Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 23

Regarding removal of black market gloss in lede
A recent contributor has removed material relating to bitcoin's use in online black markets (see diff here). Supposedly, this is in accordance with a consensus reached at Talk:Bitcoin. However, not only was removal of the material not discussed in that thread, a participant in that consensus, JorgeGabriel, stated in a separate talk thread (Talk:Bitcoin) that "having now read the subsection titled Black Market, I think that it is an excellent subsection and a summary of it should definitely appear in the lede." Fleetham (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a heads up, but I'll be re-including the material soon. Fleetham (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The contributor saw the dispute and understood that the removal was discussed in it,citing the reason why the material was removed. Regarding 's opinion, I asked him specifically whether he wanted to change his opinion on the subject, and he wrote: " I would rather just withdraw from this dispute." This obviously does not support your proposed change. I am against such a change as well, since it would make the lead section biased for the reasons specified above: it is not possible to list the ways how to make illicit purchases, if not balanced by a similar list of legal purchases, but such a list would be too big not only for the lead section, but also for the whole article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:21, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, since the contributor in question, JorgeGabriel, made the comment that "a summary of [bitcoin being associated with black market activity] should definitely appear in the lede" it appears that he would like to see the material in the lede. You seem suggest otherwise, but I'm unsure on what basis. Fleetham (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * And just as a reminder, WP:LEAD states, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Fleetham (talk) 07:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * JorgeGabriel expressed the opinion in this edit. I recall that other editors took part in the above dispute, and the change proposed here will be biased and usupported by consensus. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Simpy because an editor decides to withdraw from a discussion due to "argument fatigue" does not mean the statements he or she made prior are suddenly irrelevant. I have yet to hear one rules-based reason why the material shouldn't be included in the lede. Fleetham (talk) 07:51, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I see the "concern the virtual currencies can help facilitate crimes" is already represented in the lead in a balanced way. Your proposed addition can only disbalance the state listing all ways how to make illicit purchases. That does not belong to the lead section, since it is not a short summary of the matter, and since it is not balanced. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Importantly, there is still a consensus that the change proposed here would not be a short summary, and that it would disbalance the lead section by listing all the illicit purchases possible to make. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC) Also, importantly, the opinion presented in the lead section is a summary opinion made by representatives of all law enforcement agencies represented at the senate hearings. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I actually have no idea what you're talking about... Perhaps you could be more perspicuous because WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Fleetham (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, I'm asking you to explain further. There is no consensus I am aware of, and I'm actually not sure why it's in any way important that "the opinion [currently] presented in the lead section is a summary opinion made by representatives of all law enforcement agencies represented at the senate hearings." In any case, that's false, as the only law enforcement body quoted in the lede currently is the US Department of Justice while the same article you pulled the DoJ quote from states that the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and the Secret Service have also been present at congressional hearings per the following quote, "'At a Monday Senate hearing, Jennifer Shasky Calvery of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and Mythili Raman of the Department of Justice Criminal Division discussed the matter of virtual currencies such as Bitcoin. Ms. Raman said that while the anonymity of virtual currencies appeals to criminals and poses a challenge for law enforcement, U.S. authorities have 'been able to keep pace with that, and we've been able to develop protocols and strategies to address it.' At Monday's hearing, officials from the U.S. Secret Service, which investigates counterfeit currencies, and the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network detailed successful investigations into criminals using bitcoin or other currencies.'" Likewise, the "summary opinion" of the DoJ is not necessarily that bitcoin is a legitimate financial service, as a DoJ employee is quoted above as saying, "the anonymity of virtual currencies appeals to criminals and poses a challenge for law enforcement." Fleetham (talk) 09:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I've asked multiple times for clarification. You say "there already is a consensus" but I really would appreciate it if you could point that out to me. I do not believe that there is such a consensus. Fleetham (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, I'm going to go ahead and put the material back into the lede soon. Fleetham (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've asked several times for clarification and for you to point me to where I can find some consensus that the material is to be removed. You have not done so instead simply reverting attempts to replace the content. Consensus can change, and as myself and another editor have expressed a desire to see the material covered in the lede, it appears that consensus is currently in favor of keeping the content. Please discuss not revert. Fleetham (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Original research in the Black markets section
reverted an "according to whom?" template added by, justifying the reversal as follows: "a logical conclusion needs no citation". That is an obvious disrespect to WP:NOR policy, and edit warring. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I flagged an unsourced statement, because it looks like WP:OR.
 * Fleetham reverted the edit which was not visible as such in his edit summary . I am no vandal that needs to be reverted, and suggested WP:TALKDONTREVERT on his talk page. Suggested if he was keen in getting flags off the page, why not start with the oldest and obvious, right at the front of the article about the lede's lack of neutrality. Since November 21 Ladislav has patiently and diligently worked with Fleetham on [Talk:Bitcoin]. The majority of editors involved editing the page have given their opinion to a proposed alternative, Fleetham did not, stonewalling the agreed upon process. Ladislav went through the trouble of filing an ANI, which for unclear reasons unfortunately went nowhere, so we're still dealing with this WP:POV tag for the lede.
 * Fleetham was also editwarring in November, violating 3RR with 5 reverts in 24 h, as noted by Ladislav and EdJohnston (admin warning) -and deleted the admin warning from his page. .--Wuerzele (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Copy + paste from news article in lede
The lede currently contains a mention of a US Senate hearing about virtual currencies that is copied and pasted from the article it cites. The lede section reads:

"The first-ever U.S. congressional hearing on virtual currencies was held on 18 November 2013. Authorities appearing at the hearing outlined the pitfalls and promises of bitcoin amid concern the virtual currencies can help facilitate crimes. At the hearing, the officials who have previously highlighted the currency's role in money laundering and other illicit activities, called bitcoin a 'legitimate' financial service."

The source, a WSJ article, reads, WASHINGTON—Senior U.S. law-enforcement and regulatory officials said they see benefits in digital forms of money and are making progress in tackling its risks. The price of bitcoin, the most common virtual currency, soared to a record following the comments.

U.S. authorities, appearing Monday at the first-ever congressional hearing on virtual currencies, outlined the pitfalls and promises of bitcoin amid concern the anonymity and decentralized nature of some virtual currencies can help facilitate crimes. The hearing provided a financial lift to bitcoin as U.S. officials, who have previously highlighted the currency's role in money laundering and other illicit activities, called it a "legitimate" financial service.

Is Bitcoin another flash in the pan? Or are the early investors onto something -- that will make them rich? WSJ's Jason Bellini has #TheShortAnswer. More Price Zooms Ahead of Hearing Read the Regulators' Testimony Bits and Pieces Mystery still surrounds Bitcoin. Its creator -— or creators -— has remained anonymous and specific details surrounding the history of the virtual currency remain fuzzy. Still, buzz is growing. Here's a rough timeline of the Bitcoin evolution.

View Graphics "The Department of Justice recognizes that many virtual currency systems offer legitimate financial services and have the potential to promote more efficient global commerce," Mythili Raman, acting assistant attorney general for the department's criminal division, said in testimony before the SenateHomeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who didn't attend the hearing, said in a letter to senators that virtual currencies "may hold long-term promise, particularly if the innovations promote a faster, more secure, and more efficient payment system."

Enlarge Image

Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman, at hearing. Associated Press The price of bitcoin soared early Monday after the officials' statements were widely reported. On one exchange, Tokyo-based Mt. Gox, the price topped $700. Bitcoin traded at about $13 in January.

The total market capitalization of the bitcoin economy now exceeds $8 billion based on recent prices, according to the website Bitcoincharts.com.

The congressional hearing is the first of two being held this week, with the Senate Banking Committee expected to hear from a senior Treasury Department official and a Massachusetts banking regulator on Tuesday. Despite interest in bitcoin, Monday's hearing was attended by only one member of the Senate panel, Sen. Tom Carper (D., Del.), who chairs the committee. Other senators were still en route to Washington after spending the weekend in their home states.

Enlarge Image

Gabriel Scheare uses the world's first bitcoin ATM in October at a coffee shop in Vancouver, Canada. The ATM, named Robocoin, allows users to buy or sell the digital currency. Getty Images Sen. Carper didn't outline any legislative proposals for digital money and said he was focused on gathering information. "Virtual currencies, perhaps most notably bitcoin, have captured the imagination of some, struck fear among others and confused the heck out of the rest of us, including me," Sen. Carper said.

Bitcoin is a four-year-old virtual currency that isn't backed by a central bank and can be traded on a number of exchanges or swapped privately. Its price has vaulted to records in recent weeks, fueled by investor views that the virtual currency can have a credible future as an alternative to traditional methods of payment. A number of merchants are accepting bitcoin as payment because the transaction costs associated with the currency are generally lower than those with credit or debit cards.

The skyrocketing prices of bitcoin, along with the use of the currency by both online and brick-and-mortar retailers, have caught Washington's attention. Regulators have warned money-transfer businesses they must follow the same rules as established financial institutions, including complying with anti-money-laundering laws. Authorities have begun meeting with other government agencies to follow new developments, including one led by the Federal Bureau of Investigation that is tracking emerging threats related to the technology. Last month, authorities disclosed they took down Silk Road, an online marketplace for illicit goods that used bitcoin as a form of payment.

At a Monday Senate hearing, Jennifer Shasky Calvery of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and Mythili Raman of the Department of Justice Criminal Division discussed the matter of virtual currencies such as Bitcoin. (Photo: AP) U.S. law-enforcement officials outline the pitfalls and promise of virtual currencies at the first-ever Senate hearing on the matter. Aaron Lucchetti reports on the News Hub. (Photo: Getty) From the Archives Bitcoin Couple Leave Wallet Behind (Nov. 14, 2013) Hire Boosts Bitcoin Credibility (Nov. 14, 2013) For Virtual Prospectors, Life in the Bitcoin Mines Gets Real (Sept. 19, 2013) Bitcoin Primer: What to Know Video: What's a Bitcoin? Ms. Raman said that while the anonymity of virtual currencies appeals to criminals and poses a challenge for law enforcement, U.S. authorities have "been able to keep pace with that, and we've been able to develop protocols and strategies to address it."

At Monday's hearing, officials from the U.S. Secret Service, which investigates counterfeit currencies, and the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network detailed successful investigations into criminals using bitcoin or other currencies.

Jennifer Shasky Calvery, director of the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, said virtual currency transactions are still relatively small in value compared with global criminal proceeds.

She said she didn't believe the virtual currencies had exposed significant gaps in current law. "We feel like we have a pretty good basis to act," she said. Ms. Shasky will attend Tuesday's Senate Banking Committee hearing.

Sen. Carper said he is "encouraged that maybe it's possible to have the benefits of virtual currencies and to actually be able to not facilitate" criminal activity.

However, he also expressed concern that virtual currencies are being used for crimes, including "selling weapons, child pornography and even murder-for-hire services."

I propose that the material be removed from the lede and replaced with the version below. "The United States is considered more bitcoin-friendly than some other governments. At a 2013 US congressional hearing on virtual currencies, The Department of Justice 'recognize[ed] that many virtual currency systems offer legitimate financial services.' The sole Senator who attended the hearing, Tom Carper, warned of bitcoin's role in facilitating the sale of illicit goods and services, however.'" . Fleetham (talk) 01:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I propose the following wording: "The United States is considered more bitcoin-friendly than some other governments. At a 2013 US congressional hearing on virtual currencies, Tom Carper, a US Senator, warned of bitcoin's role in facilitating the sale of illicit goods and services. However, the Department of Justice 'recognize[ed] that many virtual currency systems offer legitimate financial services.'" Mrcatzilla (talk) 23:19, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Fleetham, please clarify why you propose this change ( not evident), then I can comment on your proposal.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I would like to respond here, but, due to shortage of time, I will only be able to do it much later today, thank you for your patience. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * To recapitulate the state of the lead section:
 * The section contains five paragraphs, the fourth one summarizing the fears related to possible illicit uses of bitcoin. The fifth summarizes the regulatory situation in USA and China. The opinion on the relation of the US government to bitcoin naturally belongs to the fifth one, and it is confirmed by its own sources. This is why I think that there is no need to duplicate it to the fourth paragraph.
 * The fourth paragraph contains, and contained for quite a long time (before the above neutrality dispute) the information that there were fears by officials higlighting the role of bitcoin in illicit activities, that such fears preceded the first ever senate hearing in November 2014. Using a source that referred from the hearings, replacing the previous source by the same author which preceded the hearings, it was added that at the hearing the officials stated that they see bitcoin as a legitimate financial service. The above proposed wording removes the substantial information about the fears preceding the hearings. That is the second point in which I disagree with the newly proposed wording. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Fleetham, I asked you 2 days ago to clarify why you propose this non evident edit. YOu did not answer although you are editing, reverting and are commenting on editors on WP. Here is your chance to discuss CONTENT, which you advise others all teh time. You put me in a bind by not replying - I can't comment on your proposal.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The reason brought this up is because it's likely a copyright violation. Per WP:COPYVIO, "Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there is substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or sentence structure; this is known as close paraphrasing, which can also raise concerns about plagiarism."


 * I propose that the material be removed from the lede and replaced with the version below.
 * "The United States is considered more bitcoin-friendly than some other governments. At a 2013 US congressional hearing on virtual currencies, The Department of Justice 'recognize[ed] that many virtual currency systems offer legitimate financial services.' The sole Senator who attended the hearing, Tom Carper, warned of bitcoin's role in facilitating the sale of illicit goods and services, however.'"
 * As anti-bitcoin rhetoric can be contentious, please let me know if Tom Carper's quote is disagreeable. Mrcatzilla and myself appear to support its inclusion while I would imagine that Wuerzele and Ladislav would oppose it. Fleetham (talk) 00:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * My opinion on the proposed changes has been posted above, and it does not have anything in common with mentioning Tom Carper. Being at it, I did not see any warning from Tom Carper in the source. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:32, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * For a reminder, due to the repeated requests the neutrality dispute was started below, since promised to discuss and change the previously achieved consensus. However often Fleetham declared his willingness to dissuss, the actual state is that he still has to take the neutrality of the lead section into account in the dispute instead of making unbalanced changes, nota bene after the discussion in which he promised to change the consensus has started. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:42, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * So, just a heads up--as I have yet to hear anyone say NOT to switch out the copy+paste that's currently on the page, I will go ahead and do so soon... please register your complaints below if you're against this occurring. And we have two quotes from Tom Carper. Perhaps instead of using the one I initially selected, the first one should be substituted? If you'd prefer to refer to his quote about bitcoins facilitating illicit purchases, you can have your choice of words and phrases that mean the same thing as "raise concern" if you don't like the one I selected, "warn.""Sen. Carper said he is 'encouraged that maybe it's possible to have the benefits of virtual currencies and to actually be able to not facilitate' criminal activity. However, he also expressed concern that virtual currencies are being used for crimes, including 'selling weapons, child pornography and even murder-for-hire services.'"
 * Fleetham (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * just to let you know, I'm going to go ahead and replace the WP:COPYVIO in the lede with what I proposed earlier. I don't feel I fully understand your stance on this... as it's clear that it's simply copy+pasted, it does have to go. If you don't like my proposed text, I do encourage you to add your input. Fleetham (talk) 22:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, but I replaced the copy+paste WP:COPYVIO that you added to the lede with the below text.


 * "'The United States is considered more bitcoin-friendly than some other governments. At a 2013 US Senate hearing on virtual currencies, The Department of Justice 'recognize[ed] that many virtual currency systems offer legitimate financial services.' The sole Senator who attended the hearing, Tom Carper, expressed a desire to see an end to virtual currencies' facilitation of the sale of illicit goods and services saying, '[it's] encouraged that maybe it's possible to have the benefits of virtual currencies and to actually be able to not facilitate [criminal activity]'.'"Fleetham (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Nonneutral lead of the Criminal activities section
The lead of the "Criminal activities" section has just three paragraphs. These are the starting sentences of the first two: There is no doubt that some editor is trying to underline this point of view. Both sentences are just slightly adjusted versions of the same statement. The nonneutral treatment of the subject is:
 * "Bitcoins have been associated with online criminal behavior and cybercriminals."
 * "Many major news organizations have linked bitcoins to criminality."
 * To restate the same opinion twice at the start of 2/3 paragraphs.
 * To represent the opinion as a fact at first. The second, restated occurrence correctly presents it as an opinion, although "Many major news organizations", looks weasel-worded.
 * A reader rightfully expects to see facts about criminal activities, but, instead, he is served a repeated and nonneutrally treated opinion. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:04, 10 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm quite impressed with the lead, overall. I think the first instance you mention is okay. In the second instance, I feel like two sentences should be moved out of the lead and into the body of the article. It's too detailed for the lead, and may help resolve your concern. The sentences are:


 * "At a 2013 US Senate hearing on virtual currencies, The Department of Justice "recognize[ed] that many virtual currency systems offer legitimate financial services." The sole Senator who attended the hearing, Tom Carper, expressed a desire to see an end to virtual currencies' facilitation of the sale of illicit goods and services saying, "[I'm] encouraged that maybe it's possible to have the benefits of virtual currencies and to actually be able to not facilitate [criminal activity]". TimidGuy (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)


 * , what lead are you impressed with? It sounds to me you are talking about the main lead. this talk page section is about the lead of Bitcoin- Anyway, I agree with your opinion on both issues. remove:"Many major news organizations have linked bitcoins to criminality." and the sentence on the hearing is too detailed for the main lede and should go into the body.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that you forgot to address the problem that the first sentence of the "Criminal activities" section is an opinion, and, in fact, an editor's opinion, since the opinion is not contained in the cited source, nonneutrally presented as a fact. I propose to replace it by an information that would be directly supported by the cited source. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, my mistake. I was in a hurry and mistakenly thought that this thread was related to the main lead. Apologies. TimidGuy (talk) 12:05, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Etymology
There is something that doesnt read right about this section: "The word bitcoin is a compound of the words bit (being itself a compound of the words binary and digit) and coin (originally meaning wedge, stamp, corner).[89] The white paper referring to bitcoin frequently uses just the short coin.[11][not in citation given]"

Is the line "The white paper referring to bitcoin frequently uses just the short coin." being used to describe how the source [11] describes bitcoin? From my reading of the source it appears so. Should not [11] be moved to a claim and the line explaining the source be added to a footnote if anyplace? AlbinoFerret 13:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Test edits or vandalism by Fleetham
The last set of edits by  is either a test edit or a vandalism, taking into account the problems caused:


 * The edits change the format of the article previously adhering to WP:WORDSASWORDS
 * the edits contradict the cited sources stating that "each network node stores its own copy of [the block chain]", while the text in accordance with the cited sources stated that only full-featured software stored the copy of it
 * the edits replace the term satoshi by incorrect satoishi
 * the edits use incorrect grammar "Names in homage to bitcoin's creator, a satoshi is..."
 * the edits use unsourced claims such as "Theft occurs when knowledge of a private key is revealed to a second party." This text disregards the possibility that a user can reveal the private key to a second party voluntarily and on purpose, in which case no theft is involved, making the claim false. There is a dedicated section describing theft, and there is no need to put an incorrect version of it to other sections.Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:50, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Made changes per input. If you have further issues, it's better not to revert--just post on talk.
 * Each network node --> Network nodes
 * Satoishi --> Satoshi
 * Grammar fixed
 * "Theft occurs when knowledge of a private key is revealed to a second party" --> "Theft can occur when knowledge of a private key is revealed to a second party"
 * As for WP:WORDSASWORDS, I can understand adding italics to the first usage of a technical term such as "block chain." However, the article uses italics throughout even after a term is introduced. If you'd like to go back and add italics where appropriate, I encourage you to do so.
 * Fleetham (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Significant and persistent problems the "copy edits" introduced, protected by edit-warring:
 * The above mentioned WP:WORDSASWORDS issue
 * Incorrect grammar: "network nodes store its own copy"
 * In the "Units" section bitcoin is presented as the main unit of the system, correctly and logically using singular. The edits introduced an incorrect and stylistically mismatching plural to the subsequent sentence.
 * Unsourced, incorrect, WP:OR and unneeded "Theft can occur when knowledge of a private key is revealed to a second party." - there is a whole section devoted to theft, where sourced informations are available
 * Unsourced and WP:OR "In the bitcoin system, privacy can be defined as not identifying owners of bitcoin addresses." - can be defined by whom?
 * Unsourced and WP:OR "users are identified by bitcoin addresses" Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

An opinion is presented as a fact
In the lead section, there is a sentence: "Bitcoin's status as a currency is disputed as it does not have all the attributes of money." The sentence is presented as a fact, but if the second part "it does not have all the attributes of money" was a fact, then there would be no dispute, which contradicts the first part of the sentence. This demonstrates that the sentence is not a fact, but an opinion, and must, per WP:NPOV be written as such. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC) Also, the source used is behind a wall, can somebody please quote the part of the text confirming this? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The claim is referenced, with a quote in the reference. Its in a news article, not an opinion piece, but Ill look into it. AlbinoFerret  16:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I added who said it, Tennessee Financial Institutions Commissioner Greg Gonzales, moved it, and placed it in the body in the appropriate section. AlbinoFerret  17:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

edit summaries in recent sweeping edits allover the page
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but recent sweeping edits( 12-28 until today) have edit summaries that are inaccurate, and thus inappropriate. Edit summaries should accurately tell other editors what was done, otherwise the sandbox should be used for any tests. edit summaries that understate the extent of changes are grossly misleading. Per Help:Edit summary: "Proper use of edit summaries is critical to resolving content disputes. Edit summaries should accurately and succinctly summarize the nature of the edit, especially if controversial. If the edit involves reverting previous changes, it should be marked as a revert ("rv") in the edit summary. Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors!" .--Wuerzele (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I returned to the page today after missing only 1 day,December 31, and today, 1 January 2015 find the user, that has been making sweeping edits using improper edit summaries embroiled in an edit war over the Wallets section without discussing his reasons for the substantial deletions of sourced material on this, the talk page. As the "bold editor" to ask for discussion but not starting it yourself is a double standard. Deleting sourced content( Wallet history etc) is no copy edit. --Wuerzele (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC) I am restoring the prior version.--Wuerzele (talk) 09:07, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) copy edit= history section deleted
 * 2) please don't revert
 * 3) I'm not sure what your concern is. What do you mean by"the edit is not a copy edit?" As I did not add new content, this is a copy edit
 * 4) discuss on talk--don't revert please!

Edit warring over the second sentence and first paragraph
There have been numerous reverts and edit warring over the second sentence. Even after placing citations in the sentence. There ar e now unexplained tags all over the first paragraph with no corresponding section on why they were placed on the talk page. The tag used requires a link to the talk page because it has a "discuss" link. AlbinoFerret 18:17, 30 December 2014 (UTC) AlbinoFerret 18:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Please explain this edit, and why you didnt ask for verification on the talk page after placing this tag and comment. diff. The source (The New Yorker) clearly sets for the claim ""The network’s “nodes”—users running the Bitcoin software on their computers—collectively check the integrity of other nodes to ensure that no one spends the same coins twice. All transactions are published on a shared public ledger, called the “block chain,”"
 * the second sentence of the first paragraph has been already discussed above in the mentioning that it is complicated "so that nobody will be able to understand it". I have a proof for that, at least three edits by confused readers in the past. Also, there was a tag mentioning that the sentence was unreadable, which is what you changed by adding text to the sentence, text that is incorrect, and contradicting the cited source, and removing the tag.
 * the problem is that the text of the sentence states: "The system is peer-to-peer, all nodes recording transactions", while the cited source states: "All transactions are published on a shared public ledger, called the “block chain,” and verified by “miners,” users whose powerful computers solve difficult math problems in exchange for freshly minted bitcoins.", which directly contradicts the "all nodes" text. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The purportedly missing section discussing the other problems is this one:, where all the marked issues are listed and discussed. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 23:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it doesnt. It confirms it. The system is a peer to peer system, its made up of nodes. Thats the design of peer to peer systems. They have a distributed ledger called the block chain. Thats how they check for errors. The errors would be differences in the ledger from the local copy. Secondly, we are not allowed as editors to disect sources and point out errors. AlbinoFerret  00:09, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not an error in the source. The citation clearly mentions that "transactions are published on a shared public ledger, called the “block chain,” and verified by “miners,”", i.e. not by all nodes. What all nodes do is something else, as the quote you picked demonstrates. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC) The additional quote mentions that all nodes verify. It does not verify the "all nodes recording" text. Moreover, the purported "sentence" is grammatically incorrect, which is another reason making it unreadable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Incorrect. Nodes verify all transactions. Miners decide which transactions to include in a block, however a node will reject a block if it contains a transaction that it cannot verify. See "Nodes Types and Roles", chapter 6 of "Mastering Bitcoin" by Andreas M. Antonopoulos. I'll add that citation to the sentence. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 13:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I did change write to verify because the sources said all nodes verify. AlbinoFerret  14:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I did change write to verify because the sources said all nodes verify. AlbinoFerret  14:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Looooong standing consensus not to use P2P in the first sentence?
I would like to find out where this was discussed. Thanks in advance. Also, I dislike the misuse of "two consecutive wikilinks" to justify the replacement of accurate "peer-to-peer payment system" by pleonastic "online payment system" complicating the subsequent sentence so that nobody will be able to understand it. Besides, if two consecutive wikilinks do not look acceptable, it is possible to leave one of the links for the "See also" section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC) No need to respond to the above. To simplify the second sentence I propose:

"Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer, distributed payment system invented by Satoshi Nakamoto[note 5] in 2008[12] and introduced as open-source software in 2009.[13] The system uses its own unit of account also called bitcoin,[17][note 6] recording payments in a distributed public ledger called the block chain." Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead section issues
My goodness. What nonsense is this article conveying ! ? 'Bc is a software-based online payment system...': can anything online exist that is NOT "software-based" ? ? '...described by S Nakamoto...': why do we want to know that it is "described" by someone ? I'd rather have a Wikipedia editor describing it HERE, in the lead of this article ! The second full (main) sentence ('A peer.....also called bitcoin') is even ungrammatical: that (main) sentence has no finite verb ! Can anyone who has successfully finished his schooling convert this lead section into proper (and meaningful) English ! ? I read in news papers frequently about "bitcoin", have honestly no idea what it might be, so I thought I'd look it up in Wiki. But Wiki doesn't simply tell me what it is (neither does my Dutch Wikipedia tell me that)... --Corriebertus (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed, the: 'A peer-to-peer client...' is not just ungrammatical, it is also self-contradicting.
 * The 'online' term in 'Bc is a software-based online payment system...' is also superfluous (pleonasm), since payment system is defined as an 'operational network'.


 * I hope you do not mind me using a more politically correct section title. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:42, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The edit changing the text to "Because it lacks a central repository..." made during the neutrality dispute is departing from the informations verified by the cited source. It looks similarly meaningful as a statement that a cordless phone lacks a cord.
 * The formulation "Bitcoin's status as an actual currency is disputed as it does not have all the attributes of money." is self-contradicting.
 * The formulation "others such as Litecoin and Dogecoin also exist" is not summarizing the contents of the article body.
 * The formulation "Bitcoin is not the first virtual currency, however." is not summarizing the contents of the article body. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 02:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The formulation "shared ledger" is not using the proper terminology, which would be "distributed ledger". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The line ""Bitcoin is not the first virtual currency, however." looks to call for something to follow after however because of the comma. But thats missing. This sentence looks like broken english grammar. AlbinoFerret  13:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that you corrected the sentence and added a citation to it. There are significant problems that your edit did not cure, though: sentence still looks vague, and it does not "briefly summarize the most important points covered in the article" (the information is not covered in the article at all, and it does not look important). Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is a good idea to have some background on bitcoins place in history. That it isnt in the article is a shame, Ill look to see where it would be best to place it. As for the lede, its supposed to be the easiest section to read, and can contain a little background. WP:LEAD is a guideline and we should use some common sense in applying it, as it says in the box at the top of the page. Just controversies would be a dry read. But its best not it make it overly complicated. One line that shows bitcoin wasnt the first isnt going to hurt. Some people only read the lede so we need to make it readable, but give some basic information along with the controversies. AlbinoFerret  21:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I placed a few of your concerns in the body of the article. How about when you find a sourced claim thats in the lede but not the article, just putting it in the appropriate place in the body? Sourced claims should not be removed. AlbinoFerret  16:32, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

The neutrality issues are listed in the ongoing neutrality dispute. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, for all the changes in the lead section, since 25 December. All of the (parts of) sentences I denounced then, have since then been removed.
 * I’m sorry to interfere once again, but the first sentence of the present lead section is incorrect, to my opinion. ‘Payment system’ is a system for monetary exchange, I read in Wikipedia—and that sounds good to me. ‘Money’ is to be “generally accepted as payment… in a country or socio-economic context”, I read in Wikipedia. What system ‘bitcoin’ is exchanging—things called also ‘bitcoin(s)’—is however not ‘money’ to the Wikipedia definition: bitcoin is not generally accepted as payment in any country and I wouldn’t know in which “socio-economic context” it would be generally accepted as payment. So: if system ‘bitcoin’ is exchanging virtual things called (also) ‘bitcoin(s)’ which are not money (to the normal and to the Wikipedia definition), it is not a payment system (to the Wikipedia definition). --Corriebertus (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Your comments are useful, they help to understand what readers want. The second sentence has long been too complicated to be understandable, and I wanted to simplify it, but since there are other editors, it almost ended up more complicated than it was when I started to simplify. The progress is that it was split to two less complicated sentences. Regarding the peer-to-peer character: unfortunately, this one is not possible to omit, it is a substantial property. (you may see a comment here protesting against its removal) Agreed, the "nodes" term looks too technical for the uninitiated. I wanted to replace it by a more explanatory formulation, but my change was reverted. "isn't it possible to write a begin of the lead section that is easier to understand for non-experts?" - the obstacles aren't just the inability to write simple descriptions of complicated things (which is also the case here), it is also hard to get a formulation that would be neutral. You do not need to edit the article to help. If you stop by and add some comments from time to time, even that may help.
 * Regarding your issue with the "payment system" notion. Your note is logical, however, people are not always strictly logical, and while the moneyness of bitcoin is disputed, the claim that bitcoin is a payment system is not. The article has to reflect this. Let me add one more note to your "‘bitcoin(s)’ which are not money (to the normal and to the Wikipedia definition)" comment. It turns out that there are differences in specifications what money is. Economists use several distinct definitions, financial regulators use legal definitions from respective law, courts may use yet another definition, and then there are common people, who may see it differently, since money existed long before anybody claimed to be an economist, lawyer, or financial expert. That is one of the reasons why the moneyness of bitcoin is disputed, the other being the fact that bitcoin is new and evolving. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My central argument yesterday was: if I look at the Wiki-definition of ‘money’, this ‘bitcoin’ is not money. Now, you start about economists having also different ideas of what money is—but that’s not a fair argument in this discussion: if ‘money’ can have also such differing meanings, that should be clearly indicated in the first sentence of article ‘money’. While article ‘money’ is not changed, we must all reason from that definition. Otherwise, we’re not really an encyclopedia. If bitcoin is “generally accepted as payment… in a socio-economic context”—what I doubt, but what it needs to be if it wants to be 'money' in a 'payment system' (called also bitcoin)—I’d like to read in the article which “socio-economic context” that might be. But in fact, I can’t even find the first example or proof in the article that anyone accepts bitcoin as payment for anything! I mean: let's get serious, if you don't mind. --Corriebertus (talk) 10:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "if I look at the Wiki-definition of ‘money’, this ‘bitcoin’ is not money" - regarding the moneyness of bitcoin, your opinion is not restricted. However, there are rules how Wikipedia articles must be written. Perhaps surprisingly for you, your opinion should not be taken into account. Instead, the proper procedure how to write an article is to examine independent reliable sources to find out how they resolve this.
 * "if ‘money’ can have also such differing meanings, that should be clearly indicated in the first sentence of article ‘money’" Perhaps it should. But that is unrelated to this specific article.
 * "While article ‘money’ is not changed, we must all reason from that definition." - this is where you are mistaken. We must base the text on WP:IRS regardless of what other Wikipedia articles say.
 * "I can’t even find the first example or proof in the article that anyone accepts bitcoin as payment for anything! I mean: let's get serious, if you don't mind." - I must refer you to the Wikipedia policies and rules, this is the way how to find out how Wikipedia articles are written. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the payment system article's lead specifies it as '[..] established to effect the transfer of monetary value' and bitcoin certainly has monetary value, so your dispute seems based on nothing - bitcoin is consistent with the payment system article's meaning. Even if it differs, as per WP:CONLIMITED consensus is local, and like what Ladislav mentions WP:IRS trumps consensus every single time.
 * If you'd like to dispute the claim that bitcoin is a payment system, you will need to find reliable sources claiming that.. and after a quick search I can only find reliable sources claiming bitcoin as a payment system . ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Mention of alternate cryptocurrencies in the lead section
I don't think the lead section should mention alternate cryptocurrencies. Those cryptocurrencies are used by far fewer users, and the market cap of these cryptocurrencies are minuscule. They should be mentioned in the article, but not in the lead paragraph. See WP:UNDUE. Thoughts? ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Survey

 * Perhaps, as long as the the information is in the article. For this specific line, I will agree with you on its removal from the lede. Just shorting the line after the citation would be good. AlbinoFerret  15:02, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support removal. The existence of Litecoin or Dogecoin is not a property of bitcoin. A fortiori this does not leave space for a claim that their existence is an important property of bitcoin. As for specifically mentioning the existence of other currencies in the article, that is also not reasonable taking into account how many currencies there are. The other currencies are already referred to through links to articles like "digital currency", "virtual currency", "cryptocurrency", etc. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support removal - It does not belong. These are not subsets or properties of bitcoins, they are derivatives. If anything there should be a common category to link them. Chillum 00:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support removal from lede, for reasons mentioned above and below. Pus, this has been the status quo over the last 10 months or more only the recent "NPOV-fest" chaos allowed this to slip in again.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

 * I think other cryptocurrencies deserve a mention to provide context. WP:LEAD says something along the lines of "the lead should explain why the thing is notable and establish context." In this way, mentioning other cryptocurrencies helps establish the fact that bitcoin's approach is not singular--it's the first and most popular of its type but not one of a kind. Fleetham (talk) 23:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that bitcoin's approach is not singular is already established by the prior sentences. "It is the first" versus "It is the only"; "It is the largest of its kind" versus not mentioning that. MOS:BEGIN states the opening paragraph should provide context but not be overly specific - context has already been established, and naming specific cryptocurrencies is being specific. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that there is an ongoing neutrality dispute, and this issue has been already mentioned in there. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Then why did you remove the other currencies from the History section when there was not clear consensus to remove them?diff The above discussion was only about the lede and that the others be mentioned in the article. AlbinoFerret  01:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Re the edit: he never justified it as per consensus -- WP:BRD. Re the edit itself: He removed specific mentions of cryptocurrencies, but wikilinked cryptocurrency. Specific altcoins are generally irrelevant to bitcoin's history. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * This was sourced information that was removed. If it was not appropriate to History then it could have been moved to another section. The specific wording of the claim, that other currencies came about because of bitcoin, makes the names usable. It is removing information leaving the reader to guess at best, and wonder what they may be in any event. AlbinoFerret  17:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not remove information. I put the information to the historical context - year 2011. If you protest against the replacement of specific two cryptocurrencies by general "cryptocurrencies", then this is not a removal of information, it is actually giving more information than before, knowing that there are more than two cryptocurrencies. Knowing that there are many more cryptocurrencies than just two, a specific mention of just two puts undue weight on the cryptocurrencies picked. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Summarizing is not synthesis
Just to explain why I removed a WP:SYNTH tag you added... I want to point out that SYNTH occurs when you take info from disparate sources and combine that information to reach a new conclusion. When I use multiple sources to cite the idea that bitcoins are seized by authorities multiple times, this is not "reaching a new conclusion." This is summery of sourced material not synthesis of sourced material. Can you please look over What SYNTH is not? Fleetham (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Also note that I'm the second editor to remove your tag. Fleetham (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The synthesis is in the fact that the individual sources used specific cases that happened in the past, while the "summary" is intendedly shifting the focus to the future, which is not confirmed by any of the sources. As for "I'm the second editor to remove your tag", the previous person made a change (insufficient) to the claim, you are the first one to remove the tag for this wording. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * @, Yes I removed the tag after fixing the problem, but you reverted it back to the problem. The tag on the original wording is valid. The reason is it tries to come to a future conclusion based on past events. Unless you have a source that says the events are ongoing you cant do that. The sources you used are talking about sites that have been shut down, the activities on them have to be in the past, and the shutting down has already happened, so its in the past also. AlbinoFerret  15:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

On the same line I have placed a failed verification tag. I had fixed the problem before, but reverted fund back to purchase. AlbinoFerret 12:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Failed Verification:


 * Fixed and fixed. Apparently child porn sites have "buy with bitcoin" buttons, and just FYI it's also not SYTH to use present tense... that would be WP:SPECULATION. Wikipedia actually says, don't say something violates SYNTH just because you don't like it; just because you don't like something doesn't mean it's SYNTH. Fleetham (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * The synthesis case is not fixed. It is not even readable, having absolutely unacceptable grammar, tense is inconsistent. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I just rewrote it with a consistent past tense, and broke up the run on sentence for readability. I believe there is also a MOS guideline against having one sentence paragraphs. I removed the tag because the problem described should be fixed. Now lets see if the rewrite stays. AlbinoFerret  14:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a heads up, but I switched out one of your "have beens" for an "are"... just for better style. Fleetham (talk) 21:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * CAUTION: have been and are are not interchangeable. present perfect indicates a beginning in the past and lasting until today, so an interval. present tense is imprecise as to the beginning. So it's not a question of 's style. He is also right that one sentence cannot be a paragraph, something you refused to accept in I believe March 2014.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:02, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * A warning for you are edit warring, and have reverted other editors more than 3 times in the last 24 hours again. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with are and have been are not interchangable, and your sources do not show continuing action into the future as the perfect tense suggests. Perfect tense means it happened in the past, its happening now, and will happen in the future. I have placed a failed verification tag on this, fix it, as you keep reverting it when I fix it. Dont wait to long, someone might just remove the failed claim.  AlbinoFerret  14:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Bitcoin as the first cryptocurrency is a dubious claim
According to "Bitcoin is not the first attempt at an all-digital, cryptographically based currency. Others have existed in one form or another for nearly fifty years, but have either failed to take off or dramatically crashed and burned. Bitcoin is the first cryptocurrency with the deep structure, wide adoption, and trading momentum to achieve escape velocity." This citation makes the claim that bitcoin is the first cryptocurrency dubious. The claim would need significat reformulation as suggested in the citation to be correct. Wikipedia is not meant to publish dubious claims. Instead of adjusting the claim to a true but complicated version, I propose to delete it, since we already have got a more reliable and simpler alternative. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the article doesn't mention what these other "all-digital, cryptographically based currenc[ies]" are... And I'm a little dubious about an all-digital currency existing in 1965... Fleetham (talk) 00:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Yep, that claim is incorrect. Bitcoin is not the first cryptocurrency. For example, Opencoin preceded bitcoin. However, claims that Bitcoin is the first decentralized cryptocurrency. I've edited it and cited that, but it can probably be better reformulated.  ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just saw your addition. Regarding deletion, I think 'first decentralized cryptocurrency' is correct. After re-reading my edit, "it is the first decentralized digital currency and cryptocurrency" is very ambiguous. Maybe "it is the first decentralized cryptocurrency" which matches the whitepaper wording? ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "First decentralized cryptocurrency" looks correct, but "first decentralized digital currency" is more general, and we should not need a lot of similar claims. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 02:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How about something like "first generally used cryptocurrency", and leave it to that. I always hate it when factually incorrect (but "correct" according to WP policies) sources are used to satisfy WP:V. jni (delete)...just not interested 16:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal
To resolve this I propose: "While bitcoin is not the first virtual currency,[19] it is the first decentralized digital currency and the first cryptocurrency with wide adoption. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Fleetman edited the claim to "While bitcoin is not the first virtual currency, it is often called the first cryptocurrency. This is technically untrue, and while bitcoin is a cryptocurrency, it's not the first. Instead it's more correctly known as the first decentralized virtual currency." which has tone issues and I feel is too in-depth for the lead. I rewrote it to be more succinct: "Bitcoin is often called the first cryptocurrency although prior proposals existed. Bitcoin is more correctly described as the first decentralized virtual currency." ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I like your rewrite of the section. It is on point and concise. AlbinoFerret  01:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hallelujah ! in 40+ days we have basically come full circle. Before November's massive edits triggering NPOV dispute (this is no WP:PA, so dont delete this post) this is sort of what we had : "Media reports often refer to bitcoin as a cryptocurrency or digital currency. Bitcoin is first decentralized cryptocurrency and the largest in terms of total market value."
 * Ladislav- no offense: I too prefer 2 sentences for clarity - just too much stuff packed into one sentence, agree with unicodesnow--Wuerzele (talk) 06:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No offense taken, you are right. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with the text except for one detail: the cited sources call bitcoin the "first decentralized digital currency", and it is nonneutral to change the meaning of their wording. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't read the sources and presumed that the previous wording matched the source. Updated. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Detailed discussion of sources for this claim
Here are a few more sources that have the first cryptocurrency claim. source 1 source 2source 3source 4 AlbinoFerret  01:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not doubt that you are able to find several sources stating the same, but that does not make it non-dubious, since there are sources stating the opposite that are proving their statements by mentioning the predecessors. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How many sources say it isnt the first? AlbinoFerret  03:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I question the reliability of the sources claiming bicoin to be the first cryptocurrency: elonpendulum.com is non reliable, itnewsafrica.com is commercial,and --Wuerzele (talk) 07:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Please elaborate why you think a student newspaper from a Elon University which has a accredited journalism program is not reliable and why you think the website for Entrepreneur magazine and itnewsafrica.com are commercial and not news sites.  AlbinoFerret  14:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * , Re itnewsafrica.com: check out the author of the article: Frederick Charles Fripp. He wrote his own WP:BLP article (!), in which he details, that he has no degree or formal training in the matter, and works for a salary. check how much he has reported on bitcoin. check the quality of "news" on itnewsafrica.com: It stinks. And lastly look at the site's bitcoin reporting (doesnt exist).
 * Re elonpendulum.com: by its very nature, as a student newspaper (=learners, lacking academic credentials and professional experience) it has one off. again, look at what you are trying to do with the source: refute or confirm the statement of first cryptocurrency- what does the author bring to that discussion: nil. An unsourced claim, taken from who-knows-where. (like the National Geographic by the way) what's his expertise in the topic? not evident to me, looking at his posts on this site, or at his current place of news internship- INDY Raleigh News: nada.
 * I recommend the WP:Reliable sources checklist to evaluate sources.
 * BTW: I strictly argued about the reliability of the sources, nil else. I have no opinion on the matter, because I am not deeply versed in cryptocurrencies (ie their definition), as opposed to virtual currency, which I wrote from scratch.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Let me also add source 6source 7source 8source 9source 10source 11. This is not a few sources saying this. And National Geographic, while a good source seems to be the lone source that says it isnt.  AlbinoFerret  15:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not amount the volume of sources you find. This depends on the definition of cryptocurrency. If you define cryptocurrency more broadly, bitcoin is not the first. Here is bitcoin's announcement and someone working on another cryptocurrency (that predated bitcoin) discussing the differences in approach: . Now, if you define cryptocurrency as requiring decentralization, then bitcoin is the first (see cited source in article). Does a system have to be decentralized to be called a cryptocurrency? That may be a contentious matter, so I think qualifying it with decentralized is good. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it also is a question of "exists" can something truly be said to exist if its only described on paper without an implementation? AlbinoFerret  18:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
 * How about something like, "Often identified as the first crypotocurrency, bitcoin may instead be more correctly categorized as the first functioning decentralized crypotocurrency?" or perhaps "Often identified as the first crypotocurrency, bitcoin may instead be more correctly categorized as the first functioning implementation of the idea?" As I understand it, B-money and Bit Gold were proposed protocols for a decentralized system similar to Bitcoin but never actually saw use... Fleetham (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Regarding B-money and BitGold, they were never implemented and only vaguely suggested (without any protocol details). I have been unable to find any sources that claim b-money or bitgold is/was a cryptocurrency. OpenCoin had code written prior to Nov 2008 but it is not decentralized. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 02:45, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It does look like B-money and Bit Gold would have used the same proof-of-work system as bitcoin does, i.e. they would have used cryptography to control the creation of coins. Both are mentioned in the "history" section of Cryptocurrency. I think it's pretty clear that b-money and Bit Gold would have been cryptocurrencies, as both would have used a proof-of-work system for coin creation. Both appear to have been decentralized as well. I'm having trouble coming up with hard sources here, but unless everything available online is incorrect or it's likely that any given proof-of-work system will not use cryptography, these two appear to be unimplemented predecessors to bitcoin.


 * Also, about Ripple or, as it was once known, opencoin, it does look like that's a cryptocurrency that isn't decentralized. I still like my proposed wording, "Often identified as the first crypotocurrency, bitcoin may instead be more correctly categorized as the first functioning decentralized crypotocurrency" although removing "functioning" may make it a bit less of a hassle to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleetham (talk • contribs) 03:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The current edit sources David Chaum, “Achieving Electronic Privacy,”Scientific American, August 1992. That can be found here. It does not describe a cryptocurrency, but a cryptographically signed transaction, the currency is analogue. "The First Digital Bank would offer electronic bank notes: messages signed using a particular private key. All messages bearing one key might be worth a dollar, all those bearing a different key five dollars, and so on for whatever denominations were needed."
 * Its more like a check. The edit is referenced to a footnote that only mentions another source, that source doesnt describe what the claim says. AlbinoFerret  14:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Ponzi scheme dispute
Edit #635867692 uses the following justification: ''Restoring original version per WP:BRD. It makes no sense to include these names per WP:NPOV, especially given the sources themselves.''

These are the reasons why the edit is not negotiable and must be reverted:


 * The edit does not "restore original version". There never was an "original version" looking like that. This makes the justification invalid.
 * The section name is "Ponzi scheme dispute" to indicate that the statements contained in the section are opinions. Per WP:NPOV, opinions "should be attributed in the text to particular sources". The version proposed by tries to attribute, e.g., Jim Gibson's opinion or Jeremy Kirk's opinion to bitcoin supporters. However, neither Jim Gibson nor Jeremy Kirk are identified as "bitcoin supporters". Consequently, the edit misattributes the opinions, and must be reverted per WP:NPOV. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * That wording has been in the article for somewhere around six months, and was determined after a discussion that you took part in. Hardly invalid. Further, you cannot change the name of the section to try to selectively choose what can go in the section. The original sources uses did support the content, but this was changed. To include Jim Gibson or Jeremy Kirk without qualifying who they are presents undue weight; they have no Wikipedia article or have been shown by independent sources to carry any particular weight in such matters, so why, other than cherry-picking them out because they support a particular viewpoint, should they be included, by name? They shouldn't. That is why the edit was reverted. - Aoidh (talk) 07:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The original sources uses did support the content, but this was changed. - OK, why then do you want to use different sources when they do not support the content and unconvincingly pretend you are reverting to WP:STATUSQUO? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not accept the wording you are pushing for as WP:STATUSQUO, since it is not WP:STATUSQUO. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have to "pretend". The sentence, worded exactly as it is now, has been in the article for about nine months now (since April), and was added as part of the preceding sentence in February. It has been a stable part of the article for almost a year now; it is the status quo. - Aoidh (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, sounds like its a good time to challenge that almost a year old mistake. I support naming individual sources instead of generalizing and assigning that opinion to all "bitcoin supporters". Either we're going to name individuals for the sake of neutrality or remove the reference altogether. "They have no Wikipedia article or have been shown by independent sources to carry any particular weight in such matters", you said. Perhaps their opinion is not notable enough to appear in this article, either. Mrcatzilla (talk) 13:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Aoidh, I have to agree with Mrcatzilla agreeing with it's time to correct the problems of the section.--Wuerzele (talk) 07:52, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

To resolve the things in a clean way, I summarize the issues violating WP:NPOV in the section: Regarding the notability of the article written by John Mather and published by the economist Jeffrey Tucker. Since they both have articles in Wikipedia, they actually are notable. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC) As for the notability of the Huffington Post article or the PC World article. I do not know whether the authors are notable or not. In case the authors aren't notable we should write an attribution like: The Huffington Post stated:..., or The PC World stated:..., since both The Huffington Post and the PC World are notable. It surely is more neutral than misattributing the opinion to bitcoin supporters. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 16:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The first sentence in the section starts with Various journalists and it is verified by this article. The WP:NPOV states: ...opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources. While the opinion is attributed to Various journalists, The Slate identifies the author as Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. Therefore, the attribution to Various journalists is a misattribution. The opinion professor Pozner presents in his article is: A real Ponzi scheme takes fraud; bitcoin, by contrast, seems more like a collective delusion.. In contrast to Pozner's opinion, the text in the section states voiced concerns that bitcoin may be a Ponzi scheme, which is a misrepresentation of Pozner's opinion.
 * The sentence continues with U.S. Economist Nouriel Roubini, this time verified by two different articles. The Business Insider article states in Roubini's voice: Bitcoin Is A Ponzi Game And A Conduit For Criminal Activities, while the CNBC states that Roubini declared bitcoin a Ponzi scheme and a lousy store of value. This time, the attribution is proper, but neither of the sources does state that Roubini voiced concerns that bitcoin may be a Ponzi scheme. To not attribute conflicting opinions to Roubini, we should pick the most accurate citation. Since the primary source for the claims is available, citing the Business Insider looks the most accurate.
 * The sentence ends with head of the Estonian central bank, Mihkel Nommela, cited by Bloomberg L.P. The attribution is proper this time. The citation in the source is: All in all, virtual currency schemes are an innovation that deserves some caution, given the lack of any guarantees and responsible parties to back them in the longer term or evidence that this isn’t just a Ponzi scheme Since other banks are cited in the subsequent text, it makes sense to also cite the Estonian central bank to make sure no misrepresentation occurs.
 * The subsequent sentence states: Bitcoin supporters disagree. This is yet another misattribution, since there is no citation identifying the authors of the respective articles as bitcoin supporters. Moreover, the opinions of the respective authors are not represented by stating that they disagreee while not giving a hint with what they actually disagree. This si a nonneutral treatment of both opinions.
 * There was another opinion in the wording from April 2014, which deleted. This opinion, for some reason, does not suit him well, even though the replacement sources don't fit the wording at all, adding to the nonneutrality of the wording he is trying to enforce now. For some sentimental reasons (mainly the fact that the source has been accepted for that long, but became suddenly unacceptable for  now), I prefer to keep the opinion. The fact is that the source is a primary source, but that does not matter at all, since it is used only to verify that there is a specific opinion contained in it, which is exactly the purpose for which primary sources are acceptable. If there is a perception that it could violate any balance, it is still possible to add a source presenting an opinion of a journalist or two that bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme. While such a formulation has been present in the article, there is currently no source verifying that. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

There is one thing we should make sure of: can any of the statements be considered a fact instead of being an opinion? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

To take care of the above listed WP:NPOV issues and handle the matters in a neutral way, I propose the following wording of the section (the "verification" notes are in place of citations verifying the opinions): "The New York Post called bitcoin a Ponzi scheme stating: 'Welcome to 21st-century Ponzi scheme: Bitcoin'.(verified by ) Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School stated: 'A real Ponzi scheme takes fraud; bitcoin, by contrast, seems more like a collective delusion.'(verification already present in the article) U.S. economist Nouriel Roubini stated: 'Bitcoin Is A Ponzi Game And A Conduit For Criminal Activities.'(verification by Business Insider already present in the article) The head of the Estonian central bank, Mihkel Nommela stated: 'All in all, virtual currency schemes are an innovation that deserves some caution, given the lack of any guarantees and responsible parties to back them in the longer term or evidence that this isn’t just a Ponzi scheme.'(verification already present in the article) The Huffington Post questioned: 'Is Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme, yes or no?', answering the question: 'No!' The PC World stated: 'While bitcoin is clearly not a Ponzi scheme, the frenzied get-in-now enthusiasm of late belies the fact that it is a very new and immature software experiment.' Economist Jeffrey Tucker published the opinion: 'There are several key differences between a Ponzi scheme and bitcoin.' A 2012 report by the European Central Bank states, 'it [is not] easy to assess whether or not the bitcoin system actually works like a pyramid or Ponzi scheme.'(verification already present in the article) A 2014 report by the World Bank states: 'Contrary to a widely-held opinion, bitcoin is not a deliberate Ponzi.(verification already present in the article) A 2014 report by Federal Council (Switzerland) states: 'the question is repeatedly raised whether bitcoin can be deemed an impermissible pyramid scheme... Since in the case of bitcoin the typical promises of profits are lacking, it cannot be assumed that bitcoin is a pyramid scheme.'(verification already present in the article)"

Since nobody criticized the proposed wording, let me pick the glove and find a problem in it: the first part of the citation from the Federal Council report is actually not an opinion, but it is a fact, confirmed also by, e.g., the report by the European Central Bank. By WP:NPOV it should be stated as a fact, in Wikipedia's own voice. My proposal is to state it in Wikipedia's own voice as follows: "The question whether bitcoin can be deemed a pyramid or a Ponzi scheme is recurrent." Is there an agreement on this wording of the introducing sentence of the section? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ladislav, Thanks for your diligence dissecting and prepping this section and patience with your fellow editors. I admit that the topic isnt dear to my heart and b) I've seen too many Ponzi scheme disputes between you and over the past 10 months that I just didnt want to deal with it. That said, I think your points are well taken. The Ponzi scheme opinions by the press and the analyses by governmental and supranational bodies needed to be phrased without editorializing and creation of two camps.
 * In answer to your question can one use the term fact? I would leave the term  fact out of here, because all of these are opinions; in the case of the ECB, the World Bank, and Federal Council they are layers and layers of opinion, called expert opinion in analogy to the levels of evidence, as used in the classification ofmedical world- individuals esp with COI are similar to 'anecdotal evidence' and analysis by a group or gremium is higher level evidence. But fact? No.
 * I found 2 more references mentioning Ponzi scheme, but am not sure if we want to include them: Russian Central Bank opinion, Febr 2014 and a July 2014 Bitcoin paper prepared for the US Congressional Research Service, a good, non-partisan WP:RS-we have an older one in our references already. The authors describe the 2 instances of ponzi scheme trials, basta. There's no discussion is it or is it not, which is the most matter-of-factual treatment of the topic I have seen to date.
 * I agree with Ladislav's wording, particularly since it addresses Aoidh's concerns. Have the following small changes: order opinions chronologically, also because there may be an opinion shift over time, add detail re the "voice" of the NY Post (not a journalist, but managing member at Pendulum Capital Management)-its always betterto specify than call it the newspapers opinion-, and Roubini (formerIMF etc), and otherwise small copy edits/wikilinks.

"A 2012 report by the European Central Bank had stated, 'it [is not] easy to assess whether or not the bitcoin system actually works like a pyramid or Ponzi scheme.'(verification already present in the article) A 2014 report by the World Bank states: 'Contrary to a widely-held opinion, bitcoin is not a deliberate Ponzi'.(verification already present in the article) In the opinion of Eric Posner, a law professor at the University of Chicago 'A real Ponzi scheme takes fraud; bitcoin, by contrast, seems more like a collective delusion.'(verification already present in the article) U.S. economist Nouriel Roubini, former senior adviser to the U.S. Treasury and the International Monetary Fund, has stated: 'Bitcoin Is A Ponzi Game And A Conduit For Criminal Activities.'(verification by Business Insider already present in the article). In February 2014 an asset-manager and columnist for The New York Post called bitcoin a Ponzi scheme opining: 'Welcome to 21st-century Ponzi scheme: Bitcoin'.(verified by ) The head of the Estonian central bank, Mihkel Nommela stated: 'All in all, virtual currency schemes are an innovation that deserves some caution, given the lack of any guarantees and responsible parties to back them in the longer term or evidence that this isn’t just a Ponzi scheme.'(verification already present in the article) The Huffington Post questioned: 'Is Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme, yes or no?', and answered the question 'No!'. The PC World stated: 'While bitcoin is clearly not a Ponzi scheme, the frenzied get-in-now enthusiasm of late belies the fact that it is a very new and immature software experiment.' Economist Jeffrey Tucker published the opinion: 'There are several key differences between a Ponzi scheme and bitcoin.' A 2014 report by Federal Council (Switzerland) states: 'the question is repeatedly raised whether bitcoin can be deemed an impermissible pyramid scheme... Since in the case of bitcoin the typical promises of profits are lacking, it cannot be assumed that bitcoin is a pyramid scheme.'(verification already present in the article, add page 21)"


 * The ball is and has been in your field since Dec 2. I see you've been editing other pages since, so I d like to draw your attention to this section, have you participate in the discussion and help in getting this worked out. If you do not, I think it's fair for us to interpret your silence as agreement with the compromise above.--Wuerzele (talk) 09:36, 8 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the improvements. I agree to treat all statements as opinions, and find your proposed wording of the section acceptable. Also the chronological order is fine. Questions (I do not mean them as disagreement with the proposed wording, take them as brainstorming ideas):
 * professor Pozner expressed he is uncertain about the "delusion", so I wonder whether it would not be better to replace his citation by: "Eric Posner, a law professor at the University of Chicago saw the contrast between Ponzi scheme and bitcoin in the fact that Ponzi scheme is fraudulent."
 * leaving out Ponzi scheme unrelated part, we can shorten the citation of PC World article to: "bitcoin is clearly not a Ponzi scheme".
 * leaving out Ponzi scheme unrelated part, we can shorten the citation of Nouriel Roubini to: "Bitcoin is a Ponzi game"
 * leaving out Ponzi scheme unrelated part, we can shorten the citation of Mihkel Nummela to: "All in all, virtual currency schemes are an innovation that deserves some caution, given the lack of ... evidence that this isn’t just a Ponzi scheme." Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Ladislav, agree with your proposals to shorten quotes to the core, except for the first one. I see no sensible way to shorten this statement and would stick with what is.--Wuerzele (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

To make the things clear for newcomers to the dispute without requiring them to reread the above, this is the last wording after the quotes are shortened to the core: "A 2012 report by the European Central Bank had stated, 'it [is not] easy to assess whether or not the bitcoin system actually works like a pyramid or Ponzi scheme.'(verification already present in the article) A 2014 report by the World Bank states: 'Contrary to a widely-held opinion, bitcoin is not a deliberate Ponzi'.(verification already present in the article) In the opinion of Eric Posner, a law professor at the University of Chicago 'A real Ponzi scheme takes fraud; bitcoin, by contrast, seems more like a collective delusion.'(verification already present in the article) U.S. economist Nouriel Roubini, former senior adviser to the U.S. Treasury and the International Monetary Fund, has stated: 'Bitcoin Is A Ponzi Game'(verification by Business Insider already present in the article). In February 2014 an asset-manager and columnist for The New York Post called bitcoin a Ponzi scheme opining: 'Welcome to 21st-century Ponzi scheme: Bitcoin'.(verified by ) The head of the Estonian central bank, Mihkel Nommela stated: 'virtual currency schemes are an innovation that deserves some caution, given the lack of ... evidence that this isn’t just a Ponzi scheme.'(verification already present in the article) The Huffington Post questioned: 'Is Bitcoin a Ponzi scheme, yes or no?', and answered the question 'No!'. The PC World stated: 'bitcoin is clearly not a Ponzi scheme'. Economist Jeffrey Tucker published the opinion: 'There are several key differences between a Ponzi scheme and bitcoin.' A 2014 report by Federal Council (Switzerland) states: 'the question is repeatedly raised whether bitcoin can be deemed an impermissible pyramid scheme... Since in the case of bitcoin the typical promises of profits are lacking, it cannot be assumed that bitcoin is a pyramid scheme.'(verification already present in the article, add page 21)" Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I see that the current wording achieved the necessary consensus. (Aoidh was alerted by Wuerzele and from his edits it can be detected that he does not intend to add another contribution to this dispute.) Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I've restored the wording that was not discussed, as the change removed context from the section and defended bitcoin before even explaining why it would need to be defended...hardly NPOV. The excessive overuse of quotes needs to be trimmed down significantly as this much reliance on copyrighted wording is far from ideal. - Aoidh (talk) 08:22, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Your changes are not Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * And per WP:STATUSQUO and lack of any discussion on the text in question, I've restored the original wording. The change I reverted was not mentioned in any dispute, so being "asked to do so repeatedly" is irrelevant (ignoring the fact that even that's not accurate). Your edit removes context and establishes a firm POV, being overly defensive without so much as first explaining why it needs to be. Just because there's a discussion about a wording in a particular a section does not give license to make sweeping changes to the entire section, removing text arrived at by consensus without any discussion or justification. - Aoidh (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Am I missing the NPOVN part ? I'm seeing this on the NPOVN and just not seeing any statement of an NPOV question for input.  Discussion of wording in TALK seems good notion.  But seems nothing formed or suitable subject for NPOVN.  The bulleted list by Ladislav Mecir seems more about what wording to convey and whether to categorize the views or to use individual names, decent TALK material.  I'm not seeing bias or distortion by going either way and not seeing stated in the form of a NPOV puzzle for NPOVN input.  Is there a NPOV principle that wants input ???  Markbassett (talk) 04:12, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Reliable Sources
Can we figure out some reliable sources for some of our many mistakes that we have with this article? I mean, I nominated it for WP:FAC and they said that there were problems with reliable sources. Can we fix some of theose please? Yoshi24517 Chat Absent 00:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Tagging:


 * "Can we figure out some reliable sources for some of our many mistakes that we have with this article?" - can you be at least slightly more specific? Being at it, please note that blockchain.info is a private company. If you want to be helpful, please try to help with the resolution of the listed neutrality issues instead of deleting the related tags in the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I've gone ahead and removed + tagged as sub-par some of the less-than-reliable cited sources. Some of the information seems like it's worth looking for a WP:RS to substitute but it looks like some cited sentences should be just removed. Why is it notable that there in 2013 someone spotted 213 strains of bitcoin-stealing malware, for instance? Fleetham (talk) 10:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Looking for sources is something I love to do, most of them have been replaced. AlbinoFerret  20:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! And I went ahead and removed some that cited less than important claims. Below is the cited text I removed from the page:
 * "Microbitcoin is sometimes referred to as simply a bit."
 * "However, BitPay was ultimately unable to convince the venue's retail stores and concession stands to take payments in bitcoin."
 * Fleetham (talk) 21:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that one of them isnt really important and was hard to source, but *"Microbitcoin is sometimes referred to as simply a bit." is just common sense and should not even need a source. AlbinoFerret  22:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * "Why is it notable that there in 2013 someone spotted 213 strains of bitcoin-stealing malware, for instance?" - theft is mentioned many times as notable, and this explains a way how it happens. It serves as a warning against stealing malware. The fact that there are hundreds of malware programs gives it greater weight than a statement mentioning just the existence of malware could have.

I noticed that in his recent sweeping edits Fleetham marked CoinDesk as "sub-par source". The facts are: In relation to this I noticed that the edit replaced reliable source by a reference to a wiki with unreliable publishing practices. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * CoinDesk has a reliable publishing process.
 * CoinDesk has been cited by other reliable sources like The Economist, The New York Times, and CNN.