Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 13

Ponzi scheme, Wikipedia policy compliance
Hi all, the current wording of the article contains a sentence:

"Critics have accused Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme. "

The sentence is supported by references to two sources as seen above. The problem is that performing a Ponzi scheme is a serious crime. As such, an accusation should be at least supported by a reliable source referring to a person who is responsible for such accusations. Since such a reference has not been provided, I consider the statement unsourced regarding the question made the accusation(s). I am reopening this discussion to point out at this specific flaw. Since there obviously is a disagreement and an edit war going on related to this "information", I want to see the response of Wikipedians whether this practice is really in agreement with Wikipedia policies. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The ECB, The Register, and Reuters are about as reliable sources as one can get, the fact that this accusation is made is well sourced beyond question, nor is the article accusing Bitcoin of any such thing, merely noting what reliable sources have, so that it's "a serious crime" is irrelevant. Given that there's a discussion above that does show specific people who consider it such, you're asking a question that's already been addressed, and it's been called such by more than one person so it wouldn't be appropriate to reword it to make it seem like it's an opinion only held by that one person or person(s), but rather to note what reliable sources have, and then give an example supporting that such as the ECB, which is exactly what the article does.  As long as the article reflects reliable sources, there will be Bitcoin enthusiasts overeager to whitewash an article on their favorite topic and remove anything they don't want to see in the article, that's nothing new and not cause to remove the information, "unsourced" though you consider it.  Ignoring the fact that specific examples are already given in the previous discussion, if who specifically is unsourced, then who specifically is not in the article, so as long as unsourced examples aren't given it's not an issue on that regard since everything the article currently says is sourced. - Aoidh (talk) 16:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Reuters and The Register look as reliable sources, indeed. ECB, however, is not a source for the sentence, so it is irrelevant to this discussion. Since the law considers performing a Ponzi scheme a serious crime, it considers accusations of this specific crime serious as well. Thus, the question whether Wikipedia does want to spread such accusations further without considering possible legal consequences is relevant.Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC) In any case, I specifically express my disagreement with such a sentence and being an editor of this page I insist on my will to not be connected with this text and eventually held responsible for not being able to delete it due to different opinions of other editor (or editors) who put it in. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC) I also request that this disclaimer will not be deleted from this page.Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that the ECB reference directly supports the preceding sentence in the article, claiming that it's irrelevant is inaccurate; it's directly relevant. Wikipedia is not "spreading accusations", it is reflecting reliable sources and covering well-sourced details of the article's subject. Further, please be careful about throwing around "legal consequences", since that only seems to serve as a chilling effect, at best, and has no actual purpose in the discussion.  The actual question is whether Wikipedia wants to reflect reliable sources, or only reflect information when it suits single-purpose accounts. The answer, of course, is that reliable sources dictate content on Wikipedia articles, not claims that "the law" considers accusations of this specific crime serious, which is quite a leap of logic and too vaguely worded to even address properly. - Aoidh (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I was asked to participate in DR/N talk. My view remains the same as before. The sources are weak and have misused their journalistic freedom by either directly accusing bitcoin or casting enough doubt without taking professional responsibility. These sources may have a conflict of interest with Bitcoin (European & Estonian Central Banks included). So please do not quote them to reply. If anyone is able to argue Bitcoin is a Ponzi Scheme on its own merits, please to do reply. My view is Bitcoin does not fit the definitions of a Ponzi Scheme or SEC's definition. There are no promoters who guarantee returns on pure bitcoins held under the control of the investor. In summary, this discussion is if the sources are reliable enough. Maybe they are. Are they notable? In my view, no. Apply WP:IAR. Of course you may disagree. I have no intention of changing my view just based on these references. Silbtsc (talk) 19:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, you're arguing against something the article isn't saying. You're trying to argue that Bitcoin isn't a ponzi scheme. This article isn't claiming it is, so that's irrelevant. Your view is exactly that; it does not negate that others view things differently nor does it negate that reliable sources have noted their view. Wild accusations that reliable sources "may" have a conflict of interest (how, exactly?) come across as "well I don't like what those sources are saying so let's ignore them" and that's not cause to ignore them.  WP:IAR doesn't apply here, since I could just as easily cite WP:IAR to ignore anything you have to say, but that's less than productive and isn't a carte blanche way to ignore what sources say when we don't like the content of the source. - Aoidh (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Further, please be careful about throwing around "legal consequences", since that only seems to serve as a chilling effect, at best, and has no actual purpose in the discussion. - I do not (and do not even intend) to threaten you or anybody else by legal actions. What I am entitled to do, and am doing, is protect myself. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Aoidh, you don't seem to understand my view on Ponzi claim is quiet different from the article. Yes, I don't care what the sources say. Just because they are "reliable" does not mean my view would change. IAR allows simply to ignore rules in the wiki article (not on editor opinions). You are following rules in the wiki article. So saying, "I could just as easily cite WP:IAR to ignore anything you have to say" is of no consequence on my views. If you form your personal opinions based on only reliable source, then there is no way to prove banks and some news outlets have a conflict of interest with Bitcoin. Since Wiki follows the reliable sources rules, I have not changed the Wiki article. I'll let others weigh in. Otherwise, your ideas and my ideas will not match and will be a stalemate. If you like have a continued discussion, the only way to move forward is strengthen your point of view, rather than attacking others of mine (I don't mind the attack, but my view will not change due to attack on it). Finally, its nothing about "liking" the content. The content is simply incorrect. If others feel its still ok to keep in the article, so be it. Silbtsc (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Since the issue was brought up that the sources in the article don't specify who is making these claims, it seems spending 5 seconds on Google is a good way of finding that answer. Quite a few reliable sources were found either outright accusing Bitcoin of being a ponzi scheme questioning whether it is one or simply reinforcing that yes, it has been criticized as being one. These aren't old sources either, but very recent ones. The concern was that there were no references showing any specific people making these accusations, since now there are, that hopefully settles that issue. - Aoidh (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I checked the new references you posted and identified only one accusing bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme: the Slate journalist Eric Posner having written: "Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme" in the title of his article. This could, in principle, be used as a reference (the only, in fact). The problem is that he actually corrects himself in the text of the article saying: "it resembles a Ponzi scheme", i.e., he does not "accuse" either. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The article does not note that people "accuse" anything, so that's irrelevant. The article notes that "Critics have accused Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme", and the more time that passes, the more reliable sources pop up that reinforce that statement, so it's not an issue of sourcing or of what the article says. - Aoidh (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Slate does not note "Critics have accused Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme" or anything similar. On the other hand, The Register notes "Bitcoin has also been criticized as having the characteristics of a Ponzi scheme". It does not note "Critics have accused Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme". So which reference are we talking about? Silbtsc (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Ladislav. Read the above (1,2,3,4,5,6 references) carefully, there is no claim or accusation or third person accusation in most sources except one reliable:
 * Bloomberg: "virtual currency schemes... or evidence that this isn’t just a Ponzi scheme", is the Estonian CB referring to schemes created with bitcoin or Bitcoin itself?
 * Slate: "...resembles a Ponzi Scheme", so is it? Further down: " A real Ponzi scheme takes fraud; bitcoin, by contrast, seems more like a collective delusion." This is not even a weak accusation of a ponzi scheme. It looks like the author almost provides proof that its not.
 * Telegraph: "...but also threatens to turn it into a Ponzi scheme: its price fluctuates manically as the slightest hint of action or inaction from regulators...". Author thinks it might be a Ponzi scheme because its price fluctuates. Is this accusing "Bitcoin" itself? Calling price fluctuation as an indication of Ponzi Scheme is a discussion of its own. I don't think this is a notable article.


 * NY Post: Here author makes the accusation that it has "makings of a Ponzi scheme." Here author directly claims Bitcoin might "look like a Ponzi scheme".Next, do we consider NY Post as a reliable source?.


 * The Independent: This is not even an accusation. In the article, “People say it’s a Ponzi scheme – it’s a bubble. People really don’t want to take it seriously,” Cameron Winklevoss told the New York Times when the brothers disclosed their investment. Without further context, best I can understand, they are referring to their "investment"
 * PC World: "Bitcoin is occasionally called a Ponzi scheme, ... While Bitcoin is clearly not a Ponzi scheme, ". So we should have a claim and counter argument in the same article.
 * In summary, in the list above there is only one article that can use for accusing Bitcoin is a Ponzi Scheme, which then immediately dismisses that theory. Silbtsc (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * These articles verify that Bitcoin is called a ponzi scheme, whether the articles themselves share that opinion does not detract from that (something I already pointed out), whether they make counter claims also does not detract from that. Verification has been given as requested (despite already existing) that some people have said it's a ponzi scheme, end of story. Whether it is or not is irrelevant and whether the sources themselves share that opinion is irrelevant. You're arguing against A when the article says B, there are more than sufficient sources to verify what it in the article, that it doesn't verify something the article doesn't say is irrelevant because guess what?  It doesn't say that.  - Aoidh (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with that inference. Please read carefully, most of them claim "X looks like Y" making the reader to think "X is Y". That's quite a leap of faith. In my previous para on 6 references analysis, I not arguing against A vs. B. My argument now is the articles are not significant enough to support the link "Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme". A view begins with the link is just is plain incorrect. There no evidence/verification to claim as no author is accusing or claiming "X is Y" even in third person. This is indicated by the insignificance the articles themselves place on this direct link, in some cases completely the author himself refutes as described in point by point analysis of sources above. If somehow you still need to tell a "story", you need to tell the full story that the same author who called it also thinks its not a Ponzi scheme. Silbtsc (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a leap of faith, it's a leap of logic to conclude something that the article isn't saying, and you're also setting new a standard for sources that exist nowhere else on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Think about it, we spent so much time on such an insignificant thing. However, the reader feedback on this Wiki article as a whole says, people don't even understand what bitcoin is from this article. Silbtsc (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the discussion. The 2/3 opinion of editors discussing the sentence is that it violates the Wikipedia policy to Avoid weasel words and is able to mislead the reader and to spread hearsay, personal opinion and propaganda, which is contrary to the spirit and the rules of Wikipedia (see WP:V and WP:NPOV). Due to this finding I see it so that one of two possible actions has to be taken:


 * let one of the discussing editors delete the sentence
 * in case there is no 100% agreement on this solution, propose it for dispute resolution Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I vote for the deletion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I support the deletion (See my reasons above). If you like to put it in the history section as before, that's probably better. Silbtsc (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your vote. As for the question whether I like to put it in the history section: I proposed the sentence for discussion without taking its placement in the article into account. My opinion is that if it is contrary to the spirit and rules of Wikipedia, moving it to a different place in the article does not "cure" its deficiencies (it does not become better by magic). Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a vote, and the recent sources show quite clearly that it's not a "historical" issue. Two single-purpose accounts not liking the fact that Wikipedia reflects reliable sources is not cause to ignore reliable sources and remove reliably sources information.  The information in the article isn't heresay, it's reliable sourced, which shoots a hole in that theory completely, nor is it a personal opinion, again that's what the sources cover. That it is propaganda might hold some water if there were sources backing up that claim, but calling something you don't like "propaganda" is poor form and a frequent tactic from those that have nothing better to argue.  If you want to find examples of specific people to add to that section you are welcome to do so, but that does not mean you are able to remove information well supported by reliable sources. The fact that Bitcoin has been criticized for being a ponzi scheme is well-established and without question, so it isn't going anywhere, get used to that fact.  It doesn't matter that you don't think it is one, Wikipedia includes plenty of information you're going to disagree with, but you thinking an opinion is wrong is not cause to remove that opinion, so long as it is not presented as fact. - Aoidh (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

SPA Bitcoin fanboy here. I think it's a true and verifiable statement that "Critics have accused Bitcoin of being a Ponzi scheme." Of course those "critics" are either misinformed or yellow journalists who don't know what a Ponzi scheme is. That same camp of sensationalist haters also likes to call it a pyramid scheme. If anything, Bitcoin could be accused of being a pump and dump scheme (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/in-the-murky-world-of-bitcoin-fraud-is-quicker-than-the-law/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 ). Nevertheless, the "Ponzi" word gets bandied around enough in legitimate sources that it should be included here along with perhaps "pump and dump" and "pyramid". On a personal note, I think it makes the critics sound stupid when they say that, so the fanboy part of me doesn't really mind the accusation. Chris Arnesen 20:41, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi All, I've made a comment over at the Dispute Resolution talk page but thought I'd get a bit more in depth here with my own 2c. I think the fact that Bitcoin as a Ponzi scheme has been concerning enough for several financiers to consider needs to be in the article. AS for sources of people accusing bitcoin (and note these are not great sources...)
 * Market Oracle "Bitcoins will go down in history as the most spectacular private Ponzi scheme in history." "Admittedly, those who got in early on this Ponzi scheme are doing very well." "They are buying Bitcoins because we are in the midst of a Ponzi scheme mania."
 * The Atlantic "In other words, Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme libertarians use to make money off each other—because gold wasn't enough of one for them." (this was quoted in Money Week
 * South China Morning Post "Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme masquerading as a futuristic currency."
 * Huffington Post "No authority seems to be responsible for this $12 billion Ponzi scheme. "
 * E E Times "Thomas Sohmers, a 17-year-old wiz kid and chief executive of a high-performance server startup, said he has explored the technology and is not interested in it. "It's a kind of Ponzi or pyramid scheme where the people who get in first reap the most rewards," said Sohmers on the show floor of the OCP event."
 * Law 360 "In August, a Texas federal judge ruled that bitcoins are a form of currency subject to federal laws, refusing to dismiss the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's claims accusing the founder of Bitcoin Savings & Trust of running a Ponzi scheme."
 * Business insider "Optimists say that it has the potential to revolutionise the payments space, while sceptics say it’s no more than a Ponzi scheme."
 * Slant "Yet critics call Bitcoin a glorified Ponzi scheme meant to enrich early “investors” and leave everyone else holding worthless scrip currency."
 * I think from this it's pretty clear that some people have accused Bitcoin of being a ponzi scheme, but that more reliable sources have looked at it more closely and determined that while it has some features that resemble a ponzi scheme it is not one. Is this any help? SPACKlick (talk) 08:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, your findings are helpful. Trying to find the most appropriate ref. for use in the article Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

________
 * I have a neutral bias towards bitcoin. That said, I think that the term "ponzi scheme" is being used perjoratively by people who are largely ignorant as to the inner working of bitcoin. The concepts are somewhat mathematical and hard to grasp for many. Indeed, look at some of the reader comments for this article. But even though the people who advocate for bitcoin may not be guilty of promulgating a ponzi scheme, they might be part of an artificial bubble


 * The article should go into depth about why it is not a ponzi scheme. But honestly, I think that most of the article should be re-written with different sections linking to separate articles e.g. the mathematical workings behind bitcoin. But this is beyond the time resource I have atm, and leave it to others to take up this much needed task as bitcoin is appearing more frequently in the news. Nodekeeper (talk) 10:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Re: "I have a neutral bias towards bitcoin.", "The article should go into depth about why it is not a ponzi scheme." - I am not sure about "going into depth", but, for sure, your requirement to maintain a neutral point of view is legitimate. OK, I shall try to find an opposing opinion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Physical bitcoins
So-called "physical bitcoins" like those formerly produced by https://www.casascius.com/ (he's since stopped "pending resolution of ... regulatory issues") are just a curiosity, a fun collectable. My Secret Santa gave me one for Christmas, and I was pretty excited about it. But they don't play a substantive role in the Bitcoin economy. The most notable thing about them is that the media loves to include an image of "physical bitcoins" in articles about Bitcoin, which I wish they wouldn't do. I'd support putting in a few words that say something along the lines of, "Physical bitcoins are a curiosity that the media loves to show images of", but no more.Chris Arnesen 00:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You two seem to want to keep the current section about "physical bitcoins" despite the fact that three of us other editors have attempted to remove it. Please take a moment to comment on my comments above, and address my concerns below.

"1-factor physical bitcoins have been cracked,[103] new 2-factor coin registration (eg private key and unique email/password) like Titan Mint have been developed. However, it is still possible that the creator of physical bitcoins hold the private keys, most of the benefits modern cryptography like bitcoin provides."
 * Who cares that the Casascius coins aren't 100% secure? They're made by some guy in his basement. Of course they're not 100% secure.
 * Titan Mint : uncited, and again, who cares? We don't even yet mention the biggest bitcoin companies in the world by name. Why should we include details about the makers of trivialities like physical bitcoins?
 * That "However" sentence has some serious grammatical issues, to the extent that I don't even fully understand what it's trying to convey.

Above all, as I requested repeatedly in this old thread on the subject Talk:Bitcoin/Archive_9, if you want to include any content about physical bitcoins please find a reliable reference that establishes their notability, which has been contested. Then, having established their overall notability, if you want to include content about security or lack thereof, you'll need to establish with reliable references that theft from physical bitcoins is a notable phenomenon. Chris Arnesen 00:38, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In it's current form the physical bitcoins section is not good. The statement "1-factor physical bitcoins have been cracked" is specific to ONE physical bitcoin provider only, and its very misleading. My vote is to change this section to say "Bitcoins can be stored physically and physical bitcoins have been produced" VinceSamios (talk) 10:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * So the entire section was in the wrong place, physical storage of bitcoins is noteworthy, and casascius coins are noteworthy, and theft from casascius coins is minutely note wothy, so I've re-structured the section, put it in the right place, and it is now a nice middle ground. I hope you approve/agree. VinceSamios (talk) 11:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


 * (Done tag removed). It's better, but we're still not there. We've lumped together all forms of offline wallet stored on physical media, which is fine, but self-generated offline wallets are far more important in the grand scheme of things than vendor-purchased tokens, which are simply collectable curiosities. As written, the section makes vendor-purchased tokens sound more important than they are. Chris Arnesen 21:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The notability of Casacius coins has not been established even a little bit. The reference provided http://www.theverge.com/2013/12/13/5207256/casascius-maker-of-shiny-physical-bitcoins-shut-down-by-treasury simply states that a guy who runs his own business making Bitcoin collectables was sent a cease and desist letter by FinCEN. Why is that interesting or important? Why does Casacius deserve to be mentioned by name when we've explicitly decided not to name the companies that are actually building the Bitcoin economy (Coinbase, BitPay, Blockchain.info etc). As in the case of those companies, in order to include mention of Casacius we require independent sources that state Casacius is actually more important than most other producers of Bitcoin collectables. One thing I'm sure of is that it's not notable that some hackers were able to get the private key off a Casacius without disturbing the tamper-proof seal. I'll be impressed if someone can find one documented instance of that actually being used to steal the coin contents. THEY'RE COLLECTABLES!!! Chris Arnesen 22:53, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

As per my comments above, I cut the physical bitcoin content down to "Various vendors produce physical bitcoins, collectables that store a private key on paper, metal,[22] wood,[23] or plastic. Images of physical bitcoins are ubiquitous in media coverage of Bitcoin." along with the image of Casacius coins. Chris Arnesen 18:31, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not okay to just sneak the content back in entirely unmodified but in a different section without having addressed a single one of the concerns listed above and multiple times before in previous Talk page discussions. That's not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. I've removed the physical bitcoins section again. Chris Arnesen 15:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

lol buttcoin redirect 69.248.11.138 (talk) 03:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Classification of Bitcoin
Editor HLachman wrote above: 'my suggestion is that, in order to preserve some representation of the cited sources around question (1), some treatment of that should be included. Also, it should be outside the "valuation" section, because, while it's natural that the reader who wants to find a valuation estimate will look in a section called "valuation", the reader who wants to know, qualitatively, "what kind of money is this", might not think to look there for that. I would suggest that this material be somewhere under "Economics" (maybe a "Characteristics" section, or "Monetary characteristics", or "Characteristics as a currency").' - I fully agree with this suggestion, proposing "Classification of Bitcoin" as another possible section name. However, in my opinion, we should not forget about experts not classifying bitcoins as money and other authorities (see the "Reception" section, where alternative classifications are listed).Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

External links about bitcoin regulation
Hello all ! We could add in the external links section the website http://bitlegal.io/ to give to people information about the regulatory landscape of Bitcoin. What do you think ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgaignerot (talk • contribs) 06:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✔️ Hi, we added this to Legal status of Bitcoin which is best place for it. --Rezonansowy (talk &bull; contribs) 12:06, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2014
Replacing the text ORIGINAL with text UPDATED (below) will provide clarification on the term "tumbling".

ORIGINAL Users were able to track and trace the theft, although the thief made efforts to launder transactions through a process called "tumbling".

UPDATED Users were able to track and trace the theft, although the thief made efforts to launder transactions through a process called "tumbling", designed to make individual coins untraceable by removing the history of wallet addresses that once held them.

Beckett zero (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ I'm surprised whoever added that sentence in the first place didn't elaborate on tumbling since the info is right there in the included citation. Oh well, looks much better now, thanks! Kap 7 (talk) 06:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Revision : Invalid citation...
What you mean by saying: ''Invalid citation. That's not a reliable source.'' I disagree with it, what could a better source than the client website downloads itself? Besides there's no such thing like Invalid citation, you can add Better source or Failed verification but please don't revert it. --Rezonansowy (talk &bull; contribs) 12:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Rezonansowy, we've been working together on this article for months now and I know you know what a reliable source is, or at least you have the facilities to find the relevant description in the Wikipedia help. Just for the record, here's a link to it Verifiability. I'll do you a favor and quote the relevant parts All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed... Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation.... The citation must clearly support the material as presented in the article. Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be replaced without an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. When tagging or removing material for lacking an inline citation, please state your concern that there may not be a published reliable source for the content, and therefore it may not be verifiable.... Sometimes editors will disagree on whether material is verifiable. The burden of identifying a reliable source lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing any reliable source that directly supports the material.

As suggested, I added the "citation needed" template to that sentence and left it there for weeks. You added https://electrum.org/download.html as a "citation" but that page doesn't even remotely support the statement. It's not a reliable source (or for that matter even a non-reliable source that supports the statement). I've challenged the verifiability. The statement needs a reliable source. Until it has one, it's subject to removal. Please don't put it back in until there's a reliable source.Chris Arnesen 18:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I hate to chime in just to say, "you're wrong!" But primary source material shouldn't be presented as a citation in Wikipedia. Even things like academic journal articles may be considered unacceptable in certain instances...anything that requires an interpretation or an evaluation probably shouldn't be used as a citation. Fleetham (talk) 23:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * But there's no interpretation or an evaluation, there's a big link to download a portable version, what else do we need? --Rezonansowy (talk &bull; contribs) 12:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess you could make the argument that primary sources always require interpretation. IDK if it's a portable version that's on offer at that link. In fact, when I clicked the link, I didn't know what to make of it at all. I couldn't understand the page. Also, if it's important and noteworthy that a portable version exists, why can't a secondary source be used? Fleetham (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Bitcoin valuation
RFC: We are considering how to appropriately represent economics questions (like, what kind of money is Bitcoin) and related financial analysis questions (like valuation estimates). -- HLachman (talk) 07:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Incorporating the newest suggestions, my current proposed text of the section is:

Bitcoin valuation
Bitcoin has been under scrutiny by financial journalists, notable economists, financial analysts, investors and researchers trying to determine its possible future value.

Financial journalist Felix Salmon used the chart plotting bitcoin market capitalization as the primary reason (see also technical analysis) to forecast: "Rick Falvinge, then, the founder of the Swedish Pirate Party who has invested his entire net worth in bitcoins, might be a multi-millionaire right now, but he is doomed to end up a poor and disappointed man unless he changes his mind." Salmon also used a deeper reason to come to his conclusion, namely his opinion that: "bitcoins are an uncomfortable combination of commodity and currency."

Economist and Professor John Quiggin citing the analysis in a Wall Street Journal article by financial journalist Jack Hough and evaluating bitcoin as a financial asset (see also fundamental analysis) forecasted: "Bitcoins will attain their true value of zero sooner or later, but it is impossible to say when."

Bank of America published the analysis of its FX and Rate Strategist David Woo forecasting a "maximum fair value" of bitcoin of $1,300 and a "maximum market capitalization" of $15 billion.

the end of the proposed text Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Alternative proposal
The below was modified from the above proposal made originally by Ladislav Mecir and changed with input from same and user HLachman. Also, the entire Felix Salmon of Reuters bit was removed.

Bitcoin valuation
Notable economists and pundits, financial analysts, investors, and researchers are in a mad scramble to determine the possible future value of bitcoins.

Economist and Professor John Quiggin stated that in the long run, the value of bitcoins would be zero but hesitated to put a specific date to this forecast. The idea that bitcoins lack an intrinsic value, popularized by pundit Paul Krugman, underscores the fact that there is no obvious alternative use for the system besides payments (not to mention so-called colored coins) and that if it loses favor as a payment method, bitcoins could be worthless.

In 2013, Bank of America published an analysis of its FX and Rate Strategist David Woo forecasting a "maximum fair value" of $1,300 per bitcoin and a "maximum market capitalization" of $15 billion.


 * I removed the Felix Salmon of Reuters bit and included Krugman. I'm unsure how well received these changes will be, but don't change the "mad scramble" bit. This adds a much needed sense of urgency that was lacking from the prior proposed version. Everything else is up for grabs. Fleetham (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I oppose the "mad scramble" formulation. It does not look as a formulation suitable for Wikipedia. Also, it is a personal opinion of the editor, but Wikipedia should not publish personal opinion of its editors, if I am informed well.
 * I also oppose the removal of Felix Salmon's forecast: it is substantially different from others, well sourced, and I think that two editors already expressed their will to keep it.
 * I support inclusion of Krugman's analysis. I am just a bit unsure what his valuation is? (Does he forecast bitcoins to be worthless or not?)Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, I concede that the mad scramble is a hyperbole. I don't oppose including Felix's opinion piece, but I'm not sure how you have it really reflects the article, which is pretty wide ranging. And I don't believe that Krugman makes any prediction about the future value of bitcoins although from his academic research in private currencies he probably would be well placed to do so. Perhaps he does and I haven't read that one. Fleetham (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, this looks like we achieved a consensus. While it may be unclear what is the forecasted value of bitcoin in case of Salmon's article, one thing is for sure: from "mult-million" to "poor" it needs to go down more than 90% (10% of multi-million cannot be called "poor"). (this may be left to the reader to figure for himself, no need to comment it further, as far as I am concerned)
 * Krugman: "we really don’t want to be locked into a, by definition, deflationary currency", so it does not look like a prediction, it rather is a "normative economics statement" as he calls it, i.e., he does not say bitcoin will be worthless, he says he wants bitcoin to be worthless. Taking that as his opinion, it probably does not belong to the "Valuation" section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if you would prefer to not include a Krugman mention or anything about a $0 per bitcoin floor, then I don't mind the fact that they're not there. Fleetham (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * $0 per bitcoin floor looks like a forecast to me, maybe we should include that. Aha, but he wrote: "Placing a floor on the value of bitcoins is… what, exactly?", i.e. he asked a question, not trying to give an answer to it, so it is not a forecast, as far as I am concerned. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I added the text per my last proposal, it looks as the consensus exists. If there is a proposal to move the section elsewhere, please discuss it here. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:11, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I removed the addition. Please wait for a very clear consensus. Again, please don't edit the main page until consensus has been reached on the talk page. I would imagine that a "very clear consensus" would look like a proposal posted and then all participants saying "yes" below. I don't believe that's happened here. Again, please don't edit this particular section until consensus has been reached as this has been a contentious part of the article in the past. Fleetham (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Bitcoin has been under scrutiny by financial journalists, notable economists, financial analysts, investors and researchers trying to determine its possible future value.

Economist and Professor John Quiggin citing the analysis in a Wall Street Journal article by financial journalist Jack Hough and evaluating bitcoin as a financial asset forecast that "bitcoins will attain their true value of zero sooner or later, but it is impossible to say when."

Bank of America published the analysis of its FX and Rate Strategist David Woo forecasting a "maximum fair value" of bitcoin of $1,300 and a "maximum market capitalization" of $15 billion.
 * How about the above? I can sign up for this pared-down version, which excludes both Felix Salmon and Paul Krugman. Fleetham (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, I am for it being added in this pared-down form.
 * I do understand your concern about Salmon's prediction being underspecified (it is unclear what is the exact value he forecasts). Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Comments:
 * There seem to be two separate questions we've been dealing with in consideration of the cited sources: (1) "what kind of money is Bitcoin", and (2) "what valuation estimate can we put on Bitcoin".  (1) is qualitative, (2) is quantitative.  The above proposal falls under question (2), while the original "Jack Hough and various economists" text was more about (1).  So my suggestion is that, in order to preserve some representation of the cited sources around question (1), some treatment of that should be included.  Also, it should be outside the "valuation" section, because, while it's natural that the reader who wants to find a valuation estimate will look in a section called "valuation", the reader who wants to know, qualitatively, "what kind of money is this", might not think to look there for that.  I would suggest that this material be somewhere under "Economics" (maybe a "Characteristics" section, or "Monetary characteristics", or "Characteristics as a currency").
 * A minimal approach to (1) might be to include, for example, the "Jack Hough" paragraph previously proposed (see article version of 04:35, 5 Feb.). Even better would be to add to that a sentence that emphasizes the meaning and consequences of not having government backing, as Quiggin did (he seemed to feel that Hough did not go far enough on this important point).  As it stands now, there is nothing in the article for the reader to find out that Bitcoin stands out among typical currencies in this one crucial aspect that many economists (and Hough) at least mentioned (and Quiggin emphasized heavily).
 * For the "Bitcoin valuation" proposed text, I'd suggest striking "citing the analysis in a Wall Street Journal article by financial journalist Jack Hough and". While Quiggin did cite Hough, his next sentence seems to express that Hough didn't adequately address the government-backing issue (and then Quiggin goes on to elaborate on that profusely, and then gives his valuation assessment).  Therefore, it seems to be undue weight to imply that Hough's commentary was the key point in Quiggin's conclusions (especially when Hough was arguably addressing only question (1) and never touched on the quantitative question of valuation analysis).  -- HLachman (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

To be able to discuss the above point (1) proposal I started a separate section for the classification purposes below. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the text of the "Bitcoin valuation" section, the proposed text now is:

Bitcoin has been under scrutiny by financial journalists, notable economists, financial analysts, investors and researchers trying to determine its possible future value.

Economist and Professor John Quiggin evaluating bitcoin as a financial asset forecast that "bitcoins will attain their true value of zero sooner or later, but it is impossible to say when."

Bank of America published the analysis of its FX and Rate Strategist David Woo forecasting a maximum fair value of bitcoin of $1,300 and a maximum market capitalization of $15 billion.

Thanks for the input. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that's what we should put on the page if HLachman does. I also removed the quotation marks from "fair value" and "market cap." Unless fair value is a technical term, it shouldn't be in quotes. And if it is, it should have an inter-wiki link instead. Fleetham (talk) 17:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The above seems OK for the article. Whether the edit is done now or later, either way we should be open to any comments that may come in over the next few days or so (since I added an RFC tag at the top of the section).  -- HLachman (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Section added. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I came across yet another prediction, not sure whether it should be added to the section:

Finance Professor Mark T. Williams: "I predict that Bitcoin will trade for under $10 a share by the first half of 2014, single digit pricing reflecting its option value as a pure commodity play."

(url: http://www.businessinsider.com/williams-bitcoin-meltdown-10-2013-12 ) Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Comment - A bot randomly invited me to participate here. However, I think this discussion is improperly designated as an RFC since there is not clear request but (to this outsider's view) some disorganized proposals. The RFC statement itself is a vague introduction to general problems, nothing we could interpret as a request. I suggest you remove the RFC tag, continue this useful discussion among yourselves and call on the rest of us when you have something specific on which you'd like our opinion. Cheers. Joja lozzo  01:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I removed the RFC tag as requested. Seeing the above Mark T. Williams quote went unopposed, it looks like a reasonable addition to the section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:25, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If you want to add the $10 quote, why not place it beside the $40,000 one for a nice contrast? Fleetham (talk) 17:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Theory
The article needs a transparent conceptual qualitative explanation of the theory on which Bitcoin is based. I have never seen such an explanation and I do not believe that there is such an explanation. If there were such an explanation, the Wikipedia article on Bitcoin would be the place for it. ---Dagme (talk) 06:15, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * do you mean something like ? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Recent legislation
I was hoping to add the recent California Assembly Bill that affects cryptocurrency, but see that the page is protected. Here's the link to the bill. It still needs to pass the senate. Should this info go here, or on the cryptocurrency page? LaMona (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd wait until some news agency has written a piece on it. If it's just proposed legislation, it's probably best to wait until it's been approved. Fleetham (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Mining
See Talk:Bitcoin/Archive_10 for some archived discussion on this subject. Refactored by Chris Arnesen 15:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

We need to add content about mining. Of course it'll needs good citations from reliable sources. Points of content:

Extra credit:
 * Difficulty
 * Hardware
 * Pools
 * Number of participants
 * How much BTC is "mined" on ASICs vs. GPUs, spare-time PC/CPU mining

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining and other articles on the Bitcoin wiki are is a good resource for learning but not a valid citation.

http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21590766-virtual-currency-it-mathematically-elegant-increasingly-popular-and-highly has a WP-friendly summary in the 2nd half of the article.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/17/ten_bitcoin_miners/ is somewhat more technical

The mining section still needs expansion. Chris Arnesen 18:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

How are bitcoins minted?
"Bitcoins are created by [miners doing work in exchange for] newly minted bitcoins." How are bitcoins minted? QuentinUK (talk) 13:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I tried to separate the relevant text into a new "Mining" subsection adding a couple of words to it. Check the text, please and don't hesitate to comment. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I added some details about the process, that the miner includes in her block a special "coinbase" transaction that sends 25 BTC to an address of the miner's choosing. Chris Arnesen 17:47, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

THIS CANNOT BE TRUE IE IT IMPLIES IT IS THE ONLY WAY, "the 25 bitcoins reward is also the way in which new bitcoins enter circulation."

Doesnt anyone read this important topic? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.226.202.126 (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, mining is the only way that bitcoins enter circulation.Chris Arnesen 19:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Mining section
To the editor who made recent changes to the mining sub-section of "block chain:" while a more detailed explanation of the cryptographic work miners do is useful, there's no need to remove or modify existing material to include it. I found your edit made it less easy for me to understand mining than before. Fleetham (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Fleetham fixed it. This item is resolved. Chris Arnesen 19:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

edited entire page
Fleetham, you reverted a whole day's of earnest work ! Instead of thanking me for improving a site that was filled with terribly constructed sentences, poor visual text appeareance (too many empty lines breaking teh textup) and poor  sometimes illogical or duplicated flow, you deleted everything with the reason that I "introduced grammar issues. See quote "allegedly allowed the also arrested Robert Faiella"  No, the lack of one letter (e) is a typo, not a grammar issue. I corrected it. You could have corrected that, too. If there were other issues you could have pointed them out, discussed on the talk page etc, but a complete revert of such a big edit is  inappropriate. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I will revert your other massive revert as well. --Wuerzele (talk) 08:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

"Made" misspelled. 1 March 2014
Under "Speculation and bubbles," "made" is misspelled as "mad."

70.112.201.71 (talk) 13:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (t • e • c) 13:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

What is happening to Bitcoin in February 2014 ?
(1) Headline: Bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox disappears in blow to virtual currency. There is already one sentence and one reference in the article here. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/25/us-mtgox-website-idUSBREA1O07920140225

(2) Headline: Bitcoin Site Mt. Gox Disappears From Web. "Embattled bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox appeared to be undergoing more convulsions, as its website became unavailable, signaling a new stage in troubles that have dented the image of the virtual currency. 6:51 AM" // Six Exchanges Work to Reassure Customers // Japan's Authorities Decline to Step In // Timeline: Bits and Pieces // — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
 * http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304834704579404101502619422?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304834704579404101502619422.html%3Fmod%3DWSJ_hp_LEFTWhatsNewsCollection

There should be some explanation of Transaction Malleability. First it is the reason Silk Road 2 gives for the all their money going, and closing down the site on February 13 then two weeks later MtGox give the same excuse for disappearing with everyone's bitcoins. 46.208.195.95 (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Here's where we're at right now:

In early February 2014, the Mt. Gox exchange suspended withdrawals citing technical issues related to "transaction malleability".[58] A week later the company continued to work on a fix as the price of bitcoin collapsed to US$400 on the exchange, down from over US$1000 a month earlier.[59] On February 24, 2014 the website of the Mt. Gox exchange was taken offline and all trading activity stopped, amid reports that $350 million worth of Bitcoin had been stolen over several years as a result of flaws in its payment software.

Let's add just a bit more about how other exchanges also suspended withdrawals to assess their systems and also how Silk Road 2 announced they had lost bitcoins due to flawed implementations of the protocol.

(3) Headline: Almost Half a Billion Worth of Bitcoins Vanish — Mt. Gox Says It Lost 750,000 of Customers' Bitcoin to Fraud "Mt. Gox Chief Executive Mark Karpelès said technical issues had opened the way for fraudulent withdrawals, though he didn't provide details." — FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Wall Street Journal, online

Charts
It's me, User:Anna Frodesiak. The article is protected. I think this link would be good in ext links section:


 * http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/

Also, it's CC, so I will make a png at commons for the article itself unless someone else does it first. I think lots of page visitors want to see this. Oh, and any thoughts on which settings would be best for the chart? Last year. All time? Anna F remote (talk) 00:43, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, these are nice:


 * http://blockchain.info/charts

Anna F remote (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I take it back. I won't make charts. There are lots here and I don't understand them and why one isn't already in the article.



Please add one! There's a screenshot of the Electrum – sample Bitcoin client, but no chart??? Visitors probably want to know what these things are worth, and with all the talk of fluctuations and speculation, a chart is a good thing -- and not just an ext link, but an image in the article. Yes? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

suggestions to improve readability
Hi guys, the page seems very fragmented and is difficult to read, at least thats what I read in the 24 reader comments. (i inserted public ledger in the first sentence because it was missing).

before delving into the supertechnical aspect of how bitcoins are generated and frustrate readers, i d start from the spot that everybody understands about money: explain the intent of the system (missing right now). sthg like: "it was created to exchange money electronically and securely without a third party, that can dictate credit worthiness or  price of transactions as in banks or PayPal etc.

then move on to basics. keep the bitcoin protocol details out of the article since you already split off the page about the protocol. the shortest description Ive read is: "When a transaction is broadcast to the network, it is relayed with a digital fingerprint that identifies it. Bitcoin miners scoop it up, verify it, and send it on to the rest of the network for confirmation. Once the transaction has been confirmed, there is no way for that same person to spend those same bitcoins because they are being checked against the public ledger." by Morgen Peck in IEEE spectrum Feb 13, 14

a short and successful article explaining bitcoins is here. another FAQ from a Washington Post blog is here and an article 3 days ago about the death of the Mt. Gox Bitcoin Exchange by Morgen Peck (was on Science Friday today) is here

Bitcoin was also discussed On Point last November in conjunction with the Senate committee hearing about it. --Wuerzele (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The opening sentence, with its interestingly placed commas is difficult to read (unless, perhaps, one already knows what bitcoin is -- or is conversant in electronic monetary transactions in general). Please re-write this sentence for lay-people.211.225.34.164 (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your contributions. Bitcoin is a very visible article on a controversial topic, with dozens of active editors. Like 211.225.34.164, I thought that those edits to the lede made it more difficult to read, not less so, and I reverted to the earlier text. Much obliged if you could propose any large changes to the lede here first so that we can all pitch in to polish it together. Chris Arnesen 19:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * thank you for your opinion that my recent edits to lede were no improvements. what 211.225.34.164 saw when he-or-she wrote, and what he criticizes is hard to say. But I d say,the commenter saw about 90% of what you guys had written since I changed very little, and because the entry is threaded under this section "improving readability" he agrees, the lead is difficult to read. but you didnt read the talk page, and you reverted. once again way more than just the first 2 sentences. I looked back and this really seems to be a bad housekeeping tactic on this page (see what I responded to Fleetham below). Relax guys ! and then you read the talk pag, only after Ladislav told you when he reverted your revert. and finally, because i didnt write out all 1001 edits here and ask for your permission, you revert his revert! asking "Please propose on Bitcoin-Talk first so we can discuss." ehem, i did, but it obviously wasnt right /detailed/enough for you. but hey, this isnt a bureaucracy with forms and approvals, its a work group - the theme is edit, be bold. :  The first sentence is indeed crucial.  your page entry must not use a string of wikified terms right out. that's super arrogant to the reader. nobody will interrupt the first sentence 4 times to check hyperlinked specialty terms. and above all its not necessary, one can use regular words. one must go from known to unknown terms  to guide the reader. right now the lead is for insiders, its prickly and thats why 20/24  people that cared to leave feedback of teh 100 or more who didnt during recent semiprotection are thrown aback. you better listen to some outside voices. there's way more issues, starting with the farmed out disastrous bitcoin network page, that I see you just started to clean up a bit, after readers pointed out about possible copyvio, maybe you and fleetham should focus on getting the basics straight, before forbidding a good will copy-editor to insert a tiny sentence on what peer-to-peer means. and please feel free to wikify ledger, which you first took out and then put back in (unwikified). edits please, no revert blasts. peace. --Wuerzele (talk) 08:58, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It's not that every edit has to be proposed first here on the talk page. The cycle is BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle. You were bold, I reverted (twice), now we discuss. I actually intentionally left out the wikilink on ledger because that article says, "A ledger is the principal book or computer file for recording and totaling monetary transactions by account, with debits and credits in separate columns and a beginning balance and ending balance for each account." That doesn't very well apply to the block chain. Somebody else can link it if they want, but I think it's better without. It's a common word after all. Chris Arnesen 15:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH
To the editor who recently made large edits to the page: I do appreciate you taking the time to improve the page, and it does need improvement. I encourage you to continue to edit the page, but I would like to ask that you take active measures to prevent the introduction of WP:SYNTH and other, similar errors in future. In the legal status + regs section I found two* instances where wholly invented ideas were inserted into cited text. For the record, the BBC does not state that "bitcoins are used to make transactions difficult to trace, therefore bitcoins are seized when dark web black markets are shut." It certainly sounds plausible, but that's not what the citation states. It's a small error, but I would like to bring it to your attention as it might not be something you consider when editing. Oftentimes, a sentence can be re-written any number of ways and the meaning remains the same, but when a change might misrepresent the source, it's always a good idea to go back to the original just to ensure that this doesn't occur. Fleetham (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The other instance of synth was in the Ponzi scheme section, where your edit claims that an ECB report "was picked up and disseminated by Reuters." This appears to be wholly unsubstantiated.
 * Fleetham, thanks for your attention. i will not argue the 2 single flaws or flies you found or had to dig up to push the revert button of numerous and ever numerous of my copy-edits. The 2 "errors" as you call them are arguable, and you may keep you original citations as you like. if you had just edited these 2 issues, you would have done a good thing. But i think you either dont see the forest for the trees, or you really didnt like a lot of the improvements in organization and flow,i made and youre just mentioning these two. I suggest you check every single one of the edits I made like Ladislav did for example, no harm done. If you don't understand why I am doing something, ask. but you didnt ask a single time why I did what, didnt respond to 999 things when you found 1 error, but in each revert reverted 999 things, because you found 1 flaw. I cannot believe your "I do appreciate you taking the time..." you reverted until none of my edits were left.
 * "for the record" (your solemn words) i find your tone un-welcoming a good faith new editor to "your" page: "I would like to ask that you take active measures to prevent the introduction of WP:SYNTH and other, similar errors in future" Hey man, we're not in Catholic school or the military, here! And after finally reading my talk page entry, you then didnt feel it necessary to thread your response there (wiki netiquette). i see you had to start this new section and with oh so powerful jargon in the headline, and you cant even call me by my name (To the editor bla bla), though you reverted me numerous times. Fleetham, I see an anger problem, no good faith to a newbie of "your" page. i see i am not the first you've treated like that. seems to be your golden rule, so i'll respond with a paraphrase "I would like to ask that you take active measures to prevent rash reverts, poorly phrased jargon and the introduction of other, similar errors in future [sic]" if you care to respond, please dont respond below, but to each edit I have made. life's too short for fussing and fighting.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * When people have brought up similar issues with my editing, I usually change from making few large-scale edits to making more numerous small ones. This way individual errors can be undone piecemeal.


 * Also, if you are a newbie, I would suggest reading WP:NPA. Fleetham (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * @Wuerzele: I see you've recently made a number of smaller edits to the page, so I appreciate you taking my advice. Apologies again if I've taken a WP:PLEASEBITE stance. I really didn't think you were a newbie having looked at your userpage before posting the original message, but I see that you have less than 500 edits, so I guess you are. I hope you don't imagine that my initial reaction is the attitude I'll have in future, and I do hope you'll continue to edit the Bitcoin page. It does need work, and there's much more that can be expanded too. Fleetham (talk) 05:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

What is Bitcoin-Qt?
THIS SUDDENLY APPEARS WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE: "Bitcoin-Qt is sometimes referred to as the reference client because it serves to define the Bitcoin " SUGGEST EXPLAINING WHAT IT IS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.226.202.126 (talk) 02:53, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I fixed this. Chris Arnesen 19:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

✅ — If you search on [Qt] in the Article here, you generate four 'hits'. Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:27, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "The first wallet program called Bitcoin-Qt was released in 2009" [with a link explaining 'wallet program'].

Difficult to understand that sentence
"Bitcoin has been a subject of scrutiny due to ties with illicit activity." Since when does a currency gets under scrutiny when someone is buying illegal thinks with it? The $ or € is used everyday in money laundering, tax evasion, drugs trafficking and so on. No person would blame the currency for that. 87.78.25.114 (talk) 11:26, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The sentence looks dubious, indeed, and inappropriate for the article lead, I dare to add. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 87.78.25.114, the quote means that lawmakers and regulators have considered Bitcoin-related issues (i.e., "Bitcoin has been a subject of scrutiny") because of its use in a crimes ("due to ties with illicit activity"). Is there a particular word or phrase that you had trouble understanding?


 * Ladislav, it didn't cite sources, but seems readily verifiable.
 * [Discusses US Senate scrutiny due to illegal activity.]
 * [Discusses FBI, Federal Reserve, and Treasury Department/IRS scrutiny due to illegal activity.]
 * [Discusses state regulator scrutiny.]
 * [Discusses Canadian federal government scrutiny.]
 * “The move comes as Bitcoin falls under increasing scrutiny across the world amid concerns it can be used for illegal activities.”]
 * There are articles about scrutiny in other countries (Russia, China, several in Europe), but I think these make the case sufficiently. I'll pick a couple to cite in the article, and remove the dubious tag; feel free to re-add it if you're still disputing the issue. I'm only addressing your "dubious" comment, not whether it's appropriate in the third paragraph.
 * Agyle (talk) 03:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

two things: 87.78.25.114 opened up a good discussion by bringing out -seemingly unintended- the ambiguity of the term Bitcoin. He/she is talking about the currency (bitcoin) and rightfully asserts that the end is no reason to scrutinize the mean. You on the other hand are talking about the capital-B-Bitcoin, the system, assuming this was your sentence, i have no clue/ didnt look if you wrote it. So: 87.78.25.114 didnt misunderstand, merely points out that the sentence is "difficult to understand". It's not about lack of sources, its about precision and clarity. It's one of the reasons i landed on this (talk)page. All, i think the article is anything but undersourced (probably oversourced, but there's surely a definition for it, which i dont know...thanks MrChoppers it's WP:CITEKILL). the article lacks clarity here and there and je-ne-sais-quoi, fluency, ease in general. Agyle, i suggest to think about rephrasing the sentence. i am going to continue on this topic, but want to write it in a new subsection, more in general. --Wuerzele (talk) 05:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I think it's clear that what has been under scrutiny is both the system and the currency. I oppose changing the wording. Fleetham (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase, Fleetham: You dont understand the point 87.78.25.114 is making, namely that scrutinizing a currency is absurd, because the sentence is clear and the feedback should be ignored. --Wuerzele (talk) 01:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I changed the wording to more accurately represent the information contained in the sources and be more readable at the same time. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Wuerzele, no, I didn't write/edit the sentence. If the word "Bitcoin" makes it difficult to understand, what alternative would you suggest? The above sources use it the same way this article does.


 * Ladislav, I'd suggest going with the second source's "amid concerns it can be used for illegal activities", rather than the first source's "amid fears it could be used...", since everyone agrees it has been used for such activities. :-) (The first source is from The WSJ's "Washington Wire" column/"blog", which is generally less polished than their main articles, while the second source is a regular WSJ article.) Agyle (talk) 12:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * thanks for the suggestion Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

bias towards criminal activity and other ghastly things
in my edit-descriptions i had commented (i know, wrong place, only for those who read 'view history' as if a newspaper) on the fact, that this page seems to be, well, top-heavy with reporting on "bad things". yes, right now, half the page is about it. i contend this is a bias, by giving undue weight to this aspect and I think we should acknowledge it. since i joined its already better (not because of me), i mean, it's changing fast and continuously - i noticed that someone moved the criminal stuff out of the economics section, and thus got rid of all the co-existing duplications under "criminal activity", fleetham maybe it was you ? i'd be much obliged. i think i understand why this bad stuff gets in here: First, it needs to be described, and second, it is difficult to ignore the leads that bleed when looking for source material, hearing news, whatever. but it's not why people come to this site, as the reader feedback that was on top of the page when it was semiprotected (where is it now? archived?) proved. i recall at least 2 folks saying sthg like 'too negative'. people already do hear the bad stuff on NPR or see it on Foxnews, or read it in Newsweek or the NYT. people want to learn about this weird new currency here. the bad stuff is secondary and i think, has to be treated with extra special care. it's enough that Bitcoin looks a bit like an (infamous) informal value transfer system, which of course it isnt, but how many readers think it may be?, it's enough that the Dept of Homeland security hosted a report about Bitcoin in connection with child pornography (i found it [here, link embedded] when i looked for regulation, did not mention it on the page, because it needs something, i dont know what to balance, havent thought this through yet; at the moment i just feel nothing bad should be added or readers will throw up ! but we, and i hope i speak for everyone here, dont want this bias on the wiki-page.

before i forget it : what do people think about a negotiated/ regularly discussed 'to-do-list' pasted on top of the talk page ? i've never seen one on wikipedia, but it should be doable; besides streamlined communication it could also function a little bit like a huddle, where we "get together" in a more, well, non-random/non-bumpy fashion than now. :-)--Wuerzele (talk) 07:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, if you'd like to correct the problem, the "rules" (in this case, WP:NPOV) suggest "rewrit[ing] the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective." If you really do want to see a less biased page, I would encourage you to edit the page in the above manner. Fleetham (talk) 08:42, 8 March 2014 (UTC) Thankshare on this post.
 * I am aware and can look up the rules, Fleetham,but not your thoughts, which you dont share. so let me rephrase: do you see the bias or do you not?( looks like my signature from 3-9-14 disappeared) waiting for an answer,Fleetham] --[[User:Wuerzele|Wuerzele (talk) 04:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree there's a bit of an imbalance, not within a particular passage/section but in the article as a whole. I just added a subsection on Bitcoin-related malware, which I think is important to cover, but the criminal activities section definitely stands out. Perhaps an article split for "Bitcoin thefts" for specific examples would alleviate some of it? There are a lot more thefts than are covered here, wiping out companies and customer balances every month. It would suffice to say it's an everyday occurrence, and maybe give a brief mention of thefts over $100 million or something. Some of the examples I included in the malware section could also just be omitted.


 * On the flip side, many of the "bad things" sections aren't so much over-detailed, as other sections are under-detailed, perhaps because writing about them doesn't interest contributors. As one example, the "Acceptance by merchants" section is two sentences; it could cover the approaches different companies take, point of sale solutions available, the results of the merchants (e.g., some companies now get more bitcoin orders than fiat currency orders, and several major companies are reporting huge growth in Bitcoin orders).Agyle (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok. go for it. --Wuerzele (talk) 04:39, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, criminal activity (e.g., Silk Road, money laundering) has played a significant, though diminishing, role in Bitcoin's history. And the suggestion that people don't come to this article to read about bad stuff seems overly presumptive. Thefts and risks would seem to be of major interest even to someone new to the topic, and I guarantee some readers are here trying to figure out how to use bitcoins to score some weed. ;-) Agyle (talk) 13:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply and thoughts Agyle agreeing on imbalance as a whole, criminal activity standing out. Re splitting article in bitcoin relayted theft: i would be for it, if it reduced this pages size. Otherwise no opinion, since from my perspective and reading the 24 reader comments, this issue isnt the primary driver. The only way we can test the hypothesis though is doing it and seeing how many hits the split off page gets....--Wuerzele (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would encourage you to continue to add content to the page. There's really a wealth of sources on Bitcoin, and the article would benefit from continued expansion. Fleetham (talk) 20:47, 8 March 2014 (UTC) Fleetham

Are you not concerned about size?--Wuerzele (talk) 04:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think size is a concern. Fleetham (talk) 20:38, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Primary source material in regulation section
A recent addition to the regulation section cites a paper issued by an NGO, Financial Action Task Force. I'm not entirely sure if this is appropriate, as WP:RS states, "primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately" and continues with "large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided." I don't know if there's a news article or something on this paper. Perhaps the NGO itself has a press release? The current content should probably be consolidated to a single sentence, but I'm not sure if that's easy to do if there exists no secondary source summing everything up. Fleetham (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I see no problem whatsoever with this citation. I would classify this as a secondary source, and even if it was primary it would still be okay to cite them for "specific facts" - a definition of a regulation is thus no problem at all.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  05:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd consider it a primary source; it's citing the FATF paper to support quotes about the FATF's definitions and warnings, not to provide general information about Bitcoin regulations. I also think the "large blocks...should be avoided" somewhat applies here. The sentence in question is so long as to be difficult to follow (plus it has mismatched/missing quotation marks), and while it doesn't quote a single contiguous block, it's comprised of several quotes from different parts of the FATF paper. Here is the sentence:
 * "The 2013 G7's Financial Action Task Force(FATF) guidance for internet-based payment services[113] defines 'exchangers buying or selling digital currency for cash (or other digital currencies) [...] as a virtual bureau de change'(p10) and warns 'internet-based payment services that allow third party funding from anonymous sources may face an increased risk of ML/TF [money laundering/terrorist financing] and that 'such exchangers can circumvent an Internet-based payment service provider’s ban on certain funding methods (e.g. a ‘no cash funding’ policy), if they accept the banned payment methods when reselling the issued digital currency[..] so the provider will only see the exchanger´s name in its monitoring, but will not see who actually instructed the exchanger to fund the account'(p16) and this may 'pose challenges to countries in AML/CFT regulation and supervision because their cross-border functionality systems'(p31), wherefore 'as a minimum countries should 'be licensed or registered and subject to effective monitoring'."
 * At the very least, I agree with Fleetham that the sentence should be consolidated. Agyle (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * i'm the author of this subsection -fleetham again did not mention me by name, out of misunderstood caution?- and i agree of course with consolidation of this sentence. it's a haypile, a collection of straws of quotes- plse make suggestions how to best consolidate. Reasons why I think the FATF paper is worth mentioning: a) it's the only supranational perspective so far (nothing by the tower of Basel folks or the IMF or world bank, i checked) and since Bitcoin is supranational, this is where the money is (the supranational perspective I mean) b) it shows how similar the thinking is to the US.  thanks for pointing to Wikipedia:RS, which I was familiar with when I wrote this. as far as the, in this context pejorative, classification as primary source is concerned: a) the FATS  isnt some NGO. Its an intergovernmental organization of the G7, a sizeable organization of governments. while size doesnt always matter, here it does, just like my home town newspaper and, say the LA Times or Washington Post size matters in how many fact checkers they employ or the respective reputation that's on the line if someone screws up etc. b) even if it is a primary source/opinionpiece which may be difficult to use, that doesnt mean it cant be used on wikipedia, as Mr.choppers pointed out, thank you, it can be, ipso erat demonstrandum, especially if, as you Agyle noted, used strictly with quotes, which i did, a nauseating string of quotes, on top of that  mismatched ? yes, thanks. grant me an honest error... c) lastly: i consider the subsection "Regulation" something of a history project, evolving over the years. it so happens that historians do and must use primary sources in their work -sorry if i am preaching to the crowd- but i havent checked what background each of us contributors here has. i am guessing that at least half are not familiar with that fact. so i vote for keep, at the very least until something better comes along, ok? buenas noches --Wuerzele (talk) 09:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * At the very least I think there should be fewer quotes. Let's go straight to the thesis. Also, if I could suggest fewer acronyms. (And hopefully Wuerzele won't mind being corrected, but the G7 is not an international organization but instead an international institution—it's not anything like the UN or the IMF and doesn't have permanent offices or staff, etc. It's "just something that happens from time to time.") Fleetham (talk)
 * glad you are using my name and that changed your mind about including the FATF Fleetham . careful with the accusations: first you denounced me for using the source of an "NGO", which is incorrect. and now you say you need to correct me about the G7 not being an organization. Also incorrect. Lastly: Yes, I dont mind being corrected ! And I suggest to stop warring against me, plus behaving upright by finally using ping or my name  as is etiquette when you mention my name on a talk page, so I know when you address me, thanks. Peace, man.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:28, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * An alternative "at the very least" suggestion I'd make is to move the FATF to its own paragraph (actually I just did that...I also corrected minor quote details), and split that 100+ word sentence into several shorter sentences (e.g., the initial definition quote could stand on its own). The paragraph on FATF could use an introductory sentence before the quotes, just explaining the significance of the FATF's guidance, for which secondary source coverage is necessary. It's an intergovernmental organization, but these are recommendations, not regulations. Wuerzele, I don't think there's anything wrong with paraphrasing some quotes; particularly because it's not a regulation, FATF's exact wording isn't important. Agyle (talk) 11:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The sentences in question weren't the ones I thought Fleetham was referring to, as he didn't specify. The quote from Agyle helps, especially on a page that is seeing as much turbulence as Bitcoin is. It could perhaps be shortened a bit, but beware of synthesizing.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  13:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Bias towards "speculation"
The "Speculation and bubbles" section's first sentence:

Bitcoins can be traded as an investment by speculators who expect widening popularity and value growth.

confuses the notions of "investment" and "speculation" contradicting its own source, which carefully distinguishes between them. This is not the only distortion in the section. In subsequent sentences named investors are (in a similarly biased manner) painted as "speculators".

To make the article unbiased I propose to pick Bitcoin investments and put them into a separate section mentioning:


 * various ways the investors use to invest in Bitcoin
 * differences between Bitcoin speculation and investment Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Haven't seen the edit history, but the quotation style suggests Fleetham. Check out WP:CITEKILL.  Mr.choppers &#124;  [[User talk:Mr.choppers| ✎

]] 14:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Mr ChoppersThanks for mentioning citation overkill. I thought I was alone in my assessment.it seems to be the law of this site.
 * Well, I think it's important to follow the lead of the sources here. If the source says "speculator," use that word and if the source says "investor," use that one. But I don't think that the two are so wholly distinguishable as to merit separate sections. ...one view is that people who buy bitcoins are investors and another view is that they are speculators. To devote a section to one view only would not help, and might be against WP:BALASPS, which states "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate... Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements." Fleetham (talk) 20:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * As I already demonstrated, even the first sentence of the section contradicts its own source. As such, it does not belong to the "Speculation and bubbles" section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "...one view is that people who buy bitcoins are investors and another view is that they are speculators." - and both are clearly biased Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * there is a criterium how to discern investor and speculator, and many sources are informed enough to make such a distinction. Also, it is wrong to put investors to section about speculators. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the sentence is miscited. The part about "investors" is cited by a source that mentions "speculators," and the "speculation" bit is cited by a source that refers to "investors." I've gone ahead and switched the citations. Fleetham (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, if there is some way to write a section about the different financial instruments denominated in bitcoins without mentioning that these are purchased by either speculators or investors, I think that bypasses the entire debate. Fleetham (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Go for it Fleetham.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What's the disctinction you want to make? I consider speculation just a risky/volatile, often short-term investment. Is the bias that bitcoin prices are portrayed as risky/volatile, rather than safe/stable? Or that there isn't coverage of other type of Bitcoin-related investments (e.g., in established ATM companies producing bitcoin versions, or companies that have a small amount of bitcoin holdings)? Agyle (talk) 02:51, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree Agyle, I think the distinction is there but ,more theoretical than practical.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:47, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually think the way Ladislav went about it is fine. It's right next to the speculation section and the first sentence mentions Bitcoin investments as risky. Fleetham (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I dont understand what you do, Fleetham. First you want someone "to write a section about the different financial instruments denominated in bitcoins without mentioning that these are purchased by either speculators or investors", even though you yourself are an economist, but when encouraged to do so, to write, you lean back and say its fine!? In the week or so I have followed this page now, I ve seen you delete plenty sentences and citations, but I cant recall you having produced a section or sources as everybody else has. --Wuerzele (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)