitcoin used the name Satoshi Nakamoto is confirmed by The Economist citation at the end of the sentence.
• The fact that bitcoin was created by an unidentified programmer or a group of people is confirmed by The Economist citation at the end of the sentence.
• Thus, the disputed citation does not confirm any claim in the first sentence not confirmed by The Economist, and, in this specific case, The Economist is a more reputable source than the Daily Herald.
• Per WP:CITESTYLE, "citations within any given article should follow a consistent style", which is not the case of the disputed citation. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

So its a controversial subject and the author identity is questionable and the whole thing was not done with normal transparency. So, why object to having an additional source that makes that clear? The Economist is a more reputable source than the Daily Herald. That is your opinion or judgment and no doubt others would disagree. It is a solid mainstream paper so that argument is not good. Many people probably swear by the Daily Herald but since its a good source their swearing for or against it does not matter. Earl King (talk) 06:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Some details on common approaches to mining in 2016

Just read an interesting article on a variety of common approaches to mining in 2016: including mining shortcuts like mining faster by mining only on top of the block header hash without ever having seen the previous block, selfish mining, validationless mining, spy mining, mining empty blocks, delaying broadcasting of found blocks to the network leading to "selfish 51 percent" attack, etc. Why Bitcoin Mining Pools Aren’t Incentivized to Broadcast Blocks Quickly, Bitcoin Magazine, 30 Sep 2016.

In short, it seems to discuss a number of approaches common to increasing profits in mining, and approaches that are empirically in wide use, not merely theoretical. It seems the article would be improved with more of these mining approaches and techniques at least mentioned in the Mining section. N2e (talk) 10:44, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

No. Can not be used. Primary and not a reliable source. Also the article is not a how to manual for the bitcoin community. Earl King (talk) 05:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

N2e, despite Earl King's claim, the source you mention is not a primary source. However, in contrast to CoinDesk, which has an editorial board and policies in place, in this case I did not find these attributes of a reliable source. Correct me, please, if I just overlooked them. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in that fight. The reason I placed the source on the Talk page is to allow all interested in the article to see it, consider it, etc. That source has a lot of good info on how mining works on Bitcoin that I have not seen explicated. (also, I have become really tired of the drama of certain editors deigning to think they are unilateral founts of knowledge on which sources are and are not reliable sources. So just placed the source link on the Talk page and moved on.)

I'll say a bit more, about the general question of sources, in new section, on that topic, below. N2e (talk) 12:56, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Decentralized

Is it? Does not appear to have anything to do with the concept. Wikipedia is obviously not a reputable good source and for sure not reliable. Why is it called a decentrally sourced thing? It ain't really. There is no accurate sourcing to this. It is simply b.s.about this in the article? The subject seems about as central as central gets. It is super black and white. It is code. It appears as propaganda in the article to be '"decentralized"'. Has anyone challenged this rather weird classification?Earl King (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

"Is it?" - yes, per the testimony of Jennifer Shasky Calvery. I simplified the infobox to contain the direct citation of her testimony. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Doubtful. Just because the promoters of the topic claim it is, the bitcoins and coindesks of the world call it that, it does not mean it is that. The link you gave to some government page is not a source so its removed. Its just a website. In fact it seems to be super super centralized to the code. It sure does not fit the Wikipedia article of Decentralized authority, though that is not a good source either.

Bitcoin’s Centralized Processes Bitcoin aims to fully decentralize its transaction generation and confirmation processes. In fact, the majority of users must support Bitcoin decisions by voting with their computing power. Given the huge computing power the Bitcoin system harnesses—approximately 70,000 tera hashes per second—users believe that it’s unlikely for any one entity to acquire too much power. However, critical processes in the Bitcoin ecosystem are controlled by a small set of entities whose influence doesn’t depend on their computing power but on their function in the system. end quote, more from this article. It appears that calling it decentralized currency is playing into the public relations aspects of promotion It appears to just not be true that it is decentralized so the article can reflect that. Earl King (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Citation from source you mention: "We also explore possible solutions to enhance Bitcoin’s decentralization." - thus, the authors know bitcoin is decentralized, they just claim that the decentralization can be "enhanced". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

No, that is turning a blind eye to the rest of the sentence before, so totally cherry picking and wiki lawyering the point. The rest of it is In this article, we analyze Bitcoin and show that, contrary to widespread belief, it isn’t truly decentralized as it’s deployed and implemented today. We also explore possible solutions to enhance Bitcoin’s decentralization. so I am sorry to say that cherry picking spin does not count as a real argument. I think the article needs a big overhaul about this and not a promotion campaign of cherry picking information that is bitcoin friendly. A perfect example of why this article is not very good in looking at a source like that given and making a very false interpretation which we will kindly say is due to lack of attention possibly not understanding language used in general, rather than overt promo or bitcoin cheer leading their bitcoin party line in a primary way. In other words its not really decentralized and the article should show that they self discribe themselves thus but others not connected say otherwise. Earl King (talk) 05:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Dubious claims and copyvio in "Intermediary payment processors"

In the "Intermediary payment processors" section, there is a claim that the payment processors "take a customer’s bitcoin and immediately convert it into cash and then deposit the cash in the company’s bank account". The claim is dubious, and it is, most likely, a result of a misinterpretation. It is much more likely that the bitcoin is converted by payment processors to US dollars in a bank account. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

This points out the extreme fringe nature of bitcoin. It is not real. There is an intermediary to do a current exchange to dollars and yes money is made in the process of conversion. Just because an editor is ignorant of the process is no teason to call it DUBIOUS. Its not dubious, its sourced information. Guess what ???bitcoin is not a real currency and no matter what special interest editors think, sourcing is what counts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earl King (talk • contribs) 14:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

It is a copyright infringement to copy the text from the source like this. Fortunately, there are other sources that can be used and the claims reformulated for Wikipedia purposes to not violate the copyright in this way. Also, your above note is completely unrelated to the issue at hand. Even if for you, bitcoin is "extremely fringe", you are not allowed to handle the source in this way. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Wrong. The language was changed an/or quotes were used. I think perhaps you are not a neutral editor and wish bitcoin to be embraced and made out to be something it is not. Nothing else explains the extreme negative reaction to reasonable accurate sourcing, except perhaps you do not understand English or phrasing in English or what a copy vio is. Earl King (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

More info on this subject They're not in the business of holding Bitcoin long-term, and most appear to be leery of Bitcoin's historical volatility. https://cointelegraph.com/news/from-dell-to-rakuten-10-most-popular-vendors-that-accept-bitcoin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earl King (talk • contribs) 04:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

So, the CoinTelegraph is now acceptable as WP:IRS for this article. I see also that the Money Crashers blog is acceptable as WP:IRS too. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The claim "there is no bitcoin transaction fee" is obviously incorrect and it misrepresents the cited source. It was you, Earl King, who deleted the sourced information that transaction fees are based on transaction size. The deletion still needs to be reverted. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Coin Telegraph was given on the talk page as an example of something and not used otherwise. You seem confused on editing. It could be because your not a native English speaker? You do not seem to understand finer language points. Sorry but such tendentious adversarial editing has to be reprimanded. Article ownership issues seem apparent. This is too bad. You have dragged things to drama boards three times now where they were dismissed without consideration. I don't think you understand that paraphrasing and quotation marks take out any issues you are talking about. No copyright violations. Plus, you are not giving any examples beyond saying copy vio. That does not count for anything. It appears you are bonded with this article in a very negative possessive way in my opinion. Your edits are not improving things. Mostly your fractious talk page attitude is very problematic and simple examples of this kind of failure are all over the talk page now. Earl King (talk) 09:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

"You seem confused on editing. It could be because your not a native English speaker?" - My not a native English speaker? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:27, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

O.k. it appears now that this editor will do just about anything to control article content and is an obvious promotion person of the subject here including going to 3 drama boards and begging for help. All 3 times Ladislav's arguments were dismissed. I think at some point a charge of being diruptive will come into play. I assume you now admit you do not fully comprehend English, and being this site is in English rhis appears now as a basic issue. Earl King (talk) 15:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I spotted a copyright violation in this article a few days ago and took steps to remove it. After a message was left on my talk page today I returned for a further look. There has been a flurry of edits over the past week. Looking at these, I could see three clear copyright violations in material introduced by one editor. I have brought this to the attention of the editor who caused these copyright violations and I have pointed out some specific problem edits to this editor. Some of the material in the article has been reworked already. I have taken steps to remove some remaining material which has either been lifted directly from a copyrighted source or appears too closely paraphrased. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I think what you actually mean is that Ladislav lobbied you to help him. Copy vio? You give no actual example. On another editors talk page you said cut and paste but that was not the case, so you have made zero case for removing sourced information. Your statement above has no diffs. Instead of editing information you removed information. This is a big problem on this article which has many bitcoin believers removing information that they deem to not fulfill bitcoin standards of how bitcoin wants to be seen. Earl King (talk) 03:49, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

@Earl King: No, my post above was intended to offer a neutral description. You are aware that I raised concerns and posted diffs on your talk page but you refused to discuss these matters there. I only removed unsuitable material from this article after you failed to engage. You still fail to show adequate insight into your behaviour and now appear to be attempting to misrepresent my attempts to offer you assistance. Your responses do not seem to offer any acknowledgement that your editing behaviour has caused copyright violations. On 4 October this edit lifts material directly from page 26 of this document. On 5 October this edit copies material directly from time.com. On 11 October this edit copies material directly from moneycrashers.com. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:29, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Unsuitable material and you claim copy vio. So lets see you compare Moneycrashers information to my paraphrase of it from the article? I used some brief information which was written differently than the article. The small quoted information was in quotes. Can you show the difference that you claim? A paragraph of my edited information compared to the article information? Earl King (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

You "used" information by inappropriately copying it from a copyrighted source without adequately indicating where this was occurring. Material like this needs to be removed where the paraphrasing is too close. The material you took from the Moneycrasher article is an almost exact replication of a passage in the "Advantages of Bitcoins" section, under section "5. Lower fees". If you were intending to quote any sections of text, these edits have not made any use of appropriate MOS:QUOTEMARKS. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

You must be more specific than that. This is your opinion. Wikipedia is a voluntary thing. Maybe some people are too busy to correct something and just want to accuse instead of correcting something. This is a big problem on articles like this where people pair up and attack information giving instead of trying to improve things. Using quotation marks as an excuse for deleting cited information is very inappropriate and at least one editor here who basically will take nearly any approach to try to get information removed is a big problem. Earl King (talk) 05:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Earl King: If you wish me to be specific: Copyright infringement is not ok. This is the sort of matter that can often be resolved through discussion with an editor on their own talk page and I tried this approach initially. You persist in avoiding any discussion of the real issue here. You continue to show disregard for what is quite reasonable advice. I have shown you several examples of where you have clearly infringed copyright. I have directed you to various Wikipedia policy pages that explain why you cannot introduce material in such a manner as you have done. I'm not going to be distracted by a discussion around whatever circumstances led you felt this was ok. I'm posting this reply to inform you that continuing to add material in this way would be a serious matter and that should you cease from indulging in this behaviour. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

If you wish me to be specific: Copyright infringement is not ok., O.k. I assume you are backing off all this now and perhaps realize that there are a few special interest editors on this page that are constantly going to drama boards and constantly trying to remove information that they deem uncomplimentary to the bitcoin belief system. I hope you will just put proper quotes on if the quotation marks do not seem like the right ones to be used. I am not saying or thinking that copyright infringement is good or o.k. You assume too much to assume that and really that is not a constructive way to explain something or make a statement. Earl King (talk) 04:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Earl King: No, I suggest you make fewer assumptions and try listening more carefully. I will further simply this for you: You have acted in a way that is not acceptable because of international copyright laws, this has been repeatedly explained to you, there is Wikipedia policy to guide editors and if you cause further copyright problems you can expect action to be taken against you. Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

"Last neutral edit"

This deletion was justified by the editor as the "Last neutral edit. Return info." The facts are:

• I think that the edit was an unconstructive deletion, deleting a sourced information on transaction fees, a "citation needed" tag with a "reason=" attribute explaining the issue, and a sourced information on a specific value forecast
• the information on transaction fees was deleted previously by the same editor here, here, and here
• the editor was warned that his edits are disruptive for the first time here and for the second time here, specifically mentioning his previous deletion of the information on transaction fees and value forecast
• since the informations are sourced, and since the tag also remained unresolved, I propose to revert the discussed "Last neutral edit" and keep the WP:STATUSQUO. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Doubtful to bring that back to say the least. The article is poorly sourced and more balanced information is being introduced also. The article is not an advert for bitcoin and any RA RA! aspect of cheer leading this subject in the article must end.

Earl King edit summary information.

Edit summary,(Pro bitcoin editor removing information that is well sourced from the article. Three citations removed) and information also

Edit summary(→‎Transaction fees: Not a good source. Works for bitcoin doing their podcast. His 'E' book is self published and he is promo ad guy for bitcoin.)

Why source the article to a blatant bitcoin supporter that makes a living from bitcoin and is a part of the bitcoin establishment? In the interests of neutral editing the article can be sourced outside of the bitcoin inner circle of devotee's. Sourcing means a lot. Biased sourcing to a promo ad man means the article has no credibility. Removing sourcing like that is important. If this subject is so endearing to people that they have to source it badly, lets take the time to do the right thing and not make an advertisement. Earl King (talk) 04:30, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

For completeness, these are the sources deleted by the "Last neutral edit":

References

Note that the deleted information on transaction fees is directly related to the subject of the section, which is "Transaction fees", and the deleted forecast of bitcoin value is directly related to the subject of the section, which is "Value forecasts". Note also that the deleted "citation needed" tag was not added as unconstructive, and that it was meant to just signal where an additional source to confirm the claim was needed, and why. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:28, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• The book is a promo book in the link above. As said in the edit summary Not a good source. Works for bitcoin doing their podcast. He is promo ad guy for bitcoin.

• The other so called source is not really a source. Apparently according to the article the information is taken from Reddit. Is there any doubt that Reddit is not usable? Calling another editor disruptive for editing and improving, at least in their opinion, Wikipedia, is not good editing. Its like saying edit warring and vandalism, the other things you accuse people of that are not like minded to your opinion. It brings your credibility to 0 or maybe 1 1/2 out of 10. It is tendentious in my opinion to keep reverting back to bad sources or no sources. I assume you are not having these problems because English is not your native language? Do you understand the rules of not calling people vandals or edit warring or disruptive when they are not? Seems not. Article ownership in a negative way, is not good. Please stop. Reddit is not a usuable source. The Winkleman brothers article is pure ridiculous promotion of their hoarding bitcoin and has no value beyond an example of bad sourcing. Earl King (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion

A third opinion has been requested. In view of the fact that the questioned edit was made in early September and there has been a great deal of editing since then, including an issue about copyvio, the Third Opinion request appears to be stale. I am leaving it up, but am suggesting that the parties revisit it more currently. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for taking time to make yourself familiar with the specific issue. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:48, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I removed the entry because it was listed for longer that six days. If there still is an issue, I suggest opening a thread at WP:DRN. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 21:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

On reliable sources, and building consensus that a particular source may not be an RS

On the general question (see Talk page section above, on mining practices, for where this got started, in a question put to me by User:Ladislav Mecir)

Can a WP:V source be used as a reliable source? In general, yes, it can. I believe their are two exceptions:

1) When a consensus has been built, and currently exists, on the Talk page that a particular publisher/source cannot be used cause it does not meet some policy-driven standard of Wikipedia.

NOTE: and no, such a consensus does not exist just 'cause a single editor says "No. Can not be used." Mere WP:IDONTLIKEIT by a single editor does not a source disqualify.

2) When a source has been added to the Wikipedia blacklist of sources. This is also a consensus process and takes some time. There is some master page for such things. I don't recall the link to that just now. But I know discussion can occur about such things at WP:RSN.

I'm not aware of any of the general magazines that cover the so-called cryptocoin or cryptocurrency industry being on one of those lists. In other words, despite one editor's insistence, I'm not aware of articles that have disqualified (by consensus) CoinDesk, nor Bitcoin Magazine. Perhaps they exist; I'm just not aware of them. Industry trade rags, are not in general, or by default, considered self-published sources like some twitter posts, some blog posts, some medium posts, etc.

Work can certainly be done to build such a consensus on any particular source. But it does not happen because one or two editors merely assert something is not a reliable source. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

It seems you have not read the talk page which seems odd because you have been a major contributor to it. Remember when some one brought these issues before some of the drama boards and they disqualified Coin Desk and others sources such as that? I guess not because after the long drawn out taking of those sources out of the article and the reaction of all the pro primary bit coin citation editors I thought at least that was known by now. You said, I'm not aware of articles that have disqualified (by consensus) CoinDesk, nor Bitcoin Magazine. end quote. Consensus among a walled garden of information is not consensus. That is why it was brought to the drama board and those types of citation sources were rejected by them. Please review their finding. It is really pretty plain that those sources are bad for the article. Its borderline tendentious to keep insisting they are good sources. Earl King (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Please provide links to what you are saying: any discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard where a consensus was reached to treat some particular source as an unreliable source on Wikipedia would be sufficient for us on this article to avoid that source here. N2e (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Based on neither Earl nor any editor providing links to prior consensus on these questions of sources, it would appear that no source is carte blanch unacceptable for use here, as long as the source meets WP:V and WP:RS and is not on the Wikipedia meta-blacklist. N2e (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Possible copyright infringement in the "Energy consumption" section

The second paragraph of the section looks as a copy of the material from this article. As far as I can tell, this is the edit that started the infringement: [6] Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:57, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

No its not a copy vio. Its rewritten. There is a very basic problem here. If you do not like it rewrite it. Removing information for some excuse in this is manipulating the article into its former sweetness and light aspects of presenting bitcoin as gods gift to the world of right wing libertarians and conspiracy advocates and prophets of doom. In other words bitcoin should be presented from all sides including the fact that processing these transfers is creating a huge amount of pollution and this is a reported fact now. Is there actually some reason that one or two desperate presenters of bitcoin evangelism have called copy vio in such a current flurry? The article is lacking a lot of critical reporting on this subject of energy and pollution and the negative economic aspects of environmental damage done by bitcoin miners. Earl King (talk) 05:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

While you wrote the above before my recent note at your talk page, this encapsulates the problem. This is blatant copyright infringement and plagiarism. This is not even an attempt at rewriting. Most if it is a pure copy and paste, and the small parts that are not identical are only very minor surface changes. Don't do this again. I have RevDeleted the infringement.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Ticket machine sales

Looks like some information that the article might benefit by [7] making use of. Some of it is unflattering like the banks charging high fee's and delaying bitcoin acquisition for customers. In general the ticket machines in Switzerland seem significant. Maybe around the so called misnomer ATM section. Earl King (talk) 06:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

"Malware" and "Malware stealing" sections have the same sentence twice

A different approach detects when a bitcoin address... A type of Mac malware active in August 2013... One virus, spread through the Pony botnet... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3dcboz (talk • contribs) 07:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate text removed, thank you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

POV in the "Decentralized currency?" section

The section is violating the WP:NPOV policy, citing just the minority opinion described in the IEEE Security & Privacy magazine and in a self-published blog article. It does not present the actual fact and majority opinion at all. Also, the name of the section is misleading, since the currency aspect is not discussed. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Why should Wikipedia editors turn a blind eye to sourced info explaining how it is that bitcoin is not actually truly decentralzed? How is it that article possesion is such a dominating influence on the article as is being displayed above. It is sourced info and many more sources could be added to confirm that bitcoin has their own primary neologism way of explaining what they are and some editors have either promoted that here as presenters of the wonderful world of party line info, or have drunk the bitcoin Koolaid and believe the party line. If the article is not well rounded with nuetral views then the article is wothless in regard to being good information. Earl King (talk)

My opinion is that the self-published source should be deleted. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Misleading (WP:OR) edits in the lead section

The edits [8] and [9] replaced the wording:

Bitcoins are created as a reward in a competition in which users offer their computing power to verify and record bitcoin transactions into the blockchain. This activity is referred to as mining and successful miners are rewarded with transaction fees and newly created bitcoins.

confirmed by:

References

The changed wording is misleading:

• It is not confirmed by the cited source while indicating otherwise.

• It is communicating that miners may (or may not) not verify the transactions they process, while the fact is that only valid blocks - blocks containing valid transactions - can be added to the blockchain, and an attempt to add an invalid block will not be accepted by the network.

• It is technically true that, since the blockchain is sequential, the transactions recorded in it are ordered by the very fact they are registered, but the more fundamental, specific, and easier to understand for the reader is the fact that they are registered in the blockchain, not its consequence that they are ordered.

Due to the misleading and WP:OR nature of the edits, the edits shall be reverted to the original wording supported by the cited source. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Miners do not necessarily verify the transactions, for example validation-less mining [10], [11]. The non mining nodes may also verify transactions, it is confusing to conflate this validation process with the purpose of mining. Describing the main purpose of mining as verifying transactions is therefore an inappropriate description. Mining exists to solve the Double-spending problem, which determines the order of transactions, in case their is a conflict,not to verify the validity of transactions. Fanuccorp (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

While you found an example of a text using the notion of "validationless mining", there are several problems with it:

• The first text you mention cannot be considered an independent reliable source per Wikipedia standards.
• The text is using Segregated witness that does not work yet as an example, ignoring the fact I mentioned above, that invalid blocks cannot become a part of the blockchain.
• Your second cited text actually proves you wrong, mentioning that blocks from miners not validating their additions had to be ignored and removed.
• What non-mining nodes do is not relevant for the text describing what miners do.
• Last but not least, your changes purported they are citing a source that claimed otherwise. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Yes in this case blocks invalid blocks were removed. In this case miners produced invalid blocks, proving that miners do not always validate. Therefore on some occasions miners produce valid blocks even though they dont validate them, and these do get into the blockchain. The invalid blocks simply prove that entities doing the activity known as mining, do not always validate. Mining is not validating nor does it necessarily contain validation as a subset of mining activities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanuccorp (talk • contribs) 14:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

While the logic you use is original, and I do not doubt that you honestly think that the edits you made represent the truth, the problem I mentioned and you seem to be unfamiliar with is that the core policy of Wikipedia is verifiability. I suggest you to read WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:VNT policies to find out how to contribute. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The list of invalid blocks verifies that miners do not always verify [12]. In addition to this the original Bitcoin Whitepaper describes mining as a decision making process, not a verification process "The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision making."[13] Fanuccorp (talk) 03:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Fanuccorp: It would be great if we could expand this concept a bit. It might also work over at Blockchain (database). But I think a crystalball of what might happen (in theory) with segwit doesn't fit this article. I also was under the impression that segwit transactions were going to take place off the blockchain, so thus they wouldn't have anything to do with mining (which goes on the blockchain). But I am really not well versed in all this, if you can point us to some sources maybe we can look at adding it. Thank you~ Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:08, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

• Sorry for including the SegWit link, this is leading to confusion. The point I was trying to make has nothing to do with SegWit, I was just looking for a link that explained validation-less mining. By the way SegWit transactions do go on the blockchain, all SegWit means is that the signature of the inputs is in a separate data structure, I think you are thinking of something else, but this is not the point. My point is some miners do not validate, the term for this is validation-less mining and the proof that this occurs is invalid blocks produced by miners in July 2015. Please note that just because blocks happen to be valid, that does not mean the miner that made it validated it. In a similar way, just because you hand me a document that happens to be correct, that does not necessarily imply you verified the contents of the document. Mining does not necessarily include validation or verification. In my view its misleading to describe mining as verifying, when the purpose is to solve the double spending problem or decide on which block gets in the blockchain. As the Bitcoin whitepaper says "The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision making." [14] Mining is designed as a decision making process, not for validation. Fanuccorp (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I dont really want to get into a segwit discussion, because I dont really understand it. I also thought you were talking about transactions using lightning (you didn't say that, just a brain fart on my part). About mining not verifying transactions, I think that occurs in cases where the miner finds a solution before he gets access to a previous solution. This sometimes occurs in China due to china network problems (I have heard). Again I am not an expert here. But I think it is pretty clear that mining is about validation of the previous block. If there is some source that refutes this, then it will be a totally new idea for me, and something we might want to include (but we will need serious sources, as this will to my understanding refute the basic concepts of blockchain and bitcion). Again I might be misunderstanding your point, as while I know some big words (segwit, lightning, etc), I am really a newbie in terms of true knowledge. I like to edit these wiki articles relating to blockchain as it helps me to learn :-) Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this has nothing to do with SegWit. Yes, in China, miners often start to build on top of a block when they only have the header and before they validate it. The main evidence we have for this is that miners in China often produce "empty blocks", they do this because they have not seen or verified the transactions in the previous block, therefore they do not know which transactions to include in their new block, since they may or may not conflict with the old block they haven't seen yet. This is evidence not only of validation-less mining, but also not even having access to the previous block. Perhaps it would be good if mining was more about verifying previous blocks, but there is plenty of evidence and even proof, miners are not always doing this. Network issues, such as larger blocks caused by increased usage of Bitcoin or irregular latency pattens caused by the Great Firewall are making this problem worse. Even if miners did always verify blocks, I would still not describe mining this way, the main purpose of mining is to decide which block is the one that goes in the blockchain, perhaps choosing between two valid blocks. This is a decision making process as described in the white-paper, not a validation process. "competition in which users offer their computing power to verify and record bitcoin transactions into the blockchain." could be changed to "competition in which users offer their computing power to decide which block gets into the blockchain." Maybe this is harder to understand or seems weirder, but it is more accurate. Fanuccorp (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, so we agree that sometimes miners create blocks without validating the prior block. What happens to that block? Is there an incentive built into the system to prevent miners from continuously not validating previous blocks? Or are they just validating it out of the goodness of their hearts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The claim that miners do not validate transactions and the claim that 'The main evidence we have for this is that miners in China often produce "empty blocks"' is based on wrong logic. Actually, for empty blocks holds that all transactions (there is exactly zero of them) in such blocks are valid, and even the claim that all transactions in an empty block have been validated by the miner is also trivially true. Also, Jtbobwaysf, it does not matter whether miners validate the previous block or not. It suffices that in the block the miner adds all transactions are valid, which is certainly true for empty blocks. Importantly, the cited source confirms this, stating that miners "verify the transactions in the block chain". Thus, the claim that miners do this is not just verifiable, it is verified by the source. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Just because a miner doesn't validate the block, doesn't mean the block is not valid. If it is valid the block may make it into the blockchain. If the block is invalid, it will eventually be rejected by other nodes (both mining and non mining nodes). Reducing the risk of it being invalid is an incentive to validate it, but this incentive is proving insufficient for various reasons like sloppiness or network problems. Some experts (not me) don't see this as a problem, they see this as progress as Bitcoin professionalizes and participants become more specialized and focus on niches. For example validation and mining becoming separate processes. This is a controversial issue. However, whoever is correct, it goes to show that validation is not a good way of describing mining.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanuccorp (talk • contribs) 16:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you have sources to support what mining is other than adding transactions and verifying previous ones? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, its decision making not verifying. As the Bitcoin whitepaper says "The proof-of-work also solves the problem of determining representation in majority decision making."[15]. The point is validation is relatively easy, everyone can do it and its not a competition, the competition is about producing a valid hash, which determines which block gets into the chain, that is what the competition is about.Fanuccorp (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

What is your assertion that mining does then? I am confused. I read another thing today on wechat that said that satoshi designed the system such as if you mine an invalid block, you face the risk that your blockreward is canceled (as i guess would happen if the block is rejected). To me it sounds like we are saying in this article it is necessary to drive a car with your eyes open. You are saying it is technically possible to drive a car with your eyes closed, but if you run into a tree it is your own responsibility. I understand the validity of both arguments. But I dont think we can put in the front part of the article that driving a car with your eyes closed is technically ok, as it is intentionally misleading readers of this bitcoin page (who probably come here for very basic information and not to discuss nuance, which is the reason I am here). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

My assertion is mining should be described as a process to determine which block gets into the blockchain, not as a mechanism of validating blocks. For example if their are two choices of valid blocks, mining is a process which decides which one gets in the blockchain. To me it sounds like you are describing car driving as an activity conducted for the purpose of keeping your eyes open, I am suggesting that while car driving may encourage the driver to keep their eyes open, this misses the point, the point of driving can better be described as a way to get from A to B. You do not pay taxi drivers a reward so that they keep their eyes open, you pay taxi drivers a reward to get you from A to B, although it is likely the taxi driver will have open eyes, this is not the main point. In the same way miners are rewarded for taking part in a competitive process to decide which block gets in the blockchain. Validating the blocks is not a competitive process, deciding which blocks is competitive.Fanuccorp (talk) 07:35, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: yes, indeed. A production of a would-be valid hash of an invalid block is worthless for the network - "Nodes accept the block only if all transactions in it are valid and not already spent." While Fanuccorp's logic is original, the result does not adhere to the WP:NOR policy, and, as you pointed out, it is misleading the reader. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The production of an invalid block may be worthless, that is not the same as saying validation is a good way of describing mining. In the same way driving a car with your eyes closed may be worthless, but keeping your eyes open is a poor way of describing driving. Fanuccorp (talk) 08:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

"My assertion is mining should be described as a process to determine which block gets into the blockchain, not as a mechanism of validating blocks." I am ok with that statement for general purpose. It is a bit vague, and vague is not the goal of wikipedia. I also understand your point that if a miner can mine a block without putting in transaction data, and he gets lucky and it doesn't get rejected later, then maybe this should be addressed in mining. We need an RS to put it in there as Ladislav says. We can't just add it "because it is right" Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Ladislav Mecir you know you are going to have a lot better luck at people taking you seriously on a talk page discussion if you enter a discussion without saying things like Due to the misleading and WP:OR nature of the edits, the edits shall be reverted to the original wording supported by the cited source. In other words telling us the edits shall be reverted is not a discussion nor looking for feedback on this issue. You are telling us. Since you have a track record of supporting really poor sources, that source your using could be suspect as well. Who published it? Was it sponsored by a University or is it just as it says, a bitcoin primer, from who knows who? Earl King (talk) 09:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Earl King, I think that we should discuss the contents of the article, and, preferably, keep the discussion relevant to the subject of this section. I especially do not think we should discuss your track record, my track record, or track record of anybody else, however poor they look to you. If you want to discuss the quality of the cited source, you are free to do so, but, preferably, do it in a separate discussion/section, since this section does not discuss the quality of the cited source, rather it discusses and presents the opinion that the disputed edit does not represent the source, while the text suggests otherwise. If you have an opinion related to the actual subject, you are welcome to present it here, as is any other Wikipedia editor. Hope this helps. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Earl, policies on WP:OR are defined. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Addition to Classification

Bitcoin is unlikely to fall under the definition of securities because securities are "any note, stock, … transferable share, [or] investment contract." Currencies, which bitcoin is more similar to, are excluded from securities laws. However, there is also an increasing number of people treating Bitcoins as investment opportunities. However, the SEC has shown flexibility in that regard: a federal judge in Texas qualified Bitcoins as securities in a case.[25]Ellenchannn (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Sub-section Taxation under Legal Status and regulation

A 2014 IRS ruling requires digital currencies, including Bitcoin, to be taxed the same way as traditional currency. [26] In the United States, this means that customers need to identify whether he/she has experienced a gain from the goods or services through bartering. Because the value of Bitcoin fluctuates tremendously, each purchase will undergo a capital gains treatment. This taxation method puts the investors and consumers in opposition and might harm the longevity of Bitcoin.[27]

When people choose to use Bitcoin to engage in illegal activities, Bitcoin's traits make it difficult to monitor tax reporting and compliance issues. Since the taxation policies are set, the question now is whether people are properly reporting gains in a Bitcoin transaction.[28]Ellenchannn (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Ellenchannn:, what's your point here? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Addition to Acceptance by merchants

Add reasons why merchants want to accept Bitcoin as a currency:

There are a few advantages to adapting bitcoin. First, there is an additional stream of customers for the merchants [22] . Second, the Bitcoin system will allow merchants to eliminate transaction fees and will, for the most cases, only cost merchants a monthly flat rate once installed[23], or a smaller transaction fee per transaction.[9]

Although the Bitcoin currency fluctuates a lot, there are alternatives methods to change the Bitcoin currency into dollars. Bitpay is a company that specializes in this area.[24]Ellenchannn (talk) 20:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ellenchannn: hello, can you, please, explain what is [22] etc? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC: shall the sourced information on transaction fees be restored?

The consensus is to restore this version of the "Transaction fees" section]. The consensus is that Mastering Bitcoin. Unlocking Digital Crypto-Currencies is not a primary source. Cunard (talk) 02:03, 21 November 2016 (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.

---

Shall this version of the "Transaction fees" section be restored?

The section contained two sentences describing the transaction fees. The sentences were:

Fees are based on the storage size of the transaction generated, which in turn is dependent on the number of inputs used to create the transaction. Furthermore, priority is given to older unspent inputs.

References

Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes:
  • The claim is directly related to the subject.
  • The claim is an uncontroversial and undisputed fact.
  • The cited source is a book published by O'Reilly Media.
  • The book author, Andreas M. Antonopoulos was recognized as an expert on the matter, e.g., by the Senate of Canada. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

• No It might be a bit too primary using that author for sourcing since he works for the bitcoin foundation and is heavily involved in promotion for bitcoin in general. Is it possible to use a better different source? The writer of the book in question says about himself in his official blog As a bitcoin entrepreneur, Andreas has founded a number of bitcoin businesses and launched several community open-source projects. He is a widely published author of articles and blog posts on bitcoin, is a permanent host on the popular Let’s Talk Bitcoin Podcast, and a frequent speaker at technology and security conferences worldwide. source [16] so maybe its not the best source for information in the article to use a proponents comments. Earl King (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Note: the book isn't a primary source, since it was published in April 2014, while bitcoin exists since January 2009. January 2009 is also the month when bitcoin transactions, and transaction fees started to work as described, and there is no indication that the book author, Andreas M. Antonopoulos, was involved in the creation of bitcoin. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC

A very weird criteria considering no one knows who created bitcoin. A total argument failure. Its 8 October 2016 (UTC)

"Its true he works for the Bitcoin foundation" - no, it is not true that Andreas M. Antonotrue he works for the Bitcoin foundation where he does podcasts for bitcoin still, I think. It seems primary as he is promote advert person for bitcoin in every sense. Earl King (talk) 14:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

"Its true he works for the Bitcoin foundation" - no, it is not true that Andreas M. Antonopoulos works for the Bitcoin Foundation. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Its true he was a board member of the bitcoin foundation until recently FounderRootEleven January 2013 – Present (3 years 10 months) Technology content creator and incubator working in digital crypto-currencies (eg. bitcoin), according to his bio that he presents [17] Obviously the source is not good enough to use in an article but its good enough for a talk page probably. He was an industry insider for bitcoin and promotion person as already said previously doing promo pod casts for Bitcoin foundation. Seems to close to the subject to be a reliable neutral source. Better to get some actual news stories. Earl King (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Wow - I was just thinking that the post I made here on this noticeboard earlier probably looks this tangled to people trying to read it, too. But ok, I will take a swing here.

Is the argument whether the book is a reliable secondary source or primary because the author has an association with bitcoin foundation? Is that the heart of it? Elinruby (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Answer: As far as I am concerned, not. I see the heart of this discussion in deciding whether the specific contents should be present in the article or not. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

By specific content you mean what exactly? That there is a transaction fee, using this as a source? 09:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I mean the above text starting by: "Fees are based on..." and ending "... older unspent inputs." FYI, originally the text used a different source, but was deleted by the same editor claiming now the inadequacy of Antonopoulos' book used as a source for this specific claim. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

If so...unlocking a piece of cryptology is a highly technical matter which probably has answers that are either true or false with few, if any, shades of grey. As such, even if he is a product evangelist, the book would seem to me probably somewhere between a software manual and perhaps some advanced use cases. I guess I could go look at the book to be sure. But this is the type of book that O'Reilly specializes in and is known for. The book would definitely have been through an editorial process, most likely multi-level, but my knowledge of their business processes isn't quite THAT specific. But if there is editorial review, it's a reliable secondary source. Usually. But even supposing it *were* primary, such as this author's blog, if he is considered an expert -- which he might be if O'Reilly is publishing his books -- then even self-published primary materials are acceptable. Sometimes. Having said all that I guess I should look at the book now Elinruby (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

there is a github repository here if anyone wants to look at the book. There is no question that the book's audience is python developers. (Its license here is Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License btw) and this material has been through multiple edits by a very respected publisher. That's what I have to say about this. Elinruby (talk) 05:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes per WP:Preserve and I don't read the source is a primary source.CuriousMind01 (talk) 12:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes summoned by bot. Non controversial. Easy enough to dispute and remove by anyone who knows anything about bitcoin, which admittedly I don't.Timtempleton (talk) 08:09, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. Summoned by bot. The content is relevant, appropriate, and supported by the source. Is the source a primary source? It doesn't appear to be. It was written as a technical textbook some years after the bitcoin launch, and is edited and published by an established publisher. While the author may be a bitcoin advocate, the statement in question is not a controversial one. It appears to be an objective description of how the software works. If it were incorrect, it is the kind of statement that O'Reilly would publish an errata to fix. And as User:Timtempleton points out, if there is a source that shows it to be incorrect, it would be easy to assess. Certainly other informal sources found on google seem to agree with it. Chris vLS (talk) 05:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

• Yes. Earl, this pattern of repeatedly deleting RS content (you are also doing the same at Blockchain (database) and Ethereum) is disruptive. In this case your assertion that an O'Reily published book is not an RS is laughable. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:42, 13 November 2016 (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.

DYK hook for Bitcoin Core

I am asking this here because I don't think many people are watching Bitcoin Core. If you can spot a DYK hook in the article I will try to get it on the front page. So "Did you know Bitcoin Core..." - Shiftchange (talk) 15:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Bitcoin Core is a term used to refer to a faction within the bitcoin community in the recent dispute over strategy relating to scaling the throughput capacity of Bitcoin. I think this might be interesting to wikipedia readers. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:00, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

It might if you had some reliable sources to support that claim. I'm not sure I would encourage a politics, issues or whatever section on a software page however. - Shiftchange (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

The term "Bitcoin Core" also refers to a political faction relating to Bitcoin that is in favor of keeping the 1MB blocksize and is supporting Segregated Witness as the preferred system for scaling.

"The Bitcoin Core faction also believes raising the block size will favor the miners that have the processing capacity capable of handling the lengthier calculations that larger blocks require." https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/chinese-miners-influence-on-the-future-of-bitcoin/

"The Bitcoin Core faction, composed of the original code maintainers, advocates the retention of a 1 MB block size — for now. They hold that changing the block size (also known as the hard fork option) would create two different blockchains that would be incompatible with one another. https://securityintelligence.com/news/does-bitcoin-need-a-higher-block-size-or-transaction-fee/

"Last year, the increasing popularity of the Bitcoin network began to threaten its capacity limit of roughly 7 transactions per second, and Bitcoin’s engineers fragmented into factions. One group, now known as Bitcoin Classic, wanted to immediately promote a hard fork that would double the bandwidth of the Bitcoin network. Another faction, Bitcoin Core, believed that this was too risky, and promoted a different short-term solution to the looming capacity crisis." http://qz.com/687493/the-controversy-over-satoshi-nakamotos-true-identity-is-jeopardizing-bitcoins-future/

"Bitcoin's Biggest Weakness May Be Political, Not Technical" http://www.nasdaq.com/article/bitcoins-biggest-weakness-may-be-political-not-technical-cm601374#ixzz4Qno2BTbP

There is plenty of politics in Bitcion. The term Bitcoin core also refers to the political group that is managaing bitcoin in the ongoing dispute that was before related to Bitcoin XT, and now is again happening with Bitcoin Unlimited. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Energy consumption

At present, the section uses various more or less standard units such as:

• "982 megawatt-hours a day"
• "electricity which could be used to power roughly 31,000 US homes"
• "80,666 kW"
• "10 GW"
• "1.46 terawatt-hours per year"

To be able to compare the figures, I suggest to convert all figures to megawatts. The converted figures will be: 40.9 megawatts (982 megawatt-hours a day), 80.7 megawatts (80,666 kW), 100 to 10'000 megawatts (0.1 to 10 GW), 166.7 megawatts (1.46 terawatt-hours per year).

I also think that "electricity which could be used to power roughly 31,000 US homes" is not just nonstandard, it is also nonneutral (Why is it preferable to the consumption of Japanese or Chinese homes?) and should be left out therefore. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Funding terrorism

Problems:

• The section was written by a permanently blocked vandal.

• The claim: "Bitcoin is transparent in its reporting of how much gets transferred and when" duplicates the information present in the "Money laundering" section: "Bitcoins may not be ideal for money laundering because all transactions are public".

• The claim: "[bitcoin] lacks oversight about reporting suspicious activities in comparison to the regulated banking system" misrepresents the cited source, which actually claims that bitcoin is "lacking the intermediaries to report suspicious activities the way the regulated banking system does". That is not a fact - bitcoin does have payment service providers such as BitPay or Coinbase and various exchanges reporting suspicious activities.

• I do not find it encyclopedic to inform the reader about the quality of Jennifer Shasky Calvery's sleep.

• The claim "We’ve started to see some public articles suggesting that has occurred." looks like WP:RUMOUR.

Due to all the above reasons, it looks that it would be better to just delete the section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Are there RS on bitcoin being used for transfers between terrorist organizations, or use for paying ransoms, etc? If there are, this is a very interesting use case and demonstrates a key feature of bitcoin, in that it is resitant to censorship. I don't like the idea of section blanking a whole section that discusses (maybe poorly) a key feature of bitcoin. Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

"Are there RS on bitcoin being used for transfers between terrorist organizations" - no, that is why it is WP:RUMOUR. Re paying ransoms etc. - that is a separate issue discussed in a separate section, you should be able to read it in the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

RfC: should recent edit of "Ponzi scheme concerns" section be reverted?

Should this edit of the "Ponzi scheme concerns" section be reverted? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Supplemental information: the texts to compare are the wording of the "Ponzi scheme concerns" section here versus the wording of the "Ponzi scheme concerns" section here.

• Yes
  • The edit is nonconsensual, it uses incorrect "Ponzi sceme" instead of the correct "Ponzi scheme" term.
  • The edit is nonconsensual, it was originally made by a vandal indefinitely blocked from editing meanwhile.[18]
  • The edit is nonconsensual, the consensus in this article is to use citation templates, while the edit in question replaces the templates by less informative references, referring to the same sources.
  • The edit is nonneutral, trying to characterize three journalists as "mainstream", even though their opinion is a minority opinion.
  • The edit is nonneutral, using vague characterization "various" to suggest there are more authors supporting this opinion than the number supported by the sources.
  • The edit is nonneutral, trying to suggest in Wikipedia voice that "bitcoin is still 'a little bit' of a Ponzi sceme or pyramid scheme" Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

A few things. First, you don't need an RfC to fix a typo. It's been fixed. Secondly, the wording was the result of discussion which you agreed to, barring the last sentence which was made by an editor who has not been been indefinitely blocked, so I'm not sure what you mean there. You refer to a consensus regarding templates, would you mind linking that discussion? The wording you're opposing is wording you yourself agreed to, it's not suddenly "nonneutral". What changed? Various journalists is a valid way to write that, your edit made it seem as though seven people had these concerns, no more. That's not the case, and it's not one or two named journalists who are known above others to have these concerns, so it's WP:UNDUE to call out one or two and name them as if they, and they alone, are the ones who have these concerns. It's unrealistic to list every single person who has mentioned concerns of Bitcoin being a Ponzi scheme, so the sentence summarizes the idea. This isn't List of people who think Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme, but trying to list out a few people in a way that suggests that only those people have voiced these concerns is not in keeping with WP:NPOV.

As for the last sentence, the one that wasn't part of the previous discussion, I think it needs to be reworded, but I'm not sure it needs to be removed entirely. Especially because the article as currently worded does not suggest any such thing in Wikipedia's voice, though it could be reworded to make that more clear. However, except for your last bullet point, these have all been addressed previously and are not as you present them. - Aoidh (talk) 09:25, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• "A few things. First, you don't need an RfC to fix a typo." - I am pretty sure the RfC is necessary. For example, the "Ponzi sceme" issue has been discussed above,[19] quite a long time ago, and you reverted it for the second time at least.
• "...made by an editor who has not been been indefinitely blocked" - made by an editor who has been indefinitely blocked[20]
• Now, when the wording is being discussed, please refrain from modifying it - it was you who was content with the wording and who reinstated all the problematic parts, calling the result "neutral, consensus version".[21] Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the whole naming of journalists in this section is unnecessary. Next, I think the whole quote 'a little bit of a ponzi scheme' is ridiculous, and reads like a comic book line. Maybe Bernie Madoff thought he was only running 'a little bit of a ponzi scheme,' but who cares... I think we can keep the section and say "a few" or a "a handful" of the press have called it a ponzi scheme. We need to keep in mind that there are articles written every day about Bitcoin (from big sources such as NYT, WSJ, Bloomberg, CNN, etc who I haven't seen refer to it as a ponzi) so we need to be careful of WP:UNDUE here implying that there is some consensus in WP:RS that bitcoin is being referred to as a ponzi scheme, because it is not from what I have seen. As far as I can tell there are a few WP:FRINGE theories that bitcoin is a ponzi scheme (aka conspiracy theorists) and we can include it in the article as such (water fluoridation has such inclusions, as I guess 9/11 does as well). But let's not start thinking we are going to give this a lot of weight when the Swiss Government is going to sell bitcoin in the train stations from their ticket machines. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Comment - This is ridiculous. Don't reintroduce a typo purposefully into the article just to try to justify other edits. - Aoidh (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I notice that, after I discussed the issues in two sections above, and was forced to fill this RfC, you finally decided to support my point that your version was, in contrast to your cited justification, neither "consensual" nor "neutral". But keep in mind that I have only a little understanding for your effort to completely rewrite the section in an attempt to deprive fellow Wikipedians of the possibility to check and discuss the issues in the state you prepared. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The only editor who attempted to "completely rewrite the section" was you, and the edits I reverted were not discussed in your discussions with the other editor, What I did was revert it back to the version that had consensus, a version which, I might remind you, you agreed with after the last RfC you requested. This is the version you agreed to. Reverting your problematic edits were not an "effort to completely rewrite the section," because the version that's currently there is literally word-for-word the exact same as the version you agreed with, that is as far from a "complete rewrite" as one can get. All I did was restore the status quo, this story you've presented about my attempting to rewrite the section has no basis in reality, and I strongly invite you to cite a diff to back up your claim. Cite a diff, please. Show me where I've done anything but restore the section to previous versions at any point since May, when I last discussed this. - Aoidh (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

It looks much better now, all this 'a little bit of a ponzi scheme' and naming of the journalists has been removed. If more countries jump on the bandwagon and call it a ponzi, by all means we can add them to the mix with Estonia. I think it is good that Ladislav made a RfC, it is the point of wikipedia to resolve discussions on the talk page, nothing wrong with it at all, we are here to seek consensus. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Generally speaking, and per WP:RFC, the content in dispute should be discussed before an RfC is opened. This section was discussed back in September, but the edits LM made were not discussed in any way. RfC doesn't need to be bogged down by things that can resolved on the talk page, as it has been here. - Aoidh (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

The main problem is that, in contrast to my effort to discuss things, you did not react and discuss any of the issues before the RfC was created. Thus, the RfC was actually the only remaining way how to make sure the issues are taken seriously. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)