Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 17

Reduce confusion about bitcoins as currency but not money
I was hoping to get some feedback on a recent change. The second sentence originally read, Although it doesn't meet the definition of money, the digital currency created and used in the system has been variously referred to as virtual currency, electronic money, or cryptocurrency. I changed it because it seems contradictory... we say "BTC not money" then "BTC is currency." Even if readers give us the benefit of the doubt and don't think we're simply stupid, they might imagine that somehow bitcoin falls on one side of a small distinction between "money" and "currency." I don't believe that to be the case. If there is any distinction, it would be that currency is the tokens used as money while money could take any form. I've changed the sentence to the below: Although it doesn't meet the definition of money, bitcoin has been referred to as a digital currency, virtual currency, electronic money, or cryptocurrency. Fleetham (talk) 22:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The formulation is clumsy at best. In fact, we do need some term to use, the "digital currency" seems to be the most frequently used. Also, we need to specify that the digital currency (besides to the system) is also called "bitcoin", which is a notable information worth mentioning in the article lead. The contradictory nature of your formulation does not make the things clear at all. If you consider it notable to mention that economists generally find bitcoin to not be money according to their definition, then you can put it in as a separate information in a separate sentence not distorting or removing other useful informations. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, "the definition of money" is a debatable formulation. There are two economic definitions, both well sourced, in the Money article, and the one mentioned in this article is not even the most prominent one, as you can easily find out. Moreover, I am pretty sure that there are many legal definitions of money, (maybe as many as there are states). I find it preferable to make this more clear in the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Adding a note related to the "digital currency" usage. The fact that you call something "digital currency", "virtual currency" or "cryptocurrency" does not mean that you state that it actually must be a currency; especially the adjective "virtual" is used to indicate that the subject looks like a currency, but may not be one. Using adjectives is a way how to tell that the subject is not just some "currency", and that it actually is something more specific, which may differ from "just currency" in some way. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. How would you propose to include information that bitcoin meets no generally recognized definition of money? I'm willing to sign up for making a distinction between bitcoins and bitcoin, and it sounds like you don't have a objection to making it clear that bitcoins aren't money as long as doing so doesn't "distort or remove other useful information." Perhaps the best thing to do is simply insert a sentence somewhere around the bottom of the paragraph that informs the reader that just because it's often referred to as a currency doesn't mean that it is. Let me know if this is agreeable, and I'll write up a draft. Fleetham (talk) 03:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "How would you propose to include information that bitcoin meets no generally recognized definition of money?" - I propose to be specific and mention that bitcoin does not meet the generally recognized economic definition of money. I think that should be OK, and it is notable enough to be inserted into the article lead, in my opinion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That sounds agreeable... but since there is unlikely to be any other definition of money besides an "economic" one, I suggest just "generally recognized definition." There may be various legal definitions of what is legal tender, but I don't think there exists a separate legal definition for money. Fleetham (talk) 12:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, there are legal definitions of money. Also, take into account, please, that the source you are using (The Economist) is quite specific that it means the definition of money used by economists, not, for example, the definition used by the judge Mazzant when deciding bitcoin is money. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 19:36, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, I'm really not sure there are legal definitions of money. Or at least one that is different in any way from an economic definition. This book on pages 36-37 discusses the appearance of a separate legal definition for money but then concludes that there really isn't one. Googling "legal definition of money" doesn't bring up any results that differ from the two definitions on the money page. It may well be that asking for a legal definition of money is a bit like asking for an economic definition of a tort. The Economist article does say that "economists reckon money is anything that serves three main functions." But that doesn't mean other people or other disciplines reckon money is something else entirely. What if an article reads, "lawyers reckon a tort is something that causes someone to suffer, unfairly, a loss?" You wouldn't imagine that what is provided is simply the legal definition of a tort. Fleetham (talk) 22:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


 * "This book on pages 36-37] discusses the appearance of a separate legal definition for money but then concludes that there really isn't one." - Well, quite the opposite is true:
 * In the cited pages, Ludwig von Mises states that "money is only the common medium of exchange" using a significantly different definition of money than you pretend to be "the general definition of money" proving that there are other definitions than your "the definition..." In fact, economists use (in a slightly edited version) his definion to the present day. See the first definition of money in the Money article and check the citations verifying it. Your "the definition..." is just the second definition mentioned in the article.
 * The cited pages state: "For the jurist, money is a medium of payment" actually making a point that there are legal definitions of money differing from the economic. Von Mises' point being that "The economist, to whom the problem of money presents a different aspect, may not adopt this point of view if he does not wish at the very outset to prejudice his prospects to the advancement of economic theory."
 * "You wouldn't imagine that what is provided is simply the legal definition of a tort." - why do you think I "wouldn't imagine" that? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Summing up, I find it verifiable that there are other definitions of money, even economic, not to mention legal. This is why I propose to specify which definition is meant. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:43, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're reading the book closely. It is a little confusing, since it was originally written in German and in the 1920s... You are correct in thinking that book defines money simply as a medium of exchange, however. But again, it was written in the 1920s. The generally recognized definition, today, is the same as that found on the money page. In any case, bitcoin meets no generally recognized definition of money. So I don't see any reason not to simply use the term "generally recognized definition." Fleetham (talk) 06:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And yes, you have a valid point in that other definitions of money do exist. But that 1920s book was written by an economist... so while I have no qualms about specifying what definitions of money bitcoin does and does not meet, I don't think the one it doesn't meet is rightly called the economic definition. Fleetham (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Bitcoins are not money in the strict sense of the concept since they are not legal tender and they are not - at the same time - a unit of account in any country. You cannot pay your taxes with bitcoins and no-one does their financial reports in terms of bitcoin. However, it is "a type of money" as the judge stated referring to it being a medium of exchange. Money generally has to be relatively stable in real value to fulfil its three functions as money. The expectation that bitcoin may rise significantly in value because of its eventual fixed limit in supply will make it always less similar to money. Accountants actually assume money is stable in value in traditional accounting. Bitcoins are certainly a medium of exchange which is the reason why it is generally described as a virtual currency, electronic money and a cryptocurrency. All these descriptive names given to bitcoin are always references to it being a medium of exchange - which it is. However, to say that bitcoin is equal to money, in my opinion, would not be correct. SpiltOctacle (talk) 21:17, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well I'm not sure exactly where we've gotten. While I think it's clear that there exists a minority opinion that simply being a medium of exchange is sufficient for something to be considered money. (See this 2001 book for example.) I don't believe that there is clear evidence for a separate "legal definition of money." The best support for that idea seems to be a 1920s book that, closely read, suggests that there is no functional difference between the economist's and the lawyer's viewpoint. Fleetham (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)asons discussed in multiple
 * Ladislav and SpiltOctacle, I suggest to avoid the term money as long as User:Fleetham edits the page or until history sorts itself out. Leave the currency in, for reasons amply discussed (see talk archive or "Talk:Economics lead section" still on the page etc. This has been a never ending and fruitless discussion for months now.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Re "Bitcoins are not money in the strict sense of the concept since they are not legal tender and they are not - at the same time - a unit of account in any country." - this is yet another definition of what money is, and significantly different from the economic one; according to this editor money is defined as being: There is a question whether such definition makes sense (that may be arguable, since it excludes most of historic money), whether it is widely used, and whether its use is notable and verifiable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) legal tender
 * 2) a unit of account in a country

[User:Fleetham|Fleetham]] wrote: "Well I'm not sure exactly where we've gotten." - What I found interesting in the source you cited to support the information that "there exists a minority opinion that simply being a medium of exchange is sufficient for something to be considered money." is that the source called the definition listing the functions of money as the functional definition of money. That does not look bad as a name for the definition, since the definition does exactly what is suggested by the name, listing the functions of money. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Although most of what I am about to state is already implied in my previous contribution, I will attempt to state the - in my opinion - long definition of money in economics:


 * For any economic item to pass the essential requirements to qualify as being money in terms of the science of economics it has to be:


 * 1. A widely used medium of exchange which overcomes the double coincidence of wants associated with barter;


 * 2. A perfectly stable store of real value;


 * 3. A perfectly stable real value unit of account;


 * 4. Legal tender in the economy.


 * Everyone will point out that not a single fiat currency is generally perfectly stable in real value over time and thus generally never a perfectly stable real value unit of account. That is correct. This problem was solved very long ago in history by economists and accountants by simply assuming money is perfectly stable in real value: the stable measuring unit assumption which is the basis of the traditional, generally accepted, globally implemented, at least three-thousand-year-old Historical Cost Accounting model. It is normally simply stated in textbooks that one of the three functions of money is that it has to be a unit of account. It is almost always then also stated that it is assumed that this unit of account is (perfectly) stable in real value.


 * The Measuring Unit principle: The unit of measure in accounting shall be the base money unit of the most relevant currency. This principle also assumes the unit of measure is stable; that is, changes in its general purchasing power are not considered sufficiently important to require adjustments to the basic financial statements.

Walgenbach, Dittrich and Hanson 1973, p. 429


 * Bitcoin does not meet all the above requirements. It is not legal tender anywhere: no government currently accepts bitcoin as payment for taxes, for example. It does not qualify as money in the strict economic definition of money. However, in general terms, it is common that anything that is a widely accepted medium of exchange is described as money. It is a fact that bitcoin is described as digital money or virtual money (virtual in its sense as digital).SpiltOctacle (talk) 18:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You're right that the "three functions of money" definition is a functional definition. But there also appears to be a minority view that anything that's a medium of exchange is money. This "medium of exchange = money" definition is also a functional definition. There's also a few more basic attributes of money as this book explains. A different book quotes a 1973 work as saying "...to the present day there is no agreement on the most fundamental of questions—what is money?" It then goes on to say that the economic definition of money is "any commodity that is generally accepted as a medium of exchange and a measure of value." This would be a third functional definition of money. Perhaps it's agreeable to simply say that bitcoin does not meet most definitions of money? Fleetham (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Further reading leads me to believe that those sources which suggest money need only be a medium of exchange actually state that money must be a widely accepted or common medium of exchange. I no longer feel that these sources support considering bitcoins as money. While I haven't come across any definition of money that would allow bitcoins to be thought of as money, I propose to add to the lede something like, "while commonly referred to as a currency, bitcoin is should not be considered one under most definitions." Please let me know how well that suits the citations we currently have available. Fleetham (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Fleetham (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@Fleetham You "analysed" (researched) the many already researched independent individual references, some of which you indicated in the article and others here on the talk page. Then you, personally - all on your own, by your very self - came to a completely new, independent, original view, namely that "I haven't come across any definition of money that would allow bitcoins to be thought of as money". It might be true that no-one has - to date - done as thorough research as you have done here on WP. That certainly is original research, isn´t it? Or do you have an independent reference for "there is not any definition of money that would allow bitcoins to be thought of as money"? This is not a personal attack or in any way intended to be a personal attack in any way or form. SpiltOctacle (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You recently changed the bitcoin as money section to read, "Bitcoin is often referred to as a currency, but it does not conform to widely used definitions of money." As I point out above, I haven't come across any definition of money, obscure or popular, that would classify bitcoin as money. I think what you've written is a bit misleading because it suggests that bitcoin is a money according to less widely used definitions. But as far as we know from the current sources, it's not a money according to any definition. Do you have a source for an obscure definition of money that would cover bitcoin? Fleetham (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "As I point out above, I haven't come across any definition of money, obscure or popular, that would classify bitcoin as money." - that is irrelevant. The fact is that anybody can write a definition, but for Wikipedia only notable definitions matter. "But as far as we know from the current sources, it's not a money according to any definition." - wrong. Judge Mazzant used a definition which indicated that bitcoin is money and that definition sufficed for him to make the decision he made. The decision was notable enough for the press and obtained coverage by independent sources. I am sorry to have to disagree with you, but, I have to tell you that this is not, according to my findings, the only definition covered by independent sources according to which bitcoin is money. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, well you're right about the court ruling bitcoin is a currency. That should probably be mentioned in the section, too. Fleetham (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If you look above, you may find out that I proposed to merge "Classifications" into one section (possibly with two or more paragraphs), and the proíposal was unopposed, in fact. I agree that the definitions of money that are most notable for Wikipedia do not define bitcoin as money, though. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Price and volatility
Currently there are the sentences: The sentences (at least to an uninitiated eye) pretend that the former is somehow distinct from the latter, which is false; both are equivalent, in fact. Therefore, I prefer to either Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Bitcoin has an extremely volatile exchange rate."
 * "The price of bitcoins has fluctuated wildly..."
 * keep just one of the sentences, or
 * explain to the reader (which is a reasonable encyclopedic approach) that both formulations are encountered, but they are the same information
 * Ladislav, saw this too, agree, we must be thinking the same things. suggest to keep the second sentence in line with the commodity argument, bloombergs new price info service, rather than exchange rate, which reminds everyone of money (!?%&*#) "Bitcoin's price has fluctuated very much." I think the terms wild and extreme shouldn't be used, are sensationalizing WP:ASTONISH and thus editorializing. thanks for bringing it up. --Wuerzele (talk) 20:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * In my opinion "exchange rate" should be changed to "price" in the first sentence. "Exchange rate" is normally used meaning a foreign exchange rate between two different national currencies. Bitcoin has no nationality. It is a universal medium of exchange. Bitcoin is never a foreign exchange. I do agree that a price is the exchange rate at which a bitcoin and another economic item is exchanged. The term "exchange rate" is normally associated with foreign exchange.SpiltOctacle (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * [User:Wuerzele|Wuerzele]], in fact, there is the information from Mark T. Williams specifying how large the volatility is. That makes any weasel formulation (including "fluctuating very much") superfluous. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * SpiltOctacle re '"exchange rate" should be changed to "price"' - your arguments are very weak, based just on WP:OR; "exchange rate" can be used whenever exchange is performed, especially when it is used by reliable sources. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I was just making an honest and good faith suggestion. Will avoid it in future.SpiltOctacle (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * 'You don´t have to attribute WP:OR to me' - I never did. I attributed it to the idea that "exchange rate" cannot be used for some contrived reason. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I changed the quote about the "price of bitcoins has fluctuated wildly." The citation says "wild gyrations" but doesn't specifically state wild price gyrations. Fleetham (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * this is the most disingenious edit you could do, and it is typical of your disruptive editing behavior. your edit ignores etiquette and discussion, (and this is no personal attack, merely facts, read the policy). to me, you shoot from the hip, and you do it knowingly, have been doing it for years, despite others pointing it out.--Wuerzele (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder... You said about the below two quotes from the article that you "prefer to... keep just one of the sentences..." I previously removed the 'fluctuated wildly' one, so no need to delete the other one, too! Fleetham (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * "Bitcoin has an extremely volatile exchange rate"
 * "The price of bitcoins has fluctuated wildly..."


 * Actually, the "extremely volatile price" is unspecific. It is also superfluous, since the specific information is available. Certainly, even 6 times the volatility of gold would be extreme, however, 7 times volatility of gold is not just "extreme", it is higher than 6 times volatility of gold. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Insisting on the unspecific information is like insisting to write that RMS Titanic was "long" when knowing the length was 269.0 m. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Having a "non-specific" measure of volatility is important because it provides context for those who are unfamiliar with what is considered a "normal" amount of volatility. Simply saying something is "1000 units" or "10 times bigger than a thingamajig" is specific but also meaningless for anyone who is unfamiliar with the magnitude of a unit or the size of a thingamajig. There is no WP policy that insists on removing unspecific measures, and when I add the sentence back to the article with a new citation I trust that you won't remove it! Fleetham (talk) 22:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Just a small roundup of sources that refer to bitcoin as being very volatile:
 * | "Bitcoin Crashes, Continues To Be Extremely Volatile" valuewalk.com
 * |"It makes sense that a startup currency would be highly volatile..." Forbes
 * |"Bitcoin is extremely volatile right now" Washington Post
 * |"bitcoin is also known to be extremely volatile" coinreport.net
 * |"The Bitcoin market is extremely volatile" Delaware County News Network
 * |"Bitcoin is extremely volatile" The Darien Times
 * | "The assumption that Bitcoin is a bubble comes from the digital currency’s extreme volatility." bitcoinmagazine.com
 * Fleetham (talk) 22:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "Having a "non-specific" measure of volatility is important because it provides context for those who are unfamiliar with what is considered a "normal" amount of volatility." - that is actually not the case, if the "information" provided does not give any useful comparison. Certainly, the specific information provided by Mark T. Williams gives a useful comparison, since it compares the volatility to both gold and S&P 500. The "information" that the volatility is "extreme" is totally useless for anybody unfamiliar with volatility since it does compare it to anything at all. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

context does not mean comparison. Fleetham (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, I see that I should make it understandable. Using your terminology, there is absolutely no "context" in the "volatility is extreme" formulation. For it to provide at least some context, it would be necessary to specify the group in which the volatility is extreme (maximal). Stating "volatility is extreme" without providing the context does not provide any information at all. For example, if taking a group containig just one element (bitcoin), bitcoin surely would be both maximal and minimal, i.e., extreme in the group. Does that provide any information at all? No. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I think that saying "volatility is extreme" does provide context. And I'm not sure I understand your "bitcoin is wholly unique" argument above. The very fact that it does have high volatility is an argument for the fact that bitcoin is not one of a kind. I mean, it's like I'm saying, "whales have big flippers," and you're saying "whales aren't fish!" Yes, but they still have big flippers. If you take a look at all the things that have volatility, you'll find that few are as volatile as bitcoin. Fleetham (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "I'm not sure I understand your "bitcoin is wholly unique" argument above." - that is because I did not make it. You just did not understand the implications of the example I made. Let's make another simple example, this time it should be more clear. A locomotive of 5 m length may be extreme (minimal) in some group of locomotives, being relatively small to other members of the group. However, if taken as a member of a group of locomotives under 10 m it may be average size. As a member of a group of locomotive models it may even be huge compared to other locomotive models. Thus, without providing context, saying something is "extreme" does not give any information at all. Yet another example concerning bitcoin: Mark T. Williams wisely and rightly chose a group containg 3 members: bitcoin, gold, S&P 500. If he used a group containing just two elements, then, perhaps surprisingly for you, both members would be extreme in the group, one being minimal and the other being maximal. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, why do you object to mentioning it on the page then? From what you're saying, as far as I can understand, there's no reason not to mention it... Fleetham (talk) 07:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I already demonstrated that the sentence mentioning that the volatility is extreme without providing some "context" is uninformative. I think that should be clear now. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

A missing notable thing about bitcoin
Antonopoulos says bitcoin is the first currency not controlled by government or a company. While the lead mentions it isn't controlled by a single entity it doesn't state that it is the first currency to do so. Shouldn't that be included? - Shiftchange (talk) 07:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, please do add it! I'm not sure the lede is the best place to do so, but it should be included in the article. Fleetham (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I would not say it is the first. In history, there were many currencies not controlled by government or a company. The fact is, though, that at present currencies are controlled by government or a company, bitcoin being an exception. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * @Ladislav Mecir Please specify which company/ies control which currencies in which ways?


 * All (the many) cryptocurrencies - appearing daily - are not controlled by government: bitcoin is not an exception. Bitcoin is part of the norm that cryptocurrencies are created outside the control of central banks/monetary authorities/governments.


 * @ Shiftchange The lede refers to central banks (which are set up by governments, but are generally policy independent from governments) by example. So, the reality that bitcoin is not controlled by government is already in the lede.

MonteDaCunca (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent changes to article lead
Am I to understand that MonteDaCunca must be allowed to put in any false statement and mark it ? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I also want to point out that it was MonteDaCunca that both put the sentence in and marked it. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Mecir, when you read this talk page, previous topic, you will see that the statement was offered by another editor, 84 something. He/she supplied some useful info regarding fees here on the talk page. I put in the statement and asked for a citation, just like Fleetham asked for a citation here on the talk page. We have to treat all editors with respect. That is why I asked for a citation. If no citation is supplied, I am not sure about the time period that has to be allowed, maybe one month or so, then we simply remove the statement. I personally know almost nothing about bitcoin fees. Editor 84  seemed to be well-informed about the subject of bitcoin fees. He actually suggested some changes to the article. I made the suggested changes to the article, BUT, I asked for citations, because I, personally, have no idea whether the statement is completely false or  not. But, we have to show respect to the editor. That is why I asked for a citation in the article, just like Fleetham enquired about citations in the talk page. It would be better to follow WP procedures and leave the statement in, as offered, and leave the citation request in. Remove it after the correct period, if no ¨citation is provided. The worst part here, is that you remove a citation request. That is completely forbidden. I have no idea whether the statement is false or not. That is why we have to follow WP procedure and ask for a citation. It is quite simple actually. I agree it must be frustrating to you if you know that the statement is completely false. I honestly know almost nothing about bitcoin fees. I don´t know whether it is false or not. I only know we have to show respect to all editors and follow WP procedures.MonteDaCunca (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Fleetham (talk) 05:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Banks
Fleetham (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Fleetham (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Fleetham, you reverted a change I made here without discussion. Your edit summary WP:FUTURE does not fit. Large financial institutions have become increasingly bullish. This isnt future and is perfectly true. I wrote this, because Bank of America isnt "just a bank", neither is Bloomberg LP and its financial institutions that are getting into the game and need to be in this article. Please revert your edit.--Wuerzele (talk) 20:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC) User:Fleetham you also reverted my other addition about the development of high speed trading. You found a mistake: i wrote 'launch' instead of 'development'. Good! so why not correct it? you deleted wholesale, and THIS IS HOSTILE BEHAVIOR. YOU KNOW THERE ARE OTHER WAYS of communicating /editing. Warning: If you revert one more time today, I will report you again. --Wuerzele (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Restored ---Wuerzele (talk) 05:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC) User:Fleetham, I havent received a response to teh above in a week.

Besides the above reversals, on May 1 you also deleted 320,000 terminals I had included. I find this information is relevant. It gives an idea of the magnitude of Bitcoin exposure to Wall Street traders. I reinserted it absent other opinions by Ladislav or MonteDaCunca, for example.

Besides the above reversals you also reinserted, and changed the semicolon that clearly conjoined the 2 sentences to a period, under "Price" (which you also changed to Price and Volatility) The sentences are sourced from the same reference as I clearly communicated to you. It is your duty to read the sources and respect a good faith edit. I find it hostile to reinsert the despite my information that its in the source. I think you owe me an apology.

you have been told that you overreference by several users in the past. Per WP:Citation overkill, if one source supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient. It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill.citations should be placed at the end of the passage that they support. --Wuerzele (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Citation for nominal fee
I added the citation as researched by 84user to the consensual wording of the sentence: Users can send and receive bitcoins electronically for a nominal fee using wallet software on a personal computer, mobile device, or a web application.

Previously, there were questions whether the above formulation was correct/verifiable, so I think that the citation verifying the formulation is of use. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Your reference is not for USERS .. USING.. MOBILE DEVICE or for NOMINAL FEE. Your reference is for transaction fees during mining. A user, 84, suggested disambiguation of above. Please read his comments. And please stop edit warring. Accept the verifialble facts as stated above and on the article. Thank you.MonteDaCunca (talk) 10:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

In this case I saw MonteDaCunca removing the citation 3 times in a short period of time. I know that Fleetham and Wuerzele are interested in the article lead wording, that is why I would like them to contribute to this discussion. Thanks. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Plse see comment above by John Nagle (talk

by -84user and by editor Meijring regarding this subject above.

I do not think you will find anyone agreeing that a reference regarding transactions fees during mining refers to users using a mobile device or referring to the phrase "nominal fee". MonteDaCunca (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Just restore the citation and modify the article text to fit the source. Replace "nominal" by "arbitrary" or "optional" and replace "fee" with "miner's transaction fee". Something like this:


 * "Users electronically send and receive bitcoins including an arbitrary fee (insert cite here); they do this using various wallet software on a personal computer, mobile device, or web application. Some software enforces a standard possibly non-zero fee."


 * That's just one suggestion, there're many ways to phrase the concept. Cites for various software are not hard to find, see blockchain.info. -84user (talk) 11:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * 84user (talk Is it possible to mine bitcoins on a mobile device?MonteDaCunca (talk) 12:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Hopefully irrelevant, see below. -84user (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Rather, do users actually carry out bitcoin mining on a mobile device, apparently a mobile phone on a notable and verifiable manner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MonteDaCunca (talk • contribs) 12:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Also hopefully irrelevant, see below. -84user (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Clearly an "arbitrary fee" ONLY and exclusively refers to mining and nothing else. It does not refer to commercial transactions between clients on exchanges and shops and online ecommerce. You cannot buy bitcoins on an exchange and "arbitrarily" decide to pay a fee or not to pay a fee. You always pay a fee. The same is true in bitcoin commerce. I think it is best to separate fees into transactions fees in mining and bitcoin commerce fees. MonteDaCunca (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * No, true, who knows, who knows, unclear, agree. Hopefully clarified below. -84user (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * 84user wrote: "Just restore the citation and modify the article text to fit the source." - thank you for a sensible suggestion. If wanting to modify the formulation, I would probably prefer "optional transaction fee", since it communicates (in my opinion) the fact that the transaction fee must be nonnegative better than the formulation "arbitrary fee". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, even "optional miner's transaction fee" to make doubly clear we are discussing just the bitcoin protocol and not any intermediary service. Also, I erred in including "and receive" because the bitcoin protocol does not provide such a function (as far as I know). -84user (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The basic problem remains: it is a wrong citation. The citation request is for "nominal fee" which is allegedly paid by "users" including on a mobile device. The citation offered by 84user is for transaction fees paid by miners and not for "users" making bitcoin payments including on a mobile device.MonteDaCunca (talk) 15:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My suggestion avoids any need for a citation for "nominal" as that term should disappear from the article. I fail to understand what you mean by "transaction fee paid by miners" - this appears to be a confusion with the fees that miners get, they do not pay them. Noone is suggesting mining on a mobile device, that text should be discussing only the client to client transfer of bitcoins (in reality address to address, but better leave that for the technical details section). -84user (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * 84user made a another very sensible suggestion: "I suggest unambiguously separating the miner's transaction fee (which can be zero up to 100%) from off-blockchain fees charged by entities (eg. exchanges, payment processors). Removing the 2 % mention would be a start."MonteDaCunca (talk) 15:17, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The above is "to make the things absolutely clear even for " Ladislav Mecir.


 * The phrase "to make the things absolutely clear even for [insert honest, valuable contributor and good-faith editor name here]" was first used by Ladislav Mecir on this Bitcoin Talk Page with reference to me. Please see above. This phrase is obviously now freely available for use by anyone on Wikipedia. MonteDaCunca (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems that it has become the norm here on Wikipedia for normal, honest and good faith editors to be treated like sub-human and stupid, half-beings like Ladislav Mecir treats me above. This is very sad, but, unfortunately, there is nothing we can do about it. This is how Wikipedia works. Take it, or leave. MonteDaCunca (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * So, Ladislav Mecir, merrily proceed with your further insults. You are securely protected because Wikipedia regards you as a "valued editor" and Wikipedia regards me as not a valued editor. MonteDaCunca (talk) 18:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
 * we'll, if you would like others to regard you as a valued editor please immediately stop the personal attacks on Mercir. Comment in the content not the contributor. Please read and follow WP:NPA. Fleetham (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I notice you ignored Ladislav Mecir´s personal attack on me above: "to make the things absolutely clear even for MonteDaCunca". As you can see, my statement to him was in response to his ignored personal attack on me. Please read and follow WP:NPOV. MonteDaCunca (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Bitcoin´s transfer costs apparently not "nominal"
Bitcoin Is an Expensive Way to Pay for Stuff. See

It appears that the statement in the article that bitcoin is transferable at a "nominal" fee is misleading.

Maybe that statement should be improved.

MonteDaCunca (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * If you read the source carefully, you will find out that the source does not speak about "fee" but about "transfer costs", which is not the same. Also, the source is rather mistaken, counting inflation (in the sense of increase of the supply) into the transfer costs. For the comparison to be realistic, the source would need to do the same for all cases it compares, which it does not do. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

@ Ladislav Mecir So, you would thus state that bitcoin transfers are done at a nominal cost - almost for free or an immaterial cost?MonteDaCunca (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that there is nothing wrong in finding a source for the information and put the reference in. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Aha, well, checking the sources already present in the article, I think that they already suffice to verify the sentence. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * So the article has a reference(s) to the fact that bitcoin transactions are basically almost free of charge or at a nominal, almost immaterial cost and the Bloomberg columnist is completely mistaken? Could you please indicate that reference(s)? Do we still mention the contrary opinion? Or is that not notable from Bloomberg? MonteDaCunca (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It's hard to find a WP:RS reliable source for this. First, there's a fee paid to Bitcoin "miners" for inclusion in the block chain.  The current default fee is 0.0001 BTC per simple transaction.  This is simply a default value in the most popular client program. The client can set a higher or lower fee.  Transactions with higher fees are processed first, which only matters during very busy periods. (Per  but not RS.) There are other costs. Dealers such as Coinbase have a buy-sell spread.  Coinbase has a small spread, but with some Bitcoin ATMs it's much higher, plus there's a fee. Bitcoin exchanges have trading fees, and sometimes withdrawal fees.   There's also a sizable risk associated with Bitcoin exchanges; over half of them have failed, including the once-largest Mt Gox. It's reasonable to say that Bitcoin-only transactions are cheap, but getting in and out of Bitcoin is substantially more expensive and risky.   John Nagle (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "So the article has a reference(s) to the fact that bitcoin transactions are basically almost free of charge" - the "Bitcoin pursues the mainstream" source mentions that transactions are accepted even with zero fee, the "Bitcoin primer" source also mentions the transaction fee. I do not want to question the notability of the Bloomberg source. The source states that it uses its own definition of "transaction costs" different from transaction fee, and it also mentions that the additional amounts are paid neither by the payers nor by the payees, so they cannot be called "transaction fees" or compared to transaction fees of other payment methods, which use just transaction fees as paid by either the payer or the payee. I do not think the journalist is "mistaken". I do think that he states that there is a possibility to define some value called "transaction cost" different from "transaction fee". The problem is that he does not propose the "transaction cost" as a notion applicable to other payment methods, which automatically renders it unuseful for comparisons. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * 'It appears that the statement in the article that bitcoin is transferable at a "nominal" fee is misleading.' - frankly, it is not, since the fee is "nominal". The journalist needed to define a completely different category "transaction cost", which he stated is not paid by either the payer or the payee. He knows and states in the article that he may be mistaken doing it this way. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely with Mercir on this. The "nominal fee" mentioned refers to an optional transaction fee that can be added to a transaction and works like a tip. The Bloomberg article discusses how the mining reward acts as a tax on everyone who uses bitcoin, and the author is nice enough to note that this cost "isn't a transaction fee." Fleetham (talk) 04:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The citation is required in terms of WP policies for the term "nominal fee". The Bloomberg article has nothing to do with the citation for "nominal fee". I noted that the Bloomberg article stated the opposite. Fee and cost is the same thing. The term cost is well understood. It is well known that fee is also a cost. Please ignore the Bloomberg quote with reference to the citation request. MonteDaCunca (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems to me, I may be wrong, that you are pretending that I was giving the Bloomberg quote as the required reference. I did not. You keep referring the Bloomberg reference. The Bloomberg article has to do with the opposite of "nominal fee". It has to do with "expensive" which is the opposite of nominal fee. MonteDaCunca (talk) 08:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Mr Mecir, I think it is a punishable offense on WP to remove a citation request without giving the citation. Please don´t do it again. Someone may sancion you here on WP for doing that.MonteDaCunca (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * A citation request cannot be removed without giving the citation. As per WP rules.
 * As a procedural point, I believe that MonteDaCuna is right on this. Per WP:BRD you can revert to a prior consensus for content changes, but you cannot remove tags like "citation needed", "dubious - discuss" or "the neutrality of this page is disputed". As a substantive point, I'm not sure the average fee can be considered nominal anymore, unless you compare it to the fees for international transactions. The fee mechanism in bitcoin-qt is being overhauled precisely because fees had become unreasonable. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "I'm not sure the average fee can be considered nominal" - the statement does not tell anything about "average". It states that users can pay a nominal fee, which is verified. The average is not mentioned at all. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I added the word average, but I'm referring to the same thing as the cited source, the optional transaction fee. Averaging is appropriate, because while the fee is optional, the transaction may be dropped unless the fee is paid. The average is therefore a good measure of the actual fees that are paid. I wasn't disputing that we have a source for the nominal fee, I'm pointing out that the source may be wrong or rather outdated. We'd need an additional source if we want to change the text to reflect that, I'm merely sharing a piece of information. Maybe we should find a source that describes recent changes to the default fee mechanism, why they were made, what future changes are planned etc. Shouldn't be too difficult, I'll see if I can find anything appropriate. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * An editor removed the citation request for "nominal" and stated that the article states that fees are from zero to 2%. Zero is nominal, but .25%, .5%, .75%, 1%, 1.25%, 1.5%, 1.72%, 2%, etc, etc are not nominal. Editor John Nagel, above, said bitcoin fees are cheap. We all know that cheap is not nominal. A company worth 100 billion USD being bought for 30 billion USD is cheap, but the $30 Billion is not a nominal value. If bitcoin fees were nominal surely it must be very easy to google for "bitcoin fee nominal" and get a WP Reliable Sources if that were true? MonteDaCunca (talk) 10:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The satement is: "Users can buy, send, and receive bitcoins electronically for a nominal fee" Note the can word. The source stating that users are allowed to pay nothing confirms that they can do that. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The article states "transaction fees are lower than the 2–3% typically imposed by credit card processors." That statement is not equal to "bitcoin transaction fees are nominal". MonteDaCunca (talk) 11:27, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: 'The citation is required in terms of WP policies for the term "nominal fee"' - I pointed out that the citation existed in the article, and was attached to the subsequent sentence.

However, to make the things absolutely clear even for MonteDaCunca


 * If you would like others to regard you as a valued editor please immediately stop the personal attacks on MonteDaCunca. Comment on the content not the contributor. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions. Wikipedia tries hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit above: "However, to make the things absolutely clear even for MonteDaCunca" seems less than neutral to me. It is rather insulting. Please read and follow WP:NPA.MonteDaCunca (talk) 01:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I rearranged the citation to make it clear that it applies to the "nominal fee" formulation. The formulation in the article does not state that the fee must be nominal at average, or for every user, it just states that users can make transfer, etc., for a nominal fee, which is verified by the statement in the source mentioning nothing as a possible fee. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, consensus is that the "nominal fee" bit is correct. And "nominal" does not mean "nothing" or "free." A nominal amount is a very small amount. Please don't revert, MonteDaCunca. Fleetham (talk) 16:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Mr. Fleetham: My first response (I have more to everyone) to you, specifically, is that Martijn Meijering (talk), who seems to be well versed in WP procedures, states above: "The fee mechanism in bitcoin-qt is being overhauled precisely because fees had become UNREASONABLE. I know, for a fact, that "UNREASONABLE" is not the same as "nominal": that I am absolutely sure of, even though Mr Mecir doubts my basic intellectual abilities - tsk, tsk. tsk. Mau, Mau, Mr Mecir! That statement by Mr Meijering puts an overwhelming onus on me to revert, which I will do in due course.MonteDaCunca (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I am confident that everyone here will agree that WP is about consensus. At the moment here on the talk page we have:


 * Mecir : nominal
 * Fleetham : nominal


 * John Nagel : cheap
 * Meijering : unreasonable (no-where even near nominal) The whole fee structure is to be overhauled.
 * MonteDaCunca: expensive - per Bloomberg.(also no-where near nominal)
 * NO citation for " Users can buy, send, and receive bitcoins electronically for a nominal fee." As Fleetham pointed out: nominal does NOT mean free or nothing. I agree with Fleetham. The current citation does not satisfy the request made.


 * I think the above is one of the indications why we need a specific citation - from a reliable source - for the statement that " Users can buy, send, and receive bitcoins electronically for a nominal fee.""


 * I agree - as I have stated above (which Fleetham and Mecir ignore) - that bitcoin fees can be zero (nothing) - see above. Yes. And also nominal. And also .25%, and also .5%, and also .75%, and also 1%, and also 1.25%, and also 1.5% and also 1.75%, upto close to 2%. It is very clear from all these different fee levels that, yes, free and nominal(the same) are two levels (one?), but, it is definitely NOT the general case. If someone should ask: how much are bitcoin fees? Then the answer: Bitcoin fees are generally nominal (as stated in the article) would NOT be correct. It certainly would be a misleading answer. Yes, they can be nominal, but, that is certainly not the GENERAL case. I am sure we all agree on this point.


 * Compromise: I suggest we add after "a nominal fee" "to just under a 2% fee." Thus: nominal fee stays and we add "to just under 2%." I think that is very close to correct. What is your response?MonteDaCunca (talk) 18:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * That would cover the whole fee range from nothing (free) all the way to just under 2%: the perfect answer. It is impossible for anyone (including Mecir and Fleetham) to be against this solution.MonteDaCunca (talk) 18:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * And people would not laugh at WP (us) for possibly misleading them (albeit unknowingly) that bitcoin fees are generally NOMINAL in real value - which they aren´t.MonteDaCunca (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * In the lede, all the article states is (a) "Users can buy, send, and receive bitcoins electronically for a NOMINAL fee" as if that is the GENERAL case (completely untrue - a lie, in fact) and (b) "merchants have an incentive to accept the currency because transaction fees are lower than the 2–3% typically imposed by credit card processors." Yes, they are generally NOMINAL - according to the article which is NOT TRUE - and, yes, NOMINAL is lower than 2-3%. There is currently NO specific content in the article that bitcoin fees can be from .25% to just under 2%. Everyone knows 1.75% is NOT NOMINAL when Kipetty states in Capital in the 21st Century that capital earns 3%. Imagine paying 1.75% fees when capital only grows at 3%!! 1.75% is NOT NOMINAL: it is MORE THAN 50% of your capital growth! MonteDaCunca (talk) 19:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I think everybody should be happy now. The current statement in the article "Users can send and receive bitcoins electronically for, from a nominal, to just under a 2% fee" with the Ladislav Mecir (talk New York Times reference "Fees for a merchant accepting bitcoin payments often range from nothing to less than 2 percent" now correctly indicates that bitcoin fees are not generally "nominal" but range from nominal to less than 2 percent. MonteDaCunca (talk) 03:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, let's talk about accuracy of the formulation relative to the source. You correctly read: "...range from nothing to less than 2 percent...".
 * Why, then, you felt the need to start the range at "nominal", which is a small fee higher than "nothing"?
 * Why do you state "just under two percent", when "less than 2 percent" is not indicating that?
 * Why do you tell your formulation is consensual, when nobody approved it? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * As an opening preamble: In my honest and humble opinion, I do not think your interrogative or courtroom style is very conducive to consensus building. This is not the Oscar Pistorius trial and you are not Gerrie Nel. We are here to work together as a team, not to put each other through the Inquisition. Just my friendly opinion. I think you are a person with legal training. Fine. But, I don´t think we should treat this like a courtroom.


 * I have already changed the article to state the exact quote in the New York Times reference, namely "from nothing to less than 2 percent". Thus, absolutely no area for disagreement. Now, Mr. Gerrie Nel, let me answer your Inquisition, My Lady! :-) :-)


 * I originally "felt the need to start the range at "nominal", which is a small fee higher than "nothing"", because "nominal" was already in the text.


 * I originally stated (past tense) "just under two percent", when "less than 2 percent" is not exactly the same
 * because I am trained in the field of economics and the European Central Bank states:


 * "The ECB’s Governing Council has announced a quantitative definition of price stability:
 * "Price stability is defined as a year-on-year increase in the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP) for the euro area of below 2%."
 * The Governing Council has also clarified that, in the pursuit of price stability, it aims to maintain inflation rates below, but close to, 2% over the medium term."


 * As you can see from the above, I am used to the idea that a target "below 2%" would normally be "below, but close to, 2%".


 * Your very serious concern and final question regarding my original formulation is now irrelevant since I have already changed it (before I started answering all your questions) to the exact formulation in the source which should now result in complete consensus: the formulation in the article is 100% equal to the formulation in the source.MonteDaCunca (talk) 09:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, let´s talk about you Ladislav Mecir (talk.


 * Why, then, do you want to know the motivation behind my edits, when this is not the normal procedure on WP?
 * Is there a WP Policy that is about explaining your motivations for your edits? For example WP: MOTIVATION?
 * Is MOTIVATION one of the pillars of WP policy, like WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:NOTABILITY?
 * What is your motivation behind asking me to EXPLAIN my motivations?
 * Are you trained in the legal profession or in any legal area?
 * Are you a public prosecutor in normal life?
 * Were you planning to delete my edits and justify your deletions as "wrong or unacceptable motivations"? I am really perplexed.

MonteDaCunca (talk) 12:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

unindent. The lede currently states "Users can send and receive bitcoins electronically for a fee ranging "from nothing to less than 2 percent"". This is better than claiming nominal, but is not quite accurate in that 2 % is an arbitrary figure. In truth the miners transaction fee can be zero up to 100 %. Any source that claims it's limited to 2 % is mistaken or oversimplifying. The New York Times source actually states "Fees for a merchant accepting bitcoin payments often range from nothing to less than 2 percent". It's refering to merchant transactions, not pure person to person (or better address to address) bitcoin blockchain-mediated transactions.

How to phrase that idea in the lede though?

I suggest unambiguously separating the miner's transaction fee (which can be zero up to 100%) from off-blockchain fees charged by entities (eg. exchanges, payment processors). Removing the 2 % mention would be a start.

The next sentence is also misleading: "Bitcoin as a form of payment for products and services has seen growth,[13] and merchants have an incentive to accept the currency because transaction fees are lower than the 2–3% typically imposed by credit card processors".

Maybe rephrase this as "... because total transaction fees/costs can be made lower than ... "? -84user (talk) 09:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you have citations? Fleetham (talk) 10:01, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The claim "miner's transaction fee (which can be zero up to 100%)" could be cited from Satoshi's paper Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System, page 4, section 6.: "The incentive can also be funded with transaction fees. If the output value of a transaction is less than its input value, the difference is a transaction fee that is added to the incentive value of the block containing the transaction." Although "arbitrary, possibly zero" could be better phrasing given and . We could leave the full details to the body as they are complex and would confuse the reader. An academic secondary source could be  section 4.2. -84user (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

84user (talk I agree with you that "I suggest unambiguously separating the miner's transaction fee (which can be zero up to 100%) from off-blockchain fees charged by entities (eg. exchanges, payment processors)." The two need to be separated. MonteDaCunca (talk) 09:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * 84user (talk Thank you very much for your very valuable input. I think we all agree that the matter of "bitcoin fees" has three aspects:


 * 1. It is certainly not NOMINAL as some people tried to assert. It is natural that bitcoin price speculators would like to push this idea. That is fine. That is normal for speculators to do that. Nothing wrong with that. We now know, however, that fees are NOT normally NOMINAL. I think that matter has been properly resolved.


 * 2. There are merchant fees


 * and


 * 3. There are miners´ fees,


 * The article needs to show this. The article needs to show, with citations, what merchant fees are and what miners' fees are, in general.

MonteDaCunca (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Apropos: The following 2 sentences "Payers have an incentive to include transaction fees because their transactions will likely be added to the block chain sooner; miners can choose which transactions to process[citation needed] and prefer to include those that pay fees."  are superfluous IMHO (in my humble opinion), because already stated in the preceding sentence, which quotes Bitcoinfoundation (better source needed). I am for deleting those 2 sentences, FYI Fleetham and Ladislav.
 * MonteDaCunca and 84user feel free to describe merchant and miner's fees; there's just the little problem of finding the sources for it... :-) I've only seen the murky term "transaction fees". --Wuerzele (talk) 06:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Wuerzele With regard to finding/not finding a source: On the Citation template WP policy specifically asks editors not to remove an item they know is correct just because they cannot find an appropriate reference. Very accommodative and very good approach. I suppose it is called good judgement. MonteDaCunca (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * MonteDaCunca Fair enough. (I dont think I removed anything, or did I ? ) Just be mindful to find a ref for those terms, because someone may say its been sitting there long enough, needs WP:VERIFIABILITY.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

CN tag removed from unsourced material
Hi. In this recent edit, you removed a citation needed tag stating that no citation was needed because the source at the end of the paragraph supported the sentence. The sentence is question reads, "Access to price information has been difficult due to bitcoin's decentralized nature and lack of transparency." I've copied and pasted below the article you say supports that sentence. Could you please highlight the specific section? I haven't been able to find it.

Bloomberg to List Bitcoin Prices, Offering Key Stamp of Approval

More Than 320,000 Subscribers to the Firm's Terminals Will Now Have Access to Bitcoin Prices Bloomberg LP plans to list bitcoin prices on its financial data terminals, a move that could give the volatile digital currency a stamp of respectability and spark interest in U.S.-based trading platforms.

According to a blog post on Bloomberg's corporate website, the more than 320,000 subscribers to the firm's terminals will now have access to bitcoin prices from Kraken and Coinbase, both of San Francisco. Kraken bills itself as a bitcoin exchange while Coinbase, which provides payment processing for merchants and digital wallets for individuals, functions more as a broker-dealer. One person familiar with Bloomberg's decision said it was made in response to requests from hundreds of customers wanting access to bitcoin prices. The facility, which allows users to chart prices, has been in development since last year.

"While bitcoin and other virtual currency markets are still nascent, they represent an interesting intersection of finance and technology," wrote Tod Van Name, Bloomberg global head of fixed income, currencies and commodities in the blog post. "Given that Bloomberg sits squarely at that intersection, providing pricing for this underdeveloped market is a natural fit for us."

He added that the move reflects the firm's objective of bringing transparency to "all markets, even digital currencies."

Bloomberg competes with Dow Jones, publisher of The Wall Street Journal, in news and other areas. Dow Jones is owned by News Corp. NWSA +1.65%

In relaying prices from the two exchanges, Bloomberg's move doesn't enhance or standardize existing prices like a newly engineered index from multiple price feeds would. The financial data provider said its move didn't amount to an endorsement or guarantee of bitcoin and that customers wouldn't be able to trade the digital currency on a Bloomberg terminal.

Still, investors could welcome the news as a vote of confidence in bitcoin, which has seen its price halved since December following a string of negative developments.

Bloomberg terminals, a fixture on trading desks across Wall Street, are a key part of the trading infrastructure used by banks, hedge funds and other deep-pocketed professional investors, a group whose money could bring significantly more liquidity to bitcoin trading.

"On Wall Street, an investible asset class is considered to be something that's quoted on the Bloomberg terminal," says Barry Silbert, chief executive of SecondMarket Inc., which launched a bitcoin investment fund in September. He has predicted once Bloomberg quotes a bitcoin price it would open it the currency up to "substantial institutional investor interest."

The blog post hinted that more bitcoin products could be in the works, telling readers to "stay tuned for more." It wasn't clear whether a price index, trading functionality or some other enhancement was under consideration.

Bloomberg's decision to draw prices from Kraken and Coinbase could provide a boost to those firms, raising their profile among professional investors. For Kraken in particular, which like Coinbase and other U.S.-based bitcoin businesses has been busily gathering U.S. regulatory backing for its operation, it could help it compete with offshore exchanges such as Slovenia-based Bitstamp and Bulgaria-based BTC-e, currently the two biggest bitcoin exchanges.

Bloomberg's decision to publish bitcoin prices coincides with moves to develop high-tech, federally regulated exchanges that would cater to professional investors in the digital currency rather than the individuals who have comprised most of the trading volume until now. These include a new platform targeted at high-frequency trading firms launched by Atlas ATS in New York and Hong Kong, one from London-based Coinfloor, which claims to the first auditable bitcoin exchange, and a separate SecondMarket project to build an exchange for institutional investors.

Digital-currency enthusiasts on Wall Street and pro-bitcoin venture capitalists argue these new exchanges are needed to generate the kind of trading volumes that would smooth out bitcoin's price, whose volatility is seen as an impediment to its widespread adoption.

According to an index from news site Coindesk, bitcoin's price soared last year from $13.51 at the end of 2012 to an all-time high of $1,151.30 on Dec. 4. That was driven in part by increased adoption as businesses world-wide began accepting payments in the digital currency and as U.S. regulators signaled an unexpectedly accommodative stance toward the new technology.

But since then, the price has fallen sharply amid concerns over a crackdown in China, a hacking attack that briefly crippled the digital currency's core network, and the collapse of Tokyo-based Mt. Gox, once the dominant bitcoin exchange. Thanks, Fleetham (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Fleetham, Thanks for pasting the article here.

the term transparency is here: the move reflects the firm's objective of bringing transparency to "all markets, even digital currencies." the term "access to bitcoin prices" is here: a person familiar with Bloomberg's decision said it was made in response to requests from hundreds of customers wanting access to bitcoin prices. I dont see a quote for access to price info being difficult. Maybe it was in teh paper version. You may know they differ quite a bit. I found another ref for that from 20 Feb 2014 should you find it necessary--Wuerzele (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay... so I guess what your saying is that you have no source to support the claim, "access to price information has been difficult due to bitcoin's decentralized nature and lack of transparency"?


 * First, you need something that states, "access to price information has been difficult".


 * Second, you need something that says this difficulty is due to "bitcoin's decentralized nature and lack of transparency".


 * Neither your original source nor the link you just posted do this. Fleetham (talk) 07:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Unit of account
"bitcoin" is a currency unit of account since bitcoin is a digital currency as the German ruling found. How do you count how many bitcoins there are in an electronic wallet or on an exchange, etc?

However, it is not used as a unit of account in accounting, to price all items in the economy, calculate the Consumer Price Index, etc.: it does not perform the "monetary" unit of account function for which it has to be perfectly stable (or assumed to be perfectly stable - generally relatively stable, like fiat currencies) in real value (speculators actually hope it will eventually increase in price continuously).

But, it is a unit of account since it is a digital currency. Its unit is 1 and it can then be in decimal fractions of 1. MonteDaCunca (talk) 11:30, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Ledger is an accounting term. It is only possible to make entries in an account in a ledger in terms of a unit of account. MonteDaCunca (talk) 11:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

In the lead it is stated that bitcoin is a unit of account. Then later on it is stated that it is not a unit of account in terms of a function of money. It is thus very useful to show the difference between currency unit of account (every currency is always expressed in at least its basic unit of account, normally 1) and the monetary function "unit of account" which is the "accounting" unit of account.MonteDaCunca (talk) 20:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The change replacing the standard, widely used, and covered by a Wikipedia article "unit of account" term by a nonstandard, original, and not attributable to reliable sources "accounting unit of account" term is mistaken. There is no such notion in the literature; please respect the No original research policy. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * "There is not such notion in the literature". Ask any accountant and he/she will tell you you are making a big mistake. I think you are making a mistake. Understanding something, is not the same as original research. Unit of account in accounting is not an original term I now first identified here on WP. See, for example: "In cases where people wish to keep track of their financial activities, they also use units of account in a practice known as accounting." The google search "Unit of account in accounting" produces 67 300 000 results.MonteDaCunca (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You state: ""accounting unit of account" term is mistaken. There is no such notion in the literature" Well look at this: What is unit of account? Unit by which value of a thing is accounted.


 * And this: 	economics the function of money that enables the user to keep accounts,


 * And this: a monetary denomination used for accounting purposes,


 * there are 67 million more according to google

MonteDaCunca (talk) 20:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The WP article Unit of account also states: "Inflation destroys the assumption that the unit of account is stable which is the basis of classic accountancy. In such circumstances, historical values registered in accountancy books become heterogeneous amounts measured in different units. The use of such data under traditional accounting methods without previous correction often leads to invalid results.


 * Unit of account is all about accounting because it is one of the three functions of money and money is used as the unit of account in accounting.

MonteDaCunca (talk) 21:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Ladislav Mecir Thus, can you please take back your accusation that I am doing original research here on WP. I am sure you can see by now that you have made a mistake. Or do you maintain that unit of account now has nothing, has had nothing in the past and will never in the future have anything to do with accounting? How do you suggest the world economy would then function without using the monetary unit of account in accounting? Please explain. It would be a revolution to do accounting without a monetary unit of account. We are open to your suggestions. MonteDaCunca (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, unless Mercir has strong objections, I don't see any reason to not say "bitcoin is the unit of account for the bitcoin system." That seems sort of self evident. Fleetham (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no objections at all against using the "unit of account" term. My above objections were against the edit replacing the "unit of account" formulation by "accounting unit of account". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * In the lead it is stated that Bitcoin uses its own unit of account. Then further down it was stated that it is not commonly used as a unit of account. That was confusing. I changed it to not being commonly used as an accounting unit of account. MonteDaCunca (talk) 08:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)~


 * I do have to agree with Mercir on objecting to the formulation "accounting unit of account." What does that mean? Also, follow WP:NPA. This is the second time I've had to ask. Fleetham (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * See above. This is waste of time. MonteDaCunca (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Please remember to remain WP:CIVIL. No need for all-caps, and no place for personal attacks. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Martijn Meijering Please be civil. Please stop your personal attacks on me. MonteDaCunca (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Reminding people to remain WP:CIVIL does not constitute a personal attack, let alone multiple attacks. Disruptive editors tend to dig their own graves and end up blocked. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Martijn Meijering Please inform me: What must I do when I have written a detailed explanation of "accounting unit of account" in this sub-section above and then I am asked: what do you mean by "accounting unit of account" ?? I suppose your answer will now be: what do you mean with "accounting unit of account"? Please ask me that question too. MonteDaCunca (talk) 16:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Year of next halving of bitcoins mined per block changed from 2017 to 2016.
The article previously gave 2017 as the year in which bitcoins mined per block is expected to fall from 25 to 12.5. This is incorrect. The last halving was in 2012 with changes occurring roughly every 4 years. The next halving is expected to occur around min 2016 as per http://bitcoinclock.com/. Technically the change will occur after exactly 210,000 blocks have been mined since the last change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aussiejohn (talk • contribs) 05:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the second sentence
I was going to edit, but I'm not 100% sure if I'm correct, I think the line "The payments in the system are recorded in a public ledger using its own unit of account,which is also called bitcoin." should read "The payments in the system are recorded in a public ledger using its own unit of account,[5] which is called the block chain."

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_chain

Like I said I'm not 100% sure so I'll leave this comment and hope someone more knowledgeable or authoritative than me can fix it ^^; Simplicity lies within chaos (talk) 09:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the "unit of account" is bitcoin. The "public ledger" is the block chain. As the appositive lies closest to "unit of account," the words after the comma should describe "unit of account" not "public ledger." The sentence as it stands is correct. If you are in need of further clarification, the sentence could read: "The payments in the system are recorded in a public ledger, called the block chain, using its own unit of account, which is also called bitcoin." Fleetham (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, yes that makes more sense, sorry. I'm not the sharpest tool in the box, hence why I posted here first Simplicity lies within chaos (talk) 09:54, 21 May 2014 (UTC)