Talk:Bitcoin

RfC on changing article variant to Oxford spelling to align with whitepaper

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

(non-admin closure) There was a relatively low turnout to this RfC. However, the numerical majority (4:1) is clearly in favor of retaining the current engvar. Those voting yes did not explicitly cite a policy but their arguments echo MOS:TIES whereas those voting no primarily cited MOS:RETAIN. I find that there is consensus to maintain the current engvar (American English). If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

---

Should this article's ENGVAR be changed to Oxford spelling? Getsnoopy (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Context

It seems like the article variant was arbitrarily set as American English in this edit, which could've been confused been confused with Oxford spelling because of its widespread use of the -ize suffix at the time. Moreover, given that Satoshi used Oxford spelling in the original Bitcoin whitepaper, it would be a good homage to have this article match that to symbolize Bitcoin's international nature (akin to Oxford spelling's international nature, as it is used by the UN & ISO, for example).

Polling (English variety)

That edit from back in 2017 didn't appear to have been arbitrary at all. Such templates are commonly added to document existing consensus, per MOS:RETAIN.

Further, this is not formatted as a proper WP:RfC.

Lastly, Wikipedia articles should absolutely not be an "homage", and non-neutral proposals like this are not appropriate, per WP:RFCNEUTRAL

Grayfell (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

My point is that it could've easily been argued that the consensus was Oxford spelling at the time. Getsnoopy (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Fixed the formatting. Getsnoopy (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Do not insert your comments into the middle of someone else's, as your edits removed the signature and made it impossible for other editors to know who said what without going into the page history. Talk pages are intended to be a record of the conversation. If strictly necessary, you can use quotes to respond to specific points. See WP:INTERPOLATE. Grayfell (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The RFC does probably also fail rfcbrief as well. However, I do support the change. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Fixed the formatting, so it's OK now. Getsnoopy (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

No - (Summoned by bot) Simply haven't seen any real argument why it should change. Not enough of a connection between this subject and a particular location to override what's been in place for at least 7 years. To be clear, if it were a different template and someone proposed adding the American English template, I'd also oppose. Fighting over WP:ENGVARs is not a good use of time IMO, except when there's an obvious connection. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 11:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

No - (Summoned by bot) there are no strong ties between Bitcoin and any national variety of English so there is no reason to change a stable article - and this would apply regardless of what variety was stable. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

No - (Summoned by bot) I don't think there are sufficient MOS:TIES to British English to override MOS:RETAIN. TheSavageNorwegian 17:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

No — Per previous comments, MOS:RETAIN applies. Grayfell (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2024 (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.

"...requires increasing quantities of electricity"

This passage is misleading: "Consensus between nodes is achieved using [...] mining, that requires increasing quantities of electricity". Its reads like the increasing electricity consumption is a requirement of the protocol, which is false. It requires electricity, the demand of which is increasing due to factors outside the protocol. I don't know how to reword it. TarkusAB^talk/contrib 17:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Y This was addressed. Thank you! TarkusAB^talk/contrib 06:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@TarkusAB: I think that we should probably do it without piped in text in the lead, given that it seems the statement still is there about the increasing quantities of electricity. Maybe there is a way to re-word the sentence and just link without the piped in text? I did this diff to eliminate the piped in text. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@A455bcd9: you reverted the edit with your editor summary stating "The topic is important and should be linked in the lede. It could be linked in a different way though." Please note that I didnt remove the link, I just removed the piped in text. Please offer something else. You have two editors here that are/were concerned about the piped in text claim. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Doesn't the current version solve the problem? (if there was any) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

It does, thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

community tab on right side under bitcoin

There should be a community tab somewhere. Should link to bitcointalk.org, reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/ and any other big communities. Bc1q03jr3zcvjerg72xl36ddyreerm2dzwev4p964u (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

See WP:LINKSTOAVOID. WE don't link to social media, discussion forums etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Should have treasuries tab somewhere

Should include Bitcoin Treasuries tab by listing them all Bc1q03jr3zcvjerg72xl36ddyreerm2dzwev4p964u (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

No. See WP:LINKSTOAVOID. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I removed the link, maybe an SEO link. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

"The Bitcoin blockchain from space. No internet required." - Bitcoin not only available trough the internet

Should include somewhere "The Blockstream Satellite network broadcasts the Bitcoin blockchain around the world 24/7 for free, protecting against network interruptions and providing areas without reliable internet connections with the opportunity to use Bitcoin." as of unknown. This is the very best possible feature of bitcoin today. It was very difficult for me to find it. This is a very important feature of blockchain and cryptocurrency. No other forex can do that, unless you are an oil sheik or even then. https://blockstream.com/satellite/ THANKS Lasermoons (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

You appear to have mistaken Wikipedia for a provider of free advertising space. It isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so let's just include "and satellite" somewhere with an.. with a reference that fits. Whatever, otherwise the link is not correct? I can still modify it. It wouldn't be bad if she/he who get access got into it somehow. It's just a satellite cryptocurrency after all. Not just, it's. Lasermoons (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

We need WP:RS to include things at wikipedia, and on cryptocurrency articles we are only using high quality sources such as wsj, nyt, fortune.com, etc. We are not using a blockstream blog post or marketing info. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, lasermoons acknowledges that satellite service is initially attributed to one person. Do you see Adam Back as a garage band or a local company? I think it isn't an advertise in this way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockstream Lasermoons (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

No. This isn't a reliable source, and these claims are extraordinary and promotional. Stop trying to add spam to Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

What about this source? https://interactive.satellitetoday.com/blockchain-the-next-big-disruptor-in-space/

I agree that the rest is trash. Not worth mentioning? Last message, I don't spam anymore. Lasermoons (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

satellitetoday.com is owned by a marketing company. [1] The article is marketing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Lasermoons:, sometimes you need to filter out the bad sources and you can still find a good source or two. This here can show you how to do the search, you note I manually remove the crypto sources so that there are less to read through. Remaining we have forbes, futurism (I am not sure if this is an RS, but maybe), vice, decrypt (not sure about decrypt, looks like a crypto source), IBT, forbes. I think you should be able to find content in these articles to say something, not sure if it will be WP:DUE on this bitcoin article (a whole different discussion), but I suspect you easily could add it to the Blockstream article. Last, I am not sure the nuance here, as if it is internet from space or internet (eg starlink), from a landline (eg fiber), from mobile (eg 5G), then what is the difference? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Removal of XBT

Hello,

The currency code XBT was removed from lead and infobox back in February because… a random unregistered editor never heard of it and "absolutely no one calls it that" (but mainly because links to citations were rot).

This is false, this paper explains that

To allow Bitcoin to enter the database tables used by MasterCard, PayPal, SWIFT, Visa, an ISO currency code is needed as regulated by the ISO 4217:2018 that defines alpha-numeric codes for the representation of currencies. Bitcoin in this standard may have the first alpha code as ”X” used for supranational currencies, procedural purposes, and several precious metals which are similar to currencies (ISO 4217:2018). In this case, the code for Bitcoin may be the “XBT” and finally, Bitcoin can enter the existing networks, trading and software accounting systems and other clearing networks rely on.

This other paper explains :

The popular ticker name ‘BTC’ violates ISO 4217 because it conflicts with Bhutan’s currency which is BTN [Bhutanese Ngultrum]. For that reason, some people use the alternative ticker name “XBT” which is not official).

By the way, there are 795 other scholarly papers that mention the XBT symbol.

It becomes clear that certain platforms and entities that must use ISO 4217-compliant currency codes (banks, governments) use the XBT symbol for Bitcoin, not only Bloomberg (and their terminals).

Here some examples:

• CNN.com (BTC is rarely used)
• European Union
  • The only recognized currency code in their currencies database.
• U.S. Department of the Treasury
• U.S. Homeland Security
  • The US government sometimes follows the convention of foreign currency abbreviations, with non-government-issued currencies beginning with “X;” hence: “XBT,” “XMR,” or “XRP.”
• A Bitcoin ETF
• A Bitcoin futures contract

Also, XBT is mentionned in a lot of books about Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies. Thibaut (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

It was removed after this discussion: Talk:Bitcoin/Archive_40#XBT_lol?. The article mentions XBT. It's just not in the lead and in the infobox and it's OK to me. But I'm also OK with adding them back. The two sources you used seem quite weak to me. Don't we have anything better? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I also dont support inclusion of the XBT code at this time, as I dont think it is widely used, certainly not in the WP:LEAD first sentence. We could mention it later in the article, maybe in some more in depth discussion of this currency code issue. This source that was provided by Thibaut120094 (talk · contribs) Bitcoin ETF seems to be an ETF called "XBT Provider Bitcoin Tracker One ETN BITCOIN XBT". I am not sure what that is, but it should be discussed first. We also have ETFs that use IBIT, GBTC, FBTC, etc. I think that we are somehow confusing the user by providing this XBT in the first sentence of the LEAD in bold, as it is not widely used. I only really know of the use of the code BTC. Lets try to understand if this is a US government naming convention, an ETF by a similar name, or if the whole world is using it before we consider to give it undue weight in the lead. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Well it should at least be in the "BTCcode" footnote. Thibaut (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I moved the "BTCcode" footnote to the main part of the text as I didn't see any reason to keep it as a footnote. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 21:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Btw, could Bhutan one day apply for "BTC" as the code for bitcoin? Given how Bitcoin-friendly the Kingdom is I wonder why they haven't done it already :) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I dont see how Bhutan is related to this discussion. We already have coverage of XBT in Bitcoin#Units_and_divisibility. We dont need it in the LEAD as we are unable to confirm if this is a suitable WP:ALTNAME for the WP:LEAD. To me common sense says it is not, as BTC is the correct ALTNAME. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

In the financial industry, the XBT symbol is used to comply with international standards for currency codes like ISO 4217.

Because of that, XBT is mentioned as an alternative symbol in 797 academic papers and 465 books, it seems to me than this is more than enough for it to be mentioned in the lead and infobox or at least in a footnote as a compromise. Thibaut (talk) 06:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

(I mentioned Bhutan as a joke/question :) )

"XBT is mentioned as an alternative symbol in 797 academic papers and 465 books": this is original research. We need an RS that says that XBT is a code for Bitcoin and that this code conforms to ISO 4217 though not officially part of it. Do we have this? This source only says In this case, the code for Bitcoin may be the “XBT”: this is pure conjecture by the authors. And it says nothing about how often this code is used. Another paper could well say "the code for Bitcoin may be XBB" or "XBC" or whatever. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Salut Antoine,

How it is original research? WP:SOURCETYPES says: “Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.” Thibaut (talk) 12:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm strongly against including XBT in the lead or mentioning it as a common abbreviation. XBT was used more commonly a few years ago, but its current use seems to be very limited. Additionally, there is a circulating cryptocurrency of dubious reputation using the XBT code. This might lead to confusion among unsophisticated readers, resulting in potential monetary losses.

Of the use cases mentioned by you, it's important to filter out the ones that use XBT to refer to something different (not Bitcoin). For example, the CBOE futures contract uses the XBT code, but it's the code used for the futures contract, a derivative, not the Bitcoin itself. The same with the ETF product you mentioned. As for CNN, they stopped referring to Bitcoin as XBT since the beginning of 2022. Vgbyp (talk) 12:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Thibaut120094: it's original research when you say "XBT is mentioned as an alternative symbol in 797 academic papers and 465 books", as this is you doing your own query and counting this and using this as an argument. What we need is a reliable source (one is enough) that says that 1/ XBT is an alternative code for Bitcoin and 2/ This code conforms to but is not part of the ISO standard.

And I agree with Vgbyp that many of the links you provided are not for Bitcoin itself but for related financial products.

We need to stick to reliable sources. I checked Google Scholar and I couldn't find anything recent of value unfortunately. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Thibaut120094: just seen that you added this source, which is a good one. But even this one does not say that XBT is the currency code for Bitcoin, they only write: The tick size is 0.0005 BTC and the minimum order size is 0.1 option contract on 1 BTC. We use the XBT acronym for an arbitrary bitcoin price and BTC for the Deribit index. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Thibaut120094: there is a long standing consensus in place to only use very high quality sources on cryptocurrency genre. We are not using lower quality sources (academic is probably included in many cases, depending the quality of academic) on controversial topics. It appears to me there is opposition in this talk page discussion against using this XBT in the LEAD. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Models

"Nakamoto's paper was not peer reviewed and was initially ignored by academics, who argued that it could not work, based on theoretical models, even though it was working in practice." What was their argument for why it wouldn't work? Benjamin (talk) 10:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I trimmed it a bit per your comments. Do you think better now? Probably too much weight on one paper also. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Ideally a better source could be found, because this seems like good information to include if true. Benjamin (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The theories it might not work is pretty much WP:CRYSTAL although past tense coverage of any notable opinions might be due. The earlier part of the sentence that states it was largely ignored is clearly encyclopedic and I think broadly recognized. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:12, 23 May 2024 (UTC)