Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 1

The Deletion of this page caused quite a few broken links.
The deletion of the bitcoin page caused quite a few broken links all over the web, primarily on blogs. How does one go about undeleting it? I came to wikipedia to look for information on bitcoin after reading about it on an economics blog and was suprised to find it had been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc Merlin (talk • contribs) 09:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)


 * For now, let's concentrate on simply improving the article, and perhaps finding if anybody has written about Bitcoins that wasn't salted by this article.


 * The reason why this article has been deleted is because of notability problems. Simply put, nobody but the blogosphere is even talking about this topic.  Perhaps that is because the idea is new or because it is so off the wall in terms of what is going on that nobody wants to take this idea on as a serious article.  Many of the blog entries that I read included long quotes from this Wikipedia article, which is self-referential and something generally bad in terms of scholarly research.


 * BTW, I do think that eventually this concept is going to be notable because it certainly is noteworthy. It is an interesting idea that will be recognized by others eventually and that when that happens there will be numerous articles that can be used as reliable sources other than strictly the Bitcoins documentation on bitcoin.org.  Insisting that this article become "undeleted" and posted as a regular Wikipedia article is not going to fly with the regular Wikipedia editors and administrators.  If you know of a scholarly publication that accepts a peer-reviewed article, write one about Bitcoins and then let us know here that it has been published.  There are things to be done and if you are as passionate about Bitcoins as I've seen here, spread the word and let others know about the concept.


 * The reasons for notability requirements are valid and something that in the long run is going to help the article out anyway. If something is written in a formal external source, you end up with fewer edit wars over the content as well or at least a point to fall back to in terms of who is claiming and asserting various features or criticisms of the content.  For more details about notability issues, please read WP:NOTE.  --Robert Horning (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, when I saw that the article had been briefly put back into main space, I took another look around to see if I could find some coverage in reliable sources, and there's just not much of anything out there at this time. I tend to agree that I think it may become notable in the future. One thing I would suggest to anyone involved in the project would be to write an article and submit it for publication in some of the IT magazines online, such as infoworld. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a good way to find out whether you can write an article that will pass the notability test (from User:Uncle G/On notability):
 * "When writing about subjects that are close to you, don't use your own personal knowledge of the subject, and don't cite yourself, your web site, or the subject's web site. Instead, use what is written about the subject by other people, independently, as your sources. Cite those sources in your very first edit.  If you don't have such sources, don't write."
 * The same idea is explained at WP:Amnesia test. JohnCD (talk) 20:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I came to Wikipedia looking for info about bitcoin and found no info. The next day I started work on a WP article for it and someone linked me here. Why isn't there a WP article? This is madness, and the project is insanely cool and impactful! I'm going to restore it. If it gets deleted then a copy remains here. Genjix (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm, so why is it protected from being recreated? That's not very WP-spirit. According to bitcoinwatch.com, there is $200k value invested in the project and $20k gets traded per day. slashdot Genjix (talk) 09:42, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Read the deletion discussion. There are no reliable sources available about it and so Bitcoin isn't notable. The recreation is forbidden, because there were several attempts to recreate the article without resolving the reason why it was deleted. Svick (talk) 13:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

How about this one: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2010/1126/1224284180416.html Not a very good detailed article and has many factual problems, but irishtimes might be an acceptable source to wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.107.204.68 (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

"Distributed hash table"
Bitcoin does not use a DHT; it uses a simple broadcast network. Please cite technical details before moving the article to the main article namespace to help avoid errors such as this. --bd_ (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Please re-enable the bitcoin article
There are detailed Wikipedia articles for each and every member of the imaginary Star Wars universe, but an honest tangible real effort (with dozens of websites and thousands of users!) to fix the fiat money system is not worthy of reporting? Come on.

Please re-enable the bitcoin article. This has hit at least one major social site, and wikipedia needs info on this. Jenkstom (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * See Deletion review/Log/2010 September 26 (click "Show" at the right hand side). JohnCD (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want to see this article restored, I would recommend that you publish an article in The Economist or find some other major publication that would be willing to publish something about Bitcoins. Heck, perhaps even go find a local newspaper reporter or a local television station and see if you can get them to do a spread about Bitcoins as some crazy future technology.  It is an interesting enough idea that I think some reporter on a slow news day might just write something about the concept, particularly if you could show a local angle where a small club or group of people are using the currency for trade between themselves.  Once you get those articles written, then come back and ask for the article to be restored, with links to those news stories or articles that have been published.  Until that happens, this article will be stuck in purgatory (so to say) and won't be a part of the mainstream Wikipedia until that happens.  I have no doubt that eventually such articles will be written, but it wouldn't hurt to push it along.  --Robert Horning (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The LWN article that I cited recently gives Bitcoin some more notability. It is quite thorough and I believe qualifies as a reliable source. -- intgr [talk] 16:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about LWN or its credibility, as it has the feel of a blog. Is it "peer reviewed" and at least should fit within the scope of WP:RS?  I really don't know, and I'm trying to be open about it here.  Please don't take that to be insulting, and perhaps it is just due to the way that the articles are presented with more "primitive" looking HTML rather than looking more at how the content itself is put together.  I'm just pleading ignorance here.  --Robert Horning (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I took a look, they do have editorial review and pay the writers of articles. The article cited is a full length review, so I think while it's not the best source, it looks to be pretty reliable. Certainly appears to be more substantial than a blog or forum. That being said, I think the article itself is still a mess, most of it is sourced to self published sources. If it is put back into mainspace, I would !vote keep in an AFD, but the authors should be prepared for substantial revision/reduction of the material present in the article. My suggestion would be to rely more on the LWN article and less on sources connected with the project. I also think that Robert Horning's suggest to see about getting another article or two published on the topic would worth pursuing. --Nuujinn (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2010/1126/1224284180416.html moar info on bitcoins news site offical now —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.53.69.101 (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It might not look that way, but LWN.net is actually a subscription-based news website &mdash; it's not a blog. It's mostly targeted for Linux geeks, so they put no effort into web design. This article would be subscribers-only, it can be viewed from this link because I posted is a "subscriber link". -- intgr [talk] 07:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Moving this article to the Article Incubator
Considering the much more widespread participation by several interested parties, it seems like userfication is really not an appropriate venue for an article like this, but it seems to be something much more appropriate for the Article Incubator area instead. This doesn't put it at risk of being deleted and in fact most of the rules that apply to userfied articles apply to the articles on the incubator. More significantly, I don't think this article should have multiple forks and other problems that tend to come from userfied articles.

Perhaps there are some people who are more knowledgeable about this process, but it would seem that putting this article in the incubator would also, perhaps, get more attention from a wider number of Wikipedia editors as well. The very concept of the incubator is still pretty new, so it doesn't surprise me that this article didn't end up in that area either.

I'm just saying that this feels like a perfect incubator candidate, as it is something which is at the cusp of a well written article and something meeting general notability guidelines, but it isn't quite there yet. By moving it out of the "user" namespace, it also gets rid of the negative view that this article is deleted and not wanted on Wikipedia. That isn't the case.... it just needs some help. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:16, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:20, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and ✅. I have left a link to here from its previous location at User:Message From Xenu/Bitcoin. JohnCD (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Acceptance section
Trying to move on to content issues, I'd like to discuss what to do with the Acceptance section. To me, this portion of the article was written as a justification and rationale for the notability of the concept by using the example of many different groups using Bitcoins as a form of currency. While I'm not against using some examples of people actually using the concept, this is just a little over the top. At the very least the current form is just a mess and sort of backfires even in terms of readability.

I'm not sure entirely how to fix this, or if this whole section perhaps ought to be simply removed. The basic concept that Bitcoins have been accepted in a large number of places certainly seems to be reasonable, but at the same time this shouldn't have to be an advertisement for everybody using Bitcoins either. As a way to mention some early adopters, perhaps, or to give a couple of key examples, but I think it is a little over the top for somebody to be included on this list simply because in some forum they state "yeah, we accept Bitcoins as payment".

What criteria ought to be established for inclusion here, or is that even a proper question at all? I'm even questioning that any specific company ought to be referenced, but I'm open to at least including a couple of key examples or to use perhaps some sort of verified "first user" of Bitcoins as a sort of historical context. The Wikipedia guidelines that I can use here is WP:ADVERT and WP:PROMOTION, but that doesn't shed too much light on this particular issue. The fact that this can become spam is more the point, such as how the reference to the EFF donations are now being used as a drive-by edit. Something does need to change in this section and it shouldn't remain as-is. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:09, 27 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the question is valid. I think it would be appropriate to either mention 2-3 of the most notable early adopters, or to simple say "a number of companies have adopted Bitcoins" and provide 3-4 refs for the most notable companies. The latter approach is less likely to lead to spam issues. It's a normal thing when trying to reach the notability standard to add everything you can, but once you're close, better to trim the weaker references out, and I don't think the refs in this section add much. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Two more sources
Irish Times: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2010/1126/1224284180416.html. Jakarta Post: http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/08/31/power-the-people.html. This is scraping the barrel. Fences &amp;  Windows  22:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

List of sources
This is a list of sources assembled to help with the claim that it is notable:
 * http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/finance/2010/1126/1224284180416.html
 * http://modeledbehavior.com/2010/06/30/bitcoin-and-the-wild-west/
 * http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/07/11/1747245/Bitcoin-Releases-Version-03
 * http://www.24hgold.com/english/news-gold-silver-a-rally-in-bitcoin.aspx?article=3161543576G10020&redirect=false&contributor=Jon+Matonis
 * http://themonetaryfuture.blogspot.com/2010/03/bitcoin-peer-to-peer-electronic-cash.html
 * http://quezi.com/13527 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultra two (talk • contribs) 22:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.hartfordadvocate.com/commentary/is-it-time-for-digital-only-dollars — Preceding unsigned comment added by L3lackEyedAngels (talk • contribs) 19:12, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * http://lwn.net/Articles/414452/


 * Most of these links are blog articles and useless for notability claims. The general notability guideline requires sources to be "reliable sources". I'm not sure whether 24hgold qualifies as "significant coverage" either; Slashdot certainly doesn't. -- intgr [talk] 07:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Currency
Genjix, I like most of your changes, however, I miss the currency infobox. I intend to bring it back. 68.9.27.45 (talk) 19:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I saw that. I commented it because it felt too clustered so I've moved the graph over to the left. Genjix (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Limbo assessments
Article incubation assessment

This is my personal assessment, I probably count as too biased to place a real vote (as an editor and stakeholder in the community). I want to encourage other people to make their own assessment. Ultra two (talk) 21:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Does the article establish notability of the subject ?
 * A. It meets the general notability guideline:
 * B. It meets any relevant subject specific guideline:
 * 1) Is it verifiable?
 * A. It contains references to sources:
 * B. There are inline citations of reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. There is no original research:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * A. It is a fair representation without bias:
 * B. It is written in a non-promotional manner:
 * 1) It does not contain unverifiable speculation:
 * 2) Pass, Fail or Hold for 7 days:


 * The issue has always been about notability and "reliable sources". The "LinuxWorld News" article, Irish Times, and now a substantial article from PC World seem to be in my opinion sufficient to at least meet the general notability guidelines.  Technically only one of these was really necessary, but combined with other references is more than sufficient.  The rest of what is being asserted here is mainly article quality, which does need a little bit of help.  The grounds for deletion were strictly about the notability of the concept of Bitcoin and the associated software.  That the incubator (contrary to statements made by many participants in the incubator discussion threads) is also for more general article development and improvement is true as well.


 * With these sources, the main issue now is to incorporate the information from the sources into the article itself. You can debate other sources for reliability and in particular argue over the use of blogs and wikis for sources of information, but that is for this discussion page and not something which needs to go into a debate over its "restoration" or in effect undeletion.  There is unfortunately some considerable reliance upon discussion threads within the Bitcoin forums.  Arguably this is one of the best sources of information as to current status of the software.  Weighing the reliability of that information is problematic, however, and approaches original research.  --Robert Horning (talk) 11:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The readership of the forum is sufficiently technically knowledgeable that any inaccurate information would be corrected. Relying that we read the full thread when we add information from there, it could arguably count as a peer reviewed journal.


 * Unless anyone has any particular objections, I'll probably be WP:BOLD and move it back to mainspace. Ultra two (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Since this is essentially an undeletion, do we need to go through Requested moves as a "controversial" request, or should this be done as a deletion review? Having never done an incubator article before this one, I really don't know the process, if there is any at all.  Deletion review seems to be the fastest way to resolve the issue.  --19:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Horning (talk • contribs)


 * I agree, WP:DELREV seems the most appropriate since technically this article is deleted. (PS: use four tildes for signing, not five) -- intgr [talk] 21:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As the admin who salted it after it was prematurely put back last time, I think it should go through Deletion Review again. Give me till tomorrow to check through it and I have listed it there - see Deletion review/Log/2010 December 12. JohnCD (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Missing Criteria for assessment
I noticed that "There are inline citations of reliable sources where necessary" got a neutral vote. Can anyone list what exactly caused that vote so that I can correct the citations where necessary? Thanks. Genjix (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I changed it because there are still several references to unreliable sources left, particularly the forum. -- intgr [talk] 09:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Just swapped the thirteenth reference from the Bitcoin forum to the Bitcoin Wiki. I hope we can agree that this source is more reliable. The fourteenth reference comes from a forum post by Satoshi Nakamoto himself. Not sure how we can improve on reliability there. KLP (talk) 14:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Bitcoin is not electronic cash
Introducting bitcoin as digital cash is misleading. Bitcoin is a currency, before being cash. Saying it is cash could induce the reader to think it's a method of paiement in USD or in any other currency. It is not.

Bitcoin is both a currency and a method of paiement. It should be introduced as such.

--Grondilu (talk) 02:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * At the very least, a cursory search finds no such thing as electronic cash. Both the Wiktionary and the Wikipedia both indicate that cash must have a physical form. KLP (talk) 13:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Is that the only requirement? Physical Bitcoins have been proposed by the Bitcoin community, including several ways to make a physical coin or a "banknote".  If that really is the only criteria, it seems like a rather lame and weak semantic excuse.  --Robert Horning (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I would also point out that the qualifier "electronic" clarifies the issue, although the terms is arguably a neologism. Consider for example virtual world. Also, we are obligated to follow what the sources say, not what we believe to be true. If (and I haven't looked recently, so I am not sure) the reliable sources we have supporting the article use the term "electronic cash", that's what we should say. If the sources say that the bitcoin developers use the term, we can say that. I think what we cannot do without violating WP:OR is to say that bitcoins are not electronic cash (c) even though the sources say it is or that that how bitcoins are described by the developers (b) because we have a definition over here that says cash must have a physical form (a). I would argue that making the connection between a and b to assert c is synthesis. I do see that this article uses digital cash, crypto-cash, and cybercash. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Bitcoin is not money
Bitcoin is a special case. It meets 3 of the 4 criteria to qualify as money but it doesn't meet the Standard of deferred payment criterion. Bitcoin cannot be used to settle debts, because Bitcoin isn't property. Unless control is ceded to a centralized trusted third party, it is impossible "owe" Bitcoins in the conventional sense. It is impossible to prove or disprove a link between an IRL identity and a Bitcoin address.

The Bitcoin economy is built entirely on trust and reputation. There are no property rights or binding contracts so there can be no real debt.

Bitcoin is closer to a digital commodity, perhaps also a currency, but it isn't "money as debt". I would argue that it's neither of those and should be seen as a Sui generis.

In any case we should remove the words "money" from the article. -- Cambrasa  confab  12:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. Why can I not possibly own a lender bitcoins? KLP (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You can "borrow" Bitcoins, but if you decide not to repay there is little the lender can do about it, except give your alias a bad reputation. De facto, you don't have the obligation to repay. -- Cambrasa  confab  14:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Can the same not be said for cash? Is cash not money? KLP (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The "proof" of a link between "real life" identity and a bitcoin is control of the private keys necessarily to "unlock" the public Bitcoin addresses for further transactions. In Bitcoin lingo, that is called a "wallet".  Any transactions not authenticated with this private key are invalidated by miners or rejected by other network nodes as an improper transaction.  Is that the "3rd party" you are looking for?  If you publish that "wallet" on a public forum, that is the Bitcoin equivalent of publishing your bank pin and full identity information for any banking transaction in the public forum too.  Any definition of identity is just as provable as a Bitcoin wallet, and any attempt to attack a wallet is just like attacking any sort of identity proof of any kind.


 * It is possible to "owe" Bitcoins on the basis of a contract, as you can indeed "loan" bitcoins to somebody else with agreed upon terms, including interest if that is your pleasure. Enforcement of that contract may be in question, but that is between the two parties and penalties spelled out in the contract and any agreed upon arbitrator to help resolve disputes.  The contract can indeed be binding, but the question is more of if a government operated judiciary would legally honor such a contract.  That is a political question and not a technical question.  There is also no reason to presume that a court would automatically reject the debt either, although they may require repayment in something other than bitcoins if you went that route.


 * Transfer of Bitcoins does not rely upon any sort of trust and reputation at all, at least so far as the accounting of bitcoins in a transaction. What is missing is the ability to create bitcoins in an ex nihilo fashion, which is something also acknowledged too.  In other words you don't have a central bank that can push a couple of buttons to create money out of thin air in any arbitrary amount.  If that is the only thing keeping this from being called money, I don't want anything to do with it either.  For a typical person who thinks of using money as a medium of exchange, the ability to "automagically" create money out of thin air is usually seen as a reason to distrust the medium or even not consider that to be money in a real sense.  The fact that some banks loan something as a debt with that "money" never existing before the loan was created does not seem like an essential element of "money", but perhaps I'm mistaken here.  It is also a semantic splitting of hairs too.  Is that what is being referred to with "money as debt", as the money could only exist if it was derived initially from a debt transaction?  Something doesn't make sense there.  --Robert Horning (talk) 15:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Contrary to the opinion of User:Polargeo 3, the above is a response to the question of if this should be considered money. I argue that it should be, or at least semantically saying that it isn't money is the wrong question to make. Essentially, removing the wording is improper because it can be demonstrated that it is in fact money. If this is an attempt to silence such discussion, so be it. That also is a POV push by silencing such discussion too. --Robert Horning (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * +1 We're trying to make a decision regarding the wording of the article. KLP (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * But based entirely on your own views so FORUM. Polargeo (talk) 16:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you play by the wikipedia rules and learn to argue on content based on sources and not your own opinions. If you do this then you may get somewhere. I am much more reasonable than most wikipedians you might encounter elsewhere so I think resolving this issue here is the best thing to do. Polargeo (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have an article indicating that bitcoins don't qualify as money? KLP (talk) 16:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This is going nowhere. Please discuss what is in the article and how sources relate to that. Polargeo (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't request sources that may affect the wording of the article? KLP (talk) 17:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not clear which bit of the article says Bitcoins do or don't qualify as money. This still seems to be unrelated to the content and more of an argument amongst forum regulars. Polargeo (talk) 17:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * KLP, I would add that you would do better to bring a source supporting your suggested changes, rather request one, but please do make sure it is a reliable source. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
One of the issues being debated here is in regards to reliable sources, where certainly the sources which can be found are quite weak and written by non-experts as all of the current sources of information which can be said to be from "reliable 3rd parties" are all journalistic pieces merely trying to inform readers of the existence of the software rather than going into the details of how it works.

Notability has been achieved so far as sources saying "this is something to look at" and "Bitcoins is a neat implementation of electronic currency". None of these sources so far go into the technical details of how it works except on a superficial level, and in some cases they get the facts flat out wrong through either an over generalization of other similar concepts or perhaps a flat out misunderstanding of how it works. I say that they may be wrong as an "expert" who has studied this concept in more depth than apparently these authors have... nothing against them either, but it is the nature of the business they are in.

There are sources of information which do exist for some of the technical details, but from the strict terms used by Wikipedia guidelines they are not generally used. That seems to be a major complaint at least by some of the Wikipedia purists that are hovering over this article at the moment.

The white paper by Satoshi Nakamoto is perhaps the toughest one for me as it is an excellent source of information and represents perhaps the best technical overview of the software. For me, I think it ought to be treated more like a press release as it is certifiably written by the original and mostly primary author of the Bitcoin software and does represent a good overview of the internals of the software. I say that too as an "expert" having reviewed the source code of Bitcoins itself. It hasn't been submitted for peer review, even though I think it still could be and in fact may be in the future... depending on what you consider to be peer review for something of this nature.

The reason I say that this should be at the moment considered like a press release is that similar sorts of "white papers" are also quoted in many Wikipedia articles as a valid source for technical information and also similarly not questioned when used. If this was something done by a completely for-profit company with a "closed source" software product and published on their corporate website, I don't think this paper would even be questioned at all at least as a source for fact-checking and being verifiable information. Yes, you should watch for POV bias and not let it dominate the whole of the Wikipedia article, but to ignore that it exists is also simply wrong as well.

The open source nature of this project is also sort of a problem, as the project discussion forums and the wiki are sort of like being able to go inside of a company and being able to read first hand what the engineers thought when they created something. If anything, the issue is more WP:PRIMARY rather than simply the original research issue. I've been involved with Wikipedia long enough to know that there are some scholars who consider the complete rejection of primary sources for the creation of Wikipedia articles to be pure bunk too, as relying strictly on secondary sources is a whole bunch of naval gazing that doesn't do a whole lot of good. For highly technical information such as getting dates and hard factual information correct, I don't see how you can avoid at least referencing primary sources. From the policy:


 * "Primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source."

On this I happen to agree too. It shouldn't make up the bulk of the article. I hope that in time more scholarly analysis of the software will happen, and seeing how it is becoming a notable piece of software I think such scholarly analysis will eventually happen. Of course that hasn't happened yet, so the issue is mainly what sources should be used at least for now to get the facts correct on the technical details. If the "solution" to this is to write an article for the ACM Journal and get the information peer-reviewed through an unquestionable "reliable source", that is certainly an option but I think that is going a little over the top here.

Just as several new articles have appeared recently with yet another mention on Slashdot, I think this is something that time will eventually resolve. Let's not get into an edit war and wikilawyering over the fine details at the moment, although demanding citations for factual information certainly is useful to keep doing. I guess the question is if this should be an inaccurate article based on 3rd and 4th hand knowledge of the software or can it use the hand of some "experts" that really know what is going on even if the information may not be currently citeable because the information is only in informal sources at the moment? --Robert Horning (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A primary source is fine but not to back up debatable technical information. Wikipedia is not a technical manual, it does not need advanced technical details of Bitcoin. The link to the bitcoin website is there so if people wish to get into the technical details then they can follow the link. If the technical details of bitcoin are only on the bitcoin website then we should not slavishly reproduce them here, that is not what wikipedia is for. See WP:NOTMANUAL, this is a pillar of wikipedia. Polargeo (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. The fact that secondary sources aren't writing about these technical details is an indicator that maybe these details shouldn't be covered at all. -- intgr [talk] 02:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The only thing about technical details that ought to go into an article is something which is verifiable and factual. It is not a pillar of Wikipedia to exclude factual details and in fact it is common for both Wikipedia and even "mainstream" encyclopedias to include technical details about how something works.  Nearly every article abput physics or advanced mathematical concepts would be useless without at least some level of describing the technical details.  If what you are saying is that there are insufficient reliable sources, in your opinion (and that is a political opinion) to describe technical details, that is a defensible argument based upon Wikipedia policies.  WP:NOTMANUAL does not apply at all in this situation as it isn't a HOW-TO book in terms of how to use Bitcoins or something which belongs on Wikibooks.  A short, concise explanation of the technical operations for a computer algorithm is certainly appropriate, and this software is unique because of some of the specific algorithms it uses, or at least how other commonly used algorithms are applied in a unique manner.  That is also why this software is notable as opposed to other digital currency proposals.  The fact that secondary sources aren't writing about these things is only something that is a factor of its age, as such in depth secondary sources going into these have yet to be written.  --Robert Horning (talk) 11:02, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all I do agree that there can be some technical details in the article which come from self published information from Bitcoin.
 * There are clearly issues of reliability of using self published information from bitcoin for information on bitcoin particularly when issues of possible over-inflation of the security of the facility are involved. Also there is very clearly an issue of WP:Weight. Most of all though sourcing such a large proportion of the article from self published sources is clearly contrary to WP:SELFPUB


 * ie Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities ... so long as: (1) the material is not unduly self-serving ... (5) the article is not based primarily on such sources.


 * Here there are a few cases of issue 1 but the real problem is issue 5. The article is primarily based around self-published or questionable sources, including entire sections. This content needs to be reduced in length so that it is no longer the case. By the way the bitcoin blogs/forums are completely inadequate sources under pretty much any circumstances because they just present the view of the blog/forum posters and not necessarily bitcoin's creator etc. Polargeo (talk) 13:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Projected Total BTC Growth Image
This image under "Monetary Differences" was removed because it's claimed to be unsourced. In that paragraph is a sentence saying that the growth of total bitcoins over time follows a geometric series every 4 years. The claim is backed up by a source from LWN which is not a self-citation. The image posted is a graph of such a geometric series. It's like if you had the birth rates for 6 countries and plot a bar chat. It's fair to say this image is not unsourced. I have replaced it. Thanks. Genjix (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW, a quick explanation of the graph is that generating nodes mint new blocks. Everytime they compute a new block, they're awarded 50 bitcoins. Once a certain number of blocks has been computed throughout the network, then there's a jump and generating nodes are only issued half what they were before- 25 bitcoins in this case. This continues and so the total number of generated bitcoins approximates 21 million over time. Hope that helps. Genjix (talk) 13:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay so a small point the image is a projection and should be labeled as such along with at least some description of where the projection comes from.
 * More importantly. The article from LWN is labeled as being contributed by Nathan Willis. Who is Nathan Willis? He could be you for all I know. Has the article had any editorial oversight? This is not clear and is very important for determining if the source is reliable. Also the graph comes from a place where any Bitcoin user can contribute and it is not clear that you have the rights to release it under a free license. Making sure of correct licensing is extremely important on wikipedia. Obviously you could get around that by recreating the graph yourself and stating where you got the information from that it is based on. Polargeo (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I would not suggest that LWN is the highest quality source, they do claim to exert editorial oversight, see this page. FWIW, --Nuujinn (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay it probably scrapes past the test for the information it covers. Polargeo (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said. It's a friend on IRC and he gave me permission. Genjix (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * hmmmm, you've convinced me but I bet if I was to tag the image it would get deleted. The image guys are extremely strict on correct copyright. The image creator would need to prove they were the creator of the image and release it under a free license. Polargeo (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, "a friend on IRC" is not good enough, WP:COPYREQ is the correct process. -- intgr [talk] 22:23, 16 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I will try to get him to respond here. What exactly does he need to do, to verify permission given for that image? Genjix (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have tagged the image as needing permission. The link given by intgr above gives instructions on what to do. There is an issue that an email from the IRC friend will not be sufficient unless that person can prove they are the guy who created the image on the website you got it from. Polargeo (talk) 09:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag
This article reads far too much from the perspective of a Bitcoin guru and seems to totally fail to take into account the kind of outside observer that comprises over 99.9% of Wikipedia's user base, that is, the lay person. Most people reading it to learn about Bitcoin for the first time are going to say "wtf" not "wow". This article would look great on the intro page of a Bitcoin wiki as a reference for Bitcoin experts, and have always wondered why Bitcoin's article had been deleted for so long, but now that I have seen it, I am no longer surprised why. The claim that Bitcoin is "currency" of any kind is controversial in and of itself, the vast majority of the world doesn't recognize it as such, it would be far more correct and neutral at this point to call it scrip. Compare to an article about a religion that introduces itself as "the one true religion" when that is an opinion shared only by its adherents. This article also presently fails to assert notability, which is a recognized criterion for deletion. Casascius♠ (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What is the assertion of notability? This article passes WP:GNG as far as I can tell. Is there another notability criteria documented elsewhere? -- intgr [talk] 21:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * See Notability (software). The article needs to convey why the software or the concept is important.  The present introduction suggests the software's claim to notability is its association with Satoshi Nakamoto and Wei Dai, neither of whom have articles about them, nor likely satisfy Notability (people).  In many cases, even when the subject of the article is notable, failure to assert notability (i.e. to say why they're notable) is grounds for automatic speedy deletion (see WP:CSD A7 and A9).  Fortunately, speedy deletion does not apply here because it's a software article (which A7 excludes), but the article still needs to make clear why Bitcoin is important, particularly if it were to see another AfD.
 * An example of an assertion of notability for Bitcoin would merely to indicate that it is the (most prominent example of | fastest growing | most popular | etc.) decentralized peer-to-peer cryptocurrency on the Internet today, with a reference to a reliable third party source that vouches for that. Simply saying it's digital currency by Satoshi Nakamoto (where Satoshi Nakamoto isn't a blue link) doesn't cut it, and automatically raises people's spam radar. Casascius♠ (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * BTW, notability has been coved extensively by the previous AfD discussion and the most recent deletion review. If you want to start another AfD about the notability here, be my guest.  Seriously.  Bring in additional outside review on this topic and get more editors involved.  I hope they come too.  It meets basic notability standards in terms of the topic itself and this article is not about the notability of the developers, at least by having more than two independent 3rd party "reliable sources" which cover the topic in detail.  I'd like to know why that fails notability in your view?  --Robert Horning (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Bitcoin does not fail my understanding of Wikipedia's notability guidelines per se, based on my personal understanding of it acquired elsewhere other than Wikipedia. But I am saying that the article fails to assert notability (e.g. to say why Bitcoin is important), a different problem than being non-notable. Casascius♠ (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Notability (software) is not even a policy or a guideline. Nor does it explain what "assertion of notability" means. In any case, adhering to WP:GNG is sufficient for demonstrating notability. -- intgr [talk] 23:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "Assertion of notability" is a common phrase used on Wikipedia (Google it). It isn't explicitly defined because it is used in its normal dictionary sense.  See assert.  Assertion means something like claim.  Asserting notability means conveying why something important.  Bitcoin is important because people see its peer-to-peer nature as being revolutionary and say so in reliable third-party sources, not because it was created by Satoshi or thought of by Wei Dai and mentioned on a mailing list. Casascius♠ (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That's just hearsay. If something is not defined in Wikipedia's policies or guidelines then it probably isn't a "recognized criterion for deletion". I kindly request that you read and understand policies before making baseless claims of deletion.
 * The phrase "Assertion of notability" was once used in the criteria for speedy deletion. Now it's called "indication of importance", which "applies only to articles about web content and to articles about people, organizations, and individual animals themselves, not to articles about their [...] software, or other creative works".
 * Also, Speedy deletion only applies to articles that are obviously insubstantial: "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion. [...] If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations"
 * This article is substantial, has a long history with many editors, has had a deletion discussion and has been restored in deletion review. There's no way it qualifies for speedy deletion, making your argument moot.
 * On the other hand, if you have suggestions on how to improve the lead section then please do it without claiming it to be a criterion for deletion. Better yet, make the changes yourself. :) -- intgr [talk] 15:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's no good, I think you are arguing at cross purposes intgr, as I don't think Casascius was actually trying to get the article deleted, he just hasn't got the policy language yet. On a more general note one of the main reasons for our notability policy is so that when an article is created it can be properly sourced with an NPOV. When an article scrapes through notability based on a couple of news articles such as this one has done it should not result in a "free-for-all" of unsourced information or stuff which comes from the primary source of bitcoin. Polargeo (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Boldly change the article myself...you mean like I already did, half a day before your recommendation? :) Casascius♠ (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What specifically is not being neutral in tone? Claims of original research may be somewhat appropriate, but that has been discussed above in detail.  Wikipedia articles do not need to be "dumbed down for the layman" but can go into some detail.  Yes, a simple explanation can be used to introduce the idea, but articles like Taylor series show how complex concepts can be explained in some significant detail that perhaps is a bit beyond what a casual reader with a high school education may be able to comprehend.  That is hardly the only example of a complex topic which goes into technical details in depth.


 * I know that you are trying to be critical of Bitcoin as a concept, and that I can understand, Cassascius. Original research applies equally to criticism, however, and unless you can find articles which go into this criticism by independent 3rd party sources which go into this criticism you can't really add that either.


 * In terms reading the article and saying "wft?", I got the same impression when I first read about Bitcoin. Still, that is only a gut reaction and something which requires further reading and study if you want to understand it.  There is certainly no way to gauge or measure what "the vast majority of the world" thinks about something like this unless you can demonstrate some sort of survey or some other valid metric.  All that implies you need to find sources for this criticism too, if you want to mention the criticism.


 * Regarding if this is currency, money, or whatever it might be, I would argue that the word hasn't been invented yet and that whole argument is mainly semantics. Satoshi Nakomoto coined the term "cryptocurrency", where all of the articles using that term currently on Wikipedia refer directly to Bitcoin.  As to the appropriateness of using that term in this article, all I can say is that the term seems to caught hold in terms of 3rd party sources about Bitcoin.  Read the sources, and if there is a better word which can be documented from the sources, please bring it up.  I don't mind a discussion of this nature, but keep it here on the talk page unless you can back it up with a source.  I'd be curious about what you would call it other than perhaps a "ponzi scheme" or something equally charged and certainly putting in a point of view bias by using that term.  --Robert Horning (talk) 23:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I actually think Bitcoin is effing sweet, and that the idea as a whole has lots of merit. To the extent I'm critical, the intent is constructive.  I hope Bitcoin, or whatever comes of it, gets taken seriously by the world, the same as BitTorrent (an indirect result of of Napster, Gnutella, and the likes) is a powerful force today.  I do not see Bitcoin as a ponzi scheme in the least.
 * I have not inserted anything in the article critical of Bitcoin, so I am not sure the basis for your complaint that I have done so without proper sources. What I have inserted, is Bitcoin for dummies, or probably better yet, Bitcoin for most Wikipedia readers, to whom the word "cryptocurrency" is as meaningful as "oxidase".
 * To the world, "currency" means money, like USD, EUR. Bitcoin is not that.  Bitcoin is properly called scrip.  Even Canadian Tire money, which is probably a good example of something close to something currency-like as you can get, yet it is still called scrip.  For this article to not be considered astroturfing by the rest of the Wikipedia community, it needs to use language that properly conveys Bitcoin's importance to the world without looking like it's trying to overdo it. Casascius♠ (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of describing bitcoin as a scrip. I didn't know this word but it seems to be more accurate a description of bitcoin, since the word currency obviously raises understandable issues.  However, I regret that the mention of the date of creation and the name of the designer have been put at the end of the intro.  IMO, these historic precision are important enough to be brought at the beginning, and even in the first sentence.  It would make more sense than bringing technical details (such that the mention of the wallet file or the BTC acronym).--Grondilu (talk) 09:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If and when Satoshi Nakamoto has an article and becomes a recognized name with significant independent notability outside of Bitcoin, then without a doubt it should be moved up. If Bitcoin were made by Bill Gates, you can bet his name would appear in the first sentence.  Casascius♠ (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no Wikipedia guideline or even something in the Style Manual which suggests that you must not include the name of the lead developer and that the only reason for mentioning that is if the person is notable in their own right.   Mentioning him in the lead paragraph is certainly appropriate too, especially as he is mentioned in independent 3rd party sources on top of being listed prominently on the main website and even the about box on the main reference implementation of the software (sometimes referred to as the "official" client, although I hate that term).  We don't need to red-link Satoshi Nakamoto, as I don't think that he is notable enough to warrant his own article, but that isn't the standard for mentioning him within an article where the topic itself has notability.  All that matters is that the information is factual and verifiable, preferably from 3rd party sources (which it is).  Are you disputing these factual details and can you provide a competing source of information that would indicate somebody else wrote the bulk of this software and that it was released on a different date?  --Robert Horning (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with RH. However, where his name actually appears in the lead section matters very little. Polargeo (talk) 17:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've just created a nice new redirect for Satoshi Nakamoto pointing to the Bitcoin article. Polargeo (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it really a virtual currency or digital scrip?
I'm not sure why these are the very first things used to describe Bitcoin. The wiki page on Virtual Currency says that they're only used for purchasing goods or services in games or virtual worlds. Bitcoin isn't limited to virtual goods or services. Digital scrip seems to imply that Bitcoin is based on debt or something. I don't think this is true, either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.89.127 (talk) 11:46, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Again a problem of not sticking to sources. I haven't found a source that describes Bitcoin as a scrip therefore this should not necessarily appear in the article. However it may be good to have it in the see also section. Some sources describe bitcoin as a digital currency, a virtual currency or a crypto-currency and therefore these terms should be used in the article and weighted acording to useage in the sources. How the virtual currency article describes a virtual currency is largely irrelevent because wikipedia itself cannot be used as a source and that article probably needs updating anyway. If the virtual currency article is poor just don't link to it or go there and fix it are the two options. Polargeo (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure every word needs to be sourced so rigidly, see WP:CHALLENGE (contrast to intro of WP:V, "but in practice not everything need actually be attributed"). At some point, Wikipedia does not require an inline citation for claims like water is wet.  No one seriously disputes that Bitcoin is a scrip other than someone anonymously pointing out he doesn't know what it means and thinks it's debt or something.  It certainly isn't a currency (digital or otherwise) by the broadly accepted definition, and "crypto-currency" is a neologism allegedly coined by the author of the software - something's got to give to select an adequate description. Casascius♠ (talk) 19:27, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are right we don't need to source "water is wet" but as you see below someone else is challenging "scrip" and IP users have the same right to challenge content as registered users anyway. Some users choose to edit as an IP for years. Just to add my voice in I think the fact that the author of the software uses the word currency and just about every reliable source uses the word currency is a pretty strong reason to call it a currency (but with a crypto- virtual or digital prefix as the source dictates, with all three in the lead). We don't do original research and by not following sources and making your own interpretation you are doing original research. Also I have WP:CHALLENGED the whole text of the article (except really basic stuff, like the wetness of water) because it is apparent to me that too many people have come to this article straight from the Bitcoin forum and added blocks of text from their own view of Bitcoin and that is not right per WP:OR. Polargeo (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Admittedly I'm invoking WP:OTHERCRAP but what about Local_currency. Do you accept those being called currencies or should the article be renamed and reworked? Currency is defined in the dictionary as "Money or other item used to facilitate transactions.", which is what bitcoin is intended to be (granted, a virtual form of, but still an "item used to facilitate transactions"). I'm certain that the majority of English speakers understand that usage of the term currency, and preceding it with virtual or digital makes it even more unambiguous. Whereas I had to look up scrip to find out what it means as it is certainly not in common usage and from the wiki page, it does not seem to be an accurate description of bitcoin as scrip appears to primarily be given out by (groups of) specific companies or organisations, which is a very different model from bitcoin Bencoder (talk) 20:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I first tended to agree with the use of the word "scrip" to describe bitcoin. But after more thinking, I think it is not good.  First, this word is used to describe bitcoin nowhere else than in Wikipedia.  Second, I understand that "currency" is a problem since this word is usually accepted for "official" currencies such as EUR, USD and so on, but "scrip" is not much better since according to what I read about it, it is usually associated with the notion of debt, or credit.  And bitcoin is not debt nor credit.  I think digital currency, although not perfect, is then better than scrip.--Grondilu (talk) 14:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I also would like to point out that several digital gold currencies, such as egold or pecunix are introduced as such in wikipedia. I wonder why it should be different for bitcoin.--Grondilu (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The real determiner of what word to use, is not what the Bitcoin forum says it should be, and not necessarily what Satoshi says it should be, and not what I say it should be, but what reliable third party sources say it should be. Those don't really exist yet.  Most of the source material is primary.  Judging by the deletion review discussions, this article is greasing by, for the most part, on the credibility given to it by EFF accepting donations through it.  Perhaps call it whatever you like until real third party sources appear. Casascius♠ (talk) 21:37, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The Irish Times calls it "A strange and notional currency", maybe we should use that :) Polargeo (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Repetition repetition repetition
There is a huge amount of repetition between the sections Bitcoin, Bitcoin and Bitcoin. Polargeo (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk page archive
This talk page is getting quite long, and some of the older threads are irrelevant now that the page is back in the main article space. If there are no objections, I will instruct a bot to automatically archive discussion threads that have been inactive for more than 30 days. — DataWraith (talk) 10:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Genjix (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I would give this a little bit of time before you set a time limit on the archiving of discussions. If you want to manually archive all of the discussion prior to getting put back to the main namespace, go ahead.  --Robert Horning (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * 30 days seemed like a good number after examining the times of the last posts in the various older threads, and I thought that a thread that wasn't replied to in a month is probably resolved or abandoned. Anyway, I just archived the older threads manually for now. — DataWraith (talk) 09:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The discussion page keeps growing, and after archiving it manually for a while, I really think that 30 days of inactivity is a good threshold for threads to be archived automatically. Sections that need to stay longer can be tagged as such and will not be archived automatically. I'll go ahead and call in that bot if there are no objections. If it turns out to be problematic for some reason, it can always be disabled later. — DataWraith (talk) 10:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * At the top of the page I have a little blurb on nomenclature. I think it would be helpful to keep that around. KLP (talk) 14:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've tagged it so it won't be deleted. If there are other threads that should stay, they can be tagged by adding  directly under the section header. I've configured the bot now, so it should start archiving untagged old threads within 24 hours. — DataWraith (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)