Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 34

My Case for the Current Revision of the Lede
I have completed the initial set of work on my proposed version of the lede. I read a lot of Bitcoin papers: the work consumed about 30 man-hours. I have permanently archived the current state of the lede here: https://pastebin.com/raw/X40tp6c6

My reasoning: the current version of the lede allows the reader to look at the references, and use them as a starting point for coming to their own conclusions. In my opinion, we should not subtlety sway readers by presenting biased statements. At this point, I will defer to whatever the community wishes. Have a great week!Rdjere (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Rdjere, if you look at the section above, there are 4 editors who don't like your changes and you're the only editor who likes them. Besides the formatting mess and the over-referencing in the lede, it makes no sense to place "Eight Nobel laureates" with reference to, among others, multiple masters theses.
 * Could somebody revert to the last version by Smallbones ?
 * Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I support the reversion already done by Winged Blades of Godric. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with it. I'll defer to whatever the community says.Rdjere (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with it. I'll defer to whatever the community says.Rdjere (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all that work. As noted above, the list format isn't ideal for the lede, but maybe some of this can be incorporated into the main text? "The following are frequently cited attributes of bitcoin:
 * utilizes a transaction database that is immutable and highly redundant
 * independence from world governments, banks and corporations
 * no central authority to censor or interfere with transactions
 * like gold, can act as a hedge against stocks and fiat currencies
 * lower probability of counterfeiting than physical fiat currency
 * lower probability of double spend than digital fiat currency

The following are frequently cited criticisms of bitcoin:
 * behaves like an economic bubble
 * not sufficiently decentralized due to the centralization of mining pools
 * vulnerable to selfish mining attacks
 * wastefully high electricity usage
 * no intrinsic value
 * not backed by any government
 * facilitates illicit activity such as money laundering"



 Λυδ α  cιτγ  01:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC) That would be great!Rdjere (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I have removed some extra details that is too much for WP:LEDE here . I think given the huge quantity of talk page comments above that this 'disclaimer' content in the lede should probably be further limited. There are obviously going to be many reasons why some people think bitcoin is bad, and why others think it is great. Neither really should have much weight in the lede. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Nonencyclopedic content of the Ideology section
The ideology section cites Nigel Dodd in two paragraphs. The problems are: Summing up, the claims made by Dodd are misleading, inaccurate, contradicting the majority of reliable sources and predicting an event that is not almost certain to take place. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * the claim by Dodd that "Bitcoin will succeed as money..." is a forecast. WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL allows such forecast only if the event is almost certain to take place, which is not the case here – the claim that "bitcoin will succeed as money" is opposed by reputable economists cited in the article.
 * Per the text, Dodd argues that "the essence of the bitcoin ideology is to remove money from ... governmental, control" – the claim by Dodd is incorrect:
 * The removal of money from governmental, more generally political, control is discussed e.g. by a Bloomberg article, which claims "After inflation ran amok in the 1960s and 1970s, many central bankers fought for, and won, more freedom to set interest rates and make other monetary policy decisions without political interference." Similar information can be found in the "Central bank independence revisited" article published by ECB and many other sources.
 * Other sources cited in the article contradict Dodd's opinion that the goal is to remove money from governmental (or more generally political) control – they claim that the goal is to advocate a free market in management and distribution of money.
 * Another inaccurate Dodd's claim is that "The currency relies ... upon trust." This claim is contradicted by claiming that bitcoin works without employing a ledger-keeping trusted third party, or by The Economist claiming that "The blockchain lets people who have no particular confidence in each other collaborate without having to go through a neutral central authority. Simply put, it is a machine for creating trust."


 * I was just looking at this section yesterday and wondering the same thing. Maybe it could be summarized, but right now too much weight for Dodd and it looks strange and out of place. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to summarize, you should propose what you think is worth summarizing, since, as I demonstrated above, Dodd's main claim is just an unreliable prediction. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:26, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Ladislav, I am not sure if we should determine that the ideology is incorrect, but I think if we feel his comments aren't notable, that should be reason to delete. I think this section was created by or  and since I can't recall I will ping them both. I don't have a strong enough opinion (at this time) on the value of the content to summarize it. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:41, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "I am not sure if we should determine that the ideology is incorrect" - I do not care whether Dodd's claims are correct or not. As I said, the Dodd's prediction violates WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL, since it predicts an outcome that is not almost sure to happen. That is why it should not be in the Wikipedia. The other Dodd's claims are WP:FRINGE as a simple comparison to other sources reveals. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if the whole section is encyclopedic. That said, I dont see this content as worse than any of the rest of it. I guess that if the "ideology is" that bitcoin will rule the world (etc) and that statement is not crystalball. That would be different from saying that bitcoin will rule the world (etc). However, going back to my first question, is this section encyclopedic to begin with? do you have an opinion here? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course, if (hypothetically) Dodd claimed that the ideology was that bitcoin will rule the world, that would not be a prediction, that would be a characterization of such a hypothetical ideology. But that is not what Dodd claims. He claims that "Bitcoin will succeed as money...", which is his prediction, not a characterization of an ideology. Regarding the question whether the whole section is encyclopedic, I see serious issues with it. I think that the content is nonneutral mentioning predominantly one type of opinions, opinions that their sources present as the most extreme that might contain some related idea. The section also mistakenly presents such opinions as "identified sources of the ideology" even when the cited sources actually do not say so. The placement is also questionable. Why should this text consisting mainly of opinions be placed at such a prominent position preceding more important and informative History or Economy sections? Finally, there are many more sources relating bitcoin to more diverse political ideologies, which is what the present wording apparently hides. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. Its a poor quality and a dubious section that seems to attract competing POVs. Maybe it will develop into something, who knows. For now it looks like a POV magnet. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Dodd's so-called "prediction" has nothing to do with WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. He already wrote down the idea - paraphrasing, that the bitcoin ideology of preventing social or governmental control of the "currency" contradicts to goal of actually making it work as money. We are certainly allowed to quote an academic saying that. There are at least 2 summaries of that idea in the paper. In the abstract "if Bitcoin succeeds in its own terms as an ideology, it will fail in practical terms as a form of money" and in the text "Bitcoin will succeed as money to the extent that it fails as an ideology". There is another statement in the conclusion that gets away from using "will", "Bitcoin is currently being sustained by sociological features that are directly at odds with the political ideology the theory of money that underpin it," but I think either of the first 2 expressions are clearer. more later. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 20:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

And from the NY Times article cited, there are dozens of examples and statements on the importance of ideology, including "Perhaps the best proof of bitcoin’s ideological underpinnings is that a schism has emerged in recent weeks between moderate elements in the movement who sense the necessity of cooperating with officialdom, and a more uncompromising faction that wants to keep bitcoin free from any government regulation." Smallbones( smalltalk ) 21:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, at least Smallbones likes this section. Regardless, the quality of this section is poor and it probably should be shifted down in the article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You may want to be careful doing so!  Λυδ α  cιτγ  12:13, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "the bitcoin ideology of preventing social or governmental control of the "currency" contradicts to goal of actually making it work as money" - I cited several sources confirming that the bitcoin ideology
 * is not to prevent governmental control of the currency
 * the prevention of governmental (or political in general) control of currencies does not contradict the ability of the currencies to work as money
 * your interpretation of the prediction is your interpretation. The cited text predicts something that is not almost sure to happen regardless.
 * "Bitcoin is currently being sustained by sociological features that are directly at odds with the political ideology the theory of money that underpin it" - this is not a citation of Dodd's work, and such a claim is contradicted by the information that bitcoin idea is underpinned by the Austrian economic theory, specifically by the work of Friedrich von Hayek, as confirmed by the work published by the European Central Bank and cited in the section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I've moved the section down on the page; a lot of the content was speculation or opinion and it was not reasonable to put that before information such as History and Design. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 16:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks Power~enwiki. Is there a chance that we can find a few different positions? What would those be?


 * Austian economics, sound money theory
 * Anarchist anti-govt, censorship resistant control theory
 * Others?
 * Am i reaching to try to find a few theories, or will this section just be a hodge-podge including the crypto-church that it ends with? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Try this
 * "The whole point of bitcoin, the original cryptocurrency, was the anarchy. It is a means of exchange that provides anonymity against the state and the financial system. Together with the dark web, crypto is the Wild West of the internet: the libertarian dream of an unregulated free-for-all. But it will never become mainstream. The regulators will see to that." Philip Aldrick, Economics Editor of The Times - citing in large part from the head of the Bank for International Settlements.  This is the mainstream view.  There are tons of references if you'd like to see them.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 04:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * my question was rather if we can summarize to a few different viewpoints on it. There is a sound-money theory that I have read which says that bitcoin proponents like the ideology that there is a fixed inflation schedule. I think this is the Austrian ideology. Then you are pointing to a second anarchy ideology. Is it limited in general to those two? It would be better if we can be more encyclopedic of these theories, and not just quote random experts and try to make a section. The source you linked to is a good one indeed. I have created two sub-sections here to demonstrate what I meant by my comment. Is this useful? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

legal status content
you deleted cited content in this edit without justification for deletion. I have re-added most of it, that which had decent sources. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:03, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Paypal content
you reverted my delete here to again re-add content about paypal being anti-bitcoin. Do you really think it is encyclopedic that paypal doesnt like bitcoin (a direct competitor in payments). Would we also include that Microsoft thinks it is better than Oracle? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The text in question is:
 * Former PayPal CEO Bill Harris said "The cult of bitcoin [makes] many claims — that it's instant, free, scalable, efficient, secure, globally accepted and useful — it is none of those things." He has also said that bitcoin is a "colossal pump-and-dump scheme, the likes of which the world has never seen."
 * Please note the first word "Former". Harris, I believe does not even have any formal ties with PayPal anymore, rather runs his own business. So how can you call this "competitor bashing"? I put this in the Criticism section, it seems like a very fair criticism that is shared by others.  Are you saying that the widespread criticisms of bitcoin are not even allowed in the Criticism section? BTW, I can get more references to Harris's views and the same type of views from other reliable sources.  please revert your reversions.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well we can guess that as a former CEO he probably also continues to be a shareholder (aka COI). Find a few other CEOs and summarize it as they all think it is garbage and going to zero. We dont need quotes, videos, etc of people who are clearly conflicted. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear - you are guessing that Harris probably has a COI - so that he cannot be quoted, even if that quote comes directly from a reliable source? For the 1st part - you would need to show that he has a COI, not just guess.  You might want to check out his Bloomberg "Executive Profile". It seems to me that if we were to censor the views of an exec like Harris, we would have to censor the views of anybody who has extensive successful experience in finance, technology and media.  But of course we don't censor what people say in reliable sources, so the 2nd part of your logic is also wrong.


 * As for your assertions "that we don't need" quotes or videos and that we have to summarize the views of many CEOs - that is just false and has no basis in policy at all.


 * It's time for you to straighten up and quit reverting anything that can be viewed as critical of bitcoin. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 18:37, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You have multiple editors reverting your edits, not just me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Be very careful claiming a consensus based on 2 editors who don't know Wikipedia's rules vs. 1 who does. The first rule you should learn is that consensus is not simply counting votes, but depends on arguments based on policy. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 01:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Harris either has a COI as part of Paypal, or he's just a private citizen and his opinion is irrelevant. Either way, it doesn't belong in the article. Brad  v  20:02, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Quit just making things up as you go along. Our WP:COI rules don't apply to folks quoted in reliable sources.  No it doesn't matter if you consider them to be "just a private citizen".  It's the reliable sources that determine who is relevant, not you. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 01:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What policy states that everything that is reliably sourced has to be included? Brad  v  02:43, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Certainly WP:NPOV says that all sides of an issue should be presented, in proportion to the weight that they receive in reliable sources. The view that the use of bitcoin is "instant, free, scalable, efficient, secure, globally accepted and useful" gets almost no support from reliable sources. Harris's statement that "it is none of those things" is remarkably concise, but is otherwise the main stream view. And please note that WP:NPOV cannot be revoked here by consensus. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:46, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * So, again, why do we care about Harris' opinion? I'm sure he said those things, but why do they matter and why should they be included in the article? Brad  v  03:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding the above and this, are you just searching the internet for quotes that support your POV? Brad  v  04:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

We care about Harris's opinion because it is the main stream view of bitcoin. Now if you just want to accuse me of doing research or of having a point-of-view, then there is no point in continuing the conversation. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 15:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Not a catch all
This article is not a catch-all for Cryptocurrency. I have removed some content today and  that is unrelated to bitcoin. did you add this content? Most of these sources made little to no mention of bitcoin, so why has it been added to this article? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Minor mistake in "Thefts" section
I just wanted to point out that the link for Ether is linking to the class of organic compounds. It should probably link to the Etereum page. 80.151.169.238 (talk) 06:33, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 August 2018
Add Litecoin to "See also" please. Verysadeyes (talk) 14:36, 18 August 2018 (UTC)


 * This would be against WP:MOS since the Litecoin article is already linked from the article body. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , being linked once in a 6400 word article isn't exactly easy to find. Which MOS section are you referring to though? MOS:ALSO doesn't seem to give such specific advice. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." per MOS:NOTSEEALSO Ladislav Mecir (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. —  Newslinger   talk   15:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

POV statement on full clients in Blockchain section
In the Blockchain section, there is a statement "Nevertheless, the 'trustless' design requires 'each and every user to download and verify the history of all transactions ever made, including amount paid, payer, payee and other details.'" This statement is pushing an opinion that only full clients can be used in the network, while it is known and confirmed by the sources cited in the Wallets section that there are also lightweight clients that are used in the system. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. It looks optional to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

1st - This is a quote from the Bank for International Settlements report written by Hyun Song Shin so the criticism that the bank/author is biased does not apply - this is what a reliable sources says. If you want to take it to WP:Reliable sources noticeboard I doubt you'll get anywhere saying its not a reliable source. But I think you are misreading the text. The full paragraph that includes the quote reads:

"For a permissionless cryptocurrency to function in an entirely trustless environment, all miners and users need to store an up-to-date copy of the entire ledger. However, in practice many users trust the information provided by others. Some users only verify summary information of the ledger via a process called simplified payment verification. And, much in contrast to the original idea underlying Bitcoin, an even larger number of users can only access their funds through a third party website. In these cases, the third party alone is in control of its clients’ cryptocurrency holdings."

The 1st sentence is undeniably true as far as I can see. If you want to avoid trusting anybody while using bitcoin, you have to download the full blockchain. But you say this is "optional" or that I am pushing the "opinion that only full clients can be used in the network". No and no. Only if you want to be able to have secure transactions without trusting anybody do you need to download the full blockchain.

The common BS that the entire system can work on a trustless basis can not be included in this article - not while customer ripoffs, hacks, thefts, etc are incredibly common. If you'd like to suggest a rewording, please be my guest. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 19:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * "the criticism that the bank/author is biased does not apply" – the problem is not that the source is biased. The problem is that the claim you wrote is. As you mention (thank you for the above information) the source actually claims that "some users only verify summary information via a process called simplified payment verification". That is why the claim you wrote, the claim denying this option, is biased. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:38, 21 August 2018 (UTC)


 * You are still misreading the text. Allow me to simplify it for you "if you want an entirely trustless system, all miners and users need to store an up-to-date copy of the entire ledger. However, many users trust a process called simplified payment verification, so the system is not trustless." An even shorter version might be "despite all the claims of blockchain being a trustless system, it is not."  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)


 * That formulation of yours is not a simplification, it is a misrepresentation. It certainly does not describe bitcoin, since, as confirmed by Hyun Song Shin, bitcoin allows simplified payment verification. As confirmed by other sources, and actually by Hyun Song Shin too, bitcoin does not require the ledger to be maintained by a trusted third party. Nor it requires all users to store a copy of the entire ledger. Note that this discussion was started to let you know that other editors do not want to tolerate this particular misrepresentation of the available sources. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 05:53, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are saying that the blockchain is a "trustless" system, then you are simply wrong. If anybody uses simplified payment verification, or wallets, then trust is needed to make the system work. That is what the BIS says.  Sorry if the truth offends you. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 11:25, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This is some sort of a misunderstanding or misrepresentation. The blockchain is a mechanism to achieve distributed consensus while not trusting any central authority. A particular user can decide to use a so-called light client that doesn't keep the whole chain (especially if it is on a mobile phone). That light client has to trust some service provider. You will have to trust an exchange service to buy or sell bitcoin. There are many layers on top of the blockchain base layer. You seem to conclude that the "system" (whatever you mean by that) becomes contaminated for everyone. No. Anyone can go back to basics if desired - install a full client, keep their own keys, wait for several blocks on top of the block with their transactions before considering them "final" and so on. Retimuko (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * "If you are saying that the blockchain is a 'trustless' system, then you are simply wrong." - I am not saying that. I am saying that the majority of sources, including the BIS source you miscite, claim that the system does not rely on a trusted third party to maintain the ledger. I also claim that the text you wrote does not describe bitcoin, since, as confirmed even by the BIS article you miscite, bitcoin does not require users to copy the entire ledger, it simply allows them to do so. There are also independent and reliable sources as The Economist claiming that bitcoin is a "trust machine", see the article to get more information on the subject. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I have deleted the statement in this edit . There are a number of problems with this statement. First it pushes a POV, and the advocate is the Bank for International Settlements with an obvious conflict of interest. If we are going to use this content, we need to attribute it to the BIS so the reader can laugh about it. Second, the statement relates to blockchain (there is no mention of bitcoin in either the sentence or the source) so if we cant agree on it, then just send it off to the Blockchain or Cryptocurrency articles and it can be debated there. Last, this statement seems to WP:FRINGE POV, as normally bitcoin is referred to as permissionless, not trustless. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

While a consensus was established that the formulation does not describe bitcoin, since bitcoin does allow simplified payment verification as confirmed even by the cited source, the text was reinserted into the article by the same warrior. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have again deleted it here This section is limited to discussion of the bitcoin blockchain, not blockchain in general. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:50, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

block size
Here is an interesting large block seen recently. Above 2MB. Maybe relevant for a block size treatment on this article? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

energy
Can these two statements be correct? Bitcoin has been criticized for the amounts of electricity consumed by mining. As of 2015, The Economist estimated that even if all miners used modern facilities, the combined electricity consumption would be 166.7 megawatts (1.46 terawatt-hours per year). At the end of 2017, the global bitcoin mining activity was estimated to consume between 1 and 4 gigawatts of electricity.

To me they seem to be far apart. We have: 166.7 megawatts, 1.46 terawatts, 1 to 4 gigawatts.

This needs to be explained, at least I don't understand it. Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * While surprising for you, 166.7 megawatts is equal to 1.46 terawatt-hours per year. Those are just different units. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, 1 to 4 gigawatts is a very inaccurate value. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The cited Washington post source (which quotes this 1-4 gigawatts) states "Other analysts say the true figure is smaller, albeit hard to measure because it is spread around the world, generated by an unclear mix of machines and co-mingled with other sources of electricity demand." This section is not encyclopedic in that it quotes a massive range of possible information (mega watts, gigawatts, terawatts). I think we need find some sort of consensus in the sources before we put this information forward. do you have a comment here? Is there a policy that we should follow? Or do we just note all the info and call out to the reader the huge range of estimates? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Here's a more recent analysis of bitcoin's energy use, arriving at an estimate of 2.55-7.67 GW in 2018. Smite-Meister (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, so now we have another GW source. Maybe we should use GW and drop the other two then. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The others can also be expressed in gigawatts. Same as this one can be expressed in megawatts or terrawatt-hours per year. The power of 166.7 megawatts equals 0.1667 gigawatt or energy consumption of 1.46 terrawat-hours per year. 1-4 gigawatt is 8.76-35.04 terrawat-hours per year. 2.55-7.67 gigawatt is 22.34-67.19 terrawat-hours per year. Enivid (talk) 16:53, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * so do I read your answer to mean that the sources are disagreeing by a range of 1.47 up to 67 terawatt hours per year? What is an encylopedic way for us to deliver this information? Obviously we need to leave all this calculation out, we can wikilink to Watt and the reader can go over there and figure out how to calculate watt hours vs. watts. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I would keep them in GW and would mention the date of the estimate.
 * It would also be helpful to compare the numbers to a more common frame of reference. According to the US Energy Information Administration, the average house in the US uses about 10,909 kWH per year. That's about 1 to 2 million homes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coinluver (talk • contribs) 13:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Re "It would also be helpful to compare the numbers to a more common frame of reference." – a megawatt, gigawatt, ... are common units accepted by and familiar to the international community. US house consumption is not a common unit at all, totally unknown anywhere outside of US. It would be highly nonneutral and uncommon to use such a unit in Wikipedia. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:29, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources do not disagree. The first figure, 166.7 MW, is from 2015. The second, 1-4 GW, is from the end of 2017. The latest one, 2.55-7.67 GW, is from April 2018. The energy consumption has grown over the years and is still growing. Smite-Meister (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds logical to me. Then maybe we should keep the units in GW so it is more readable. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Units
It would be nice to encode values on this page using the Val template, so references to small or large amounts are more easily digestible. For instance 0.00000001 becomes $0$. Clarkmoody (talk) 15:34, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Request: Reduction of edit protection to Semi-Protection
I believe that 30/500 protection is too strict. This may be a CoI, but I don't have the time on my hands to make 500 page edits (it's called life), and some things in the article may be inaccurate, worded in a way that implies inaccurate assumptions, or other problems that users that aren't Wikipedia frequenters may be able to fix. When knowledgeable users that are busy get a chance to edit, they do not get the opportunity. TheExceptionCloaker (talk) 01:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This article has been protected under general sanctions after community discussion, so it's very unlikely that the protection will be reduced any time soon. In the meantime, feel free to make edit requests on this talk page. – 121.218.90.22 (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2018
In the acclaimed sci-fi novel Neptune's Brood by Charles Stross "bitcoin" is used as the interstellar payment system. This, is believe, is the first significant reference in fictional literature to bitcoin, and as such should be noted in this article per WP:POPCULTURE. Indeed – it was, until May, when it was removed without much in the way of a convincing explanation. The edit in question also removed reference to the film Banking on Bitcoin, which, as a documentary notable enough to have a Wikipedia page, should be featured in this currently quite lacklustre section. I have included various other minor edits and copyediting in below's suggested text.

Please change the relevant wikitext of the article, {| !
 * ==Documentation==

Academia
In September 2015, the establishment of the peer-reviewed academic journal Ledger was announced. It will cover studies of cryptocurrencies and related technologies, and is published by the University of Pittsburgh.

The journal encourages authors to digitally sign a file hash of submitted papers, which will then be timestamped into the bitcoin blockchain. Authors are also asked to include a personal bitcoin address in the first page of their papers.

Film
The documentary film, The Rise and Rise of Bitcoin (late 2014), features interviews with people who use bitcoin, including a computer programmer and a drug dealer. !
 * ==In popular culture==

Literature
In Charles Stross' 2013 science fiction novel, Neptune's Brood, the universal interstellar payment system is known as "bitcoin" and operates using cryptography. Stross later blogged that the reference was intentional, saying "I wrote Neptune's Brood in 2011. Bitcoin was obscure back then, and I figured had just enough name recognition to be a useful term for an interstellar currency: it'd clue people in that it was a networked digital currency."

Film
The 2014 documentary The Rise and Rise of Bitcoin portrays the diversity of motives behind the use of bitcoin by interviewing people who use it. These include a computer programmer and a drug dealer. The 2016 Netflix documentary Banking on Bitcoin is an introduction to bitcoin and the ideas behind cryptocurrency.

Academia
In September 2015, the establishment of the peer-reviewed academic journal Ledger was announced. It covers studies of cryptocurrencies and related technologies, and is published by the University of Pittsburgh.

The journal encourages authors to digitally sign a file hash of submitted papers, which will then be timestamped into the bitcoin blockchain. Authors are also asked to include a personal bitcoin address in the first page of their papers. Thanks in advance. – 121.218.90.22 (talk) 10:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * }


 * ✅, doesn't seem unreasonable. Fish +Karate 12:35, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Link to mining section
The intro of the article links to Bitcoin...given that this is part of the article already, is a link really necessary? WesSirius (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Note
There is a discussion at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard which may be of interest to people watching this page. &mdash; Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 14:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 October 2018
Change "The next month if fell to $7.80" to "The next month it fell to $7.80" - IF should read IT Davidwinchaccountant (talk) 12:07, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Done. Thank you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 November 2018
Add

'The currency has the potential to take on the remittance market and come out on top in every aspect.'

to the end of the 2nd paragraph. MBAScholar (talk) 04:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * ❌ - spam. MER-C 11:57, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Edit suggestion
Add a citation from Reuters about the 10 years of Bitcoin. "In November 2008, a link to a paper authored by Satoshi Nakamoto titled Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System was posted to a cryptography mailing list."

I didn't add the relevant quote from Reuters, but it's "Bitcoin on Wednesday celebrates ten years since Satoshi Nakamoto, bitcoin’s mysterious founder, released a whitepaper outlining the need for an internet currency that could be used as payment without going through a third party like a bank" . User:Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 14:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done DannyS712 (talk) 05:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 November 2018
Change "In November 2018, the state of Ohio, in the United States, became the first North American government agency to allow bitcoin payments by businesses paying various state taxes" to "In November 2018, the state of Ohio, in the United States, became the first North American government agency to allow businesses to pay various state taxes through an intermediary that converts bitcoin into dollars." As it stands, the sentence suggests Ohio will actually accept bitcoin (and the profits or losses of exchange rate variations). That is what the news article headline suggests but the actual story turns out to be different. 92.19.29.151 (talk) 10:34, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Enivid (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 December 2018
In the Units section, change "...BTC and XBT. Its Unicode character is ₿.[74]:2" to "...BTC and XBT.[74]:2 Its Unicode character is ₿." That is, move the reference to the previous sentence, since the reference doesn't discuss Unicode. KenShirriff (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Bitcoin physics
In quantum physics sometimes we have many different solutions at the same time. Some claim that if many options are true, the actual one is the first one to interact again, if both alternatives interact again at the same time, the truth is the longer future chain of interactions. If both are equal, we have a superposition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4100:600:718D:22F7:2D3F:2EFA (talk) 04:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Legal status, tax and regulation
In this article, the abbreviation AML is used once (in section Legal status, tax and regulation") but not expanded. Its meaning is not obvious from the context, and should be given in full.

The reference given (https://www.loc.gov/law/help/cryptocurrency/cryptocurrency-world-survey.pdf) tends to pair AML with counterterrorism, so perhaps saying "anti money laundering and counterterrorism" would be better. The main article, Legality of bitcoin by country or territory, uses the same words and reference, but the context there makes it clearer what AML means. 178.164.139.37 (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Price movements citing Coinbase
No point in just removing it - that starts to look like vandalism after a while. Similarly, the sentence about 2018 "In November prices fell about 35% to $4,166 and ended the year at about $3,690, down 72% for the year and down 81% from the all-time high. " keeps on getting removed. Why? Well the numbers weren't exactly quoted except on graphs when I put them in on New Years Day. But they were certainly close enough. We can wait until somebody gives an "official" New Years Day price, but we know within say $50 where they are going to quote it. And that's not going to affect the calculations much at all, e.g. -73% might recalculate to -72% (more related to rounding than anything else) and -81% stays the same. So what's the big deal? Why do folks want to remove this? BTW, see WP:CALC. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 00:18, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I find the following wrong with this:
 * - Commenting in Wikipedia voice about prices at arbitrary points in time based on raw data is original research. It is not just calculation, but judgement choosing particular points for comparison.
 * - Raw data is taken from Coinbase (in this case) - is it a reliable source? Prices on other exchanges can be different, sometimes significantly.
 * I believe we should not in general have any updates of price movements or market capitalization unless an independent reliable source can be cited stating such things explicitly.
 * I also believe that your revert of my revert is borderline edit war especially given the situation with general sanctions. Your desire to emphasize price drops and negative opinions (bubble, scam and so on) looks quite tendentious to me. Retimuko (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * January 1 is a traditional date used in summarizing prices and, well, just about everything. It is used several times already in the sections above it.  "Bubble" is the standard view of bitcoin. Scam is pretty well accepted now as well.  We should strive to include all notable points of view, especially the standard most accepted one. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 02:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "We can wait until somebody gives an "official" New Years Day price, but we know within say $50 where they are going to quote it."- this alone proves that your numbers are not WP:CALC but WP:CRYSTALBALL.
 * Also, your evaluation is an unsourced evaluation of the bitcoin year 2018, not just some simple calculation like subtraction, addition or division of known numbers.
 * Last but not least, your edits revert1 and revert2 are two reverts of the same material in less than two hours. As such, they constitute a clear violation of the community sanctions. I already ignored at least two other cases of sanction violations you committed before, but this is the last straw that broke the donkey's back for me. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Last but not least, your edits revert1 and revert2 are two reverts of the same material in less than two hours. As such, they constitute a clear violation of the community sanctions. I already ignored at least two other cases of sanction violations you committed before, but this is the last straw that broke the donkey's back for me. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I think these edits violate the spirit of the Blockchain 1RR (adding identical content on Jan 01, Jan 03, and Jan 04 that is being reverted and opposed by multiple editors). There is no reason for this WP:TE, about such a minor issue, price (as there are any handfull of bitcoin is down x% that we editors can choose from).
 * Content added by Smallbones Jan 01 here
 * Removed Jan 02 by Ladislav here
 * Re-added Jan 03 by Smallbones here
 * Removed by Retumiko Jan 03 here
 * Re-added by Smallbones on Jan 04 here.

In general, I too am opposed to this WP:SOAP and WP:RGW by Smallbones. There has historically been some price discussion in this article as well as others, but in general it should be limited as we would also limit endless dribble on price relating to MSFT, ORCL, AAPL, GOOG, etc. Clearly if there are not WP:RS's, then just delete it. If there are sources and it leads to excess WP:WEIGHT then we can also delete it. This WP:CALC explanation clearly doesn't hold water, as the editor is choosing dates, highs, lows, exchanges, etc and then trying to drive a POV. Far into WP:OR, wikilawyering behind CALC explanation that I found laughable when I first saw it. These edits are another example of the bias this editor has when he posted User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_232. In closing this editor might feel he wins either way, either he gets the content put into the article and/or he draws us editors into continued WP:NOTFORUM discussions (as clearly the Jimbo Wales was a forum post), aka another attempt to say "I told you so". These talk pages are now riddled with non-neutral edit issues relating to Smallbones, it is time this editor be banned from this category. Or we can go on with this round robin... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

We have another revert by with the following description "It takes a special sort of gumption on the part of pro-BTC POV editors to treat coinbase as an unreliable source when it shows their fantasy currency to be unreliable". In my view this edit summary shows non-neutral point of view: "fantasy currency" and "unreliable". To jump from price movements to "unreliable" really takes a biased view. Please read my objections to the disputed text above. Coinbase is clearly not an independent reliable source. In this case it only provides raw data, and one could argue that prices on other exchanges might be quite different, so why Coinbase? Drawing conclusions from raw data is original research. I am opposed in general to having all sorts of updates of market capitalization and prices not only in this article, but everywhere in Wikipedia if there is no independent reliable source stating such facts explicitly. Retimuko (talk) 17:08, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Disagree for the reasons stated by and thanks for jumping at the opportunity to put my name on a scare list. Very welcoming of new editors. Simonm223 (talk) 17:14, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Smallbones did not state any coherent reasons to have prices mentioned without supporting RS. Vague statements that January 1 is a traditional date and +-$50 difference is not important are not arguments based on policy.
 * The notification about the special situation around this topic is not more than that, a notification. You chose to participate, so I notified you of the special circumstances. It does not imply that you did anything wrong. Retimuko (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. We have annual high and low prices for every other year, we certainly should have them for 2018 as well. And as the market price is a fairly easy-to-verify fact, people who are disputing this based on the quality of referencing are being tendentious; here's a CNBC article and here's the New York Post. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 20:03, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we all agree to have include prices, and the 2018 high and lows is an interesting and encyclopedic topic. I believe we are discussing the process to arrive at the prices we publish, rather than publishing of prices. When we have high quality RS like CNBC, why are we instead using an editor's 'roll your own' analysis of coinbase prices? Does this make sense? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Exaclty. No objection to summarizing RS. But how objecting to OR can be viewed tendentious? Retimuko (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

So can we say that we have consensus to remove the disputed original research and work on something based on sources like CNBC mentioned above? Retimuko (talk) 00:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Advertising bans
I am recall you created Bitcoin, if I am wrong please forgive me. Is there anything in this section that refers to a bitcoin advertising ban? Or is this ban referring to cryptocurrency exchanges and/or other tokens, etc? I looked through and I can't find much that refers to a ban on bitcoin advertising. If this section is not related to bitcoin, it is going to get blanked or moved to Cryptocurrency or some other rightful home of the content (as the sources do seem to refer to cryptocurrency ad bans). In general, this section confounds common logic, in that nobody pay to would advertise bitcoin, as the free rider problem would negate any potential gains. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Blanked, and content added below Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Advertising bans
Bitcoin and other cryptocurrency advertisements are banned on Facebook, Google, Twitter, Bing, Snapchat, LinkedIn, and MailChimp. Chinese internet platforms Baidu, Tencent, and Weibo have also prohibited bitcoin advertisements. The Japanese platform Line and the Russian platform Yandex have similar prohibitions.

Soapboxing by Smallbones
This edit is inappropriate for any number of reasons (WP:LEDE, WP:NPOV, etc.), but especially because of Smallbones' clear point of view expressed at User talk:Jimbo Wales. I suggest that Smallbones is no longer qualified to edit the article, as their edits are clearly soapboxing. Brad v  05:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , less pace, please........ That's a weirdly placed edit; to be mild. &#x222F; WBG converse 07:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * more of this that was supposed to be the point of the 1RR. adds and  reverts here . Then Smallbones comes right back at it and then it is immediatley reverted by  here . This is a continuation of the WP:TE & WP:SOAP covered in this discussion Talk:Bitcoin/Archive_34. The POV pushing by Smallbones here should stop.  did I get the correct 8 nobel diff discussion correct, or was it a different talk page discussion? I know I have seen this 8 nobel discussion here at least once before. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, what level of evidence would you accept as being reasonable to say in the lede that "Eight Nobel laureates in economics have identified the bitcoin market as a speculative bubble"? If you say that no level of evidence would be acceptable, then you will have identified yourself as an inflexible ideologue or worse. The eight Nobelists clearly have identified it as such.  And what could possibly be more important in a bitcoin article than knowing that the experts have identified it as a bubble?
 * I suppose it's time to bring up Harry Truman's old joke about wanting to have a one armed economist so that he won't shilly-shally saying "on the one hand this, but on the other hand that." There's no shilly-shallying among economists on this.  Probably a more appropriate joke is the old "Economics is the only profession where you can put 3 experts in one room and come out with 5 different opinions."  But there is near-unanimity among economists on the question of bitcoin.
 * It's not like the folks being quoted are talking outside their super-narrow spheres of expertise. Robert Shiller made the study of bubbles acceptable in economics and was awarded the Nobel Prize for it.  And he's been consistently saying that bitcoin is a bubble for years - indeed he has used bitcoin a the prime example. Richard Thaler was awarded the Nobel for closely related work. Paul Krugman covers a broad area, mostly in marcroeconomics, but has written in bubble related areas, keeps most of his work closely tied to reality (practice as well as theory) and may be the best known current economist because of his New York Times column.  IMHO Joseph Stiglitz is the best economist of his generation, covering a very broad range of economic topics, including areas related to bubbles.  He has been very consistent in his views on bitcoin.
 * The other 4 Nobelists (other than Oliver Hart whose work relates to so-called "smart-contracts") might be viewed as being slightly out of their areas of specific expertise. They were apparently ambushed by a bitcoin questioner at a joint press conference. But remember that any Nobel laureate in economics needs to have a very broad knowledge of the field, and they answered to a man without hesitation that bitcoin is a bubble or a scam.
 * So do you want to ignore the reliable sources or give the impression in the lede that bitcoin is pretty much a normal market? Folks who choose the later should be ashamed of themselves now that bitcoin bubble has definitively burst. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 16:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your noting of your "IMHO" of why one economist is the best of his generation on this talk page is a WP:NOTFORUM issue. The point is that multiple editors are reverting your content that you have repeatedly WP:TE (added) over a span of months. Here again you continue to WP:BLUDGEON these talk pages about your opinions of who is the biggest and best nobel prize winning economist further exemplifies your WP:SOAP on this issue and you should be banned from these pages as Bradv suggested. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Another non-neutral soapbox edit here. This needs to stop. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The same POV pushing in the lede here Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Bitcoin environmental impact
This article does have interesting criticism on the alleged environmental impact of Bitcoin, I think it should be added to the section on energy consumption: https://hackernoon.com/the-reports-of-bitcoin-environmental-damage-are-garbage-5a93d32c2d7 Initramfs (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Circulating supply and explorer edit request on 27 February 2019
Change 4tochka (talk) 07:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 07:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Change to because circulation supply already changed
 * circulating_supply = ₿17,428,612
 * circulating_supply = ₿17,560,496

Change to
 * block_explorer = https://www.blockchain.com
 * block_explorer = https://bitaps.com

because blockchain.com do not correctly show all bitcoin addresses (P2WPKH and P2WSH is not recognized ) example: https://bitaps.com/bc1qwqdg6squsna38e46795at95yu9atm8azzmyvckulcc7kytlcckxswvvzej https://www.blockchain.com/ru/search?search=bc1qwqdg6squsna38e46795at95yu9atm8azzmyvckulcc7kytlcckxswvvzej

Regarding official bitcoin web site https://bitcoin.org/en/resources bitaps.com is approved by community


 * Yes check.svg Done Enivid (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Sign Problem
Why are all bitcoin signs becoming squares???!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just4science! (talk • contribs) 04:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Warning against investments into virtual currency IRAs
In the "Regulatory warnings" section there is a reference to a regulatory warning against investments into virtual currency IRAs. I do not think that investments into virtual currency IRAs are investments into bitcoin (a virtual currency IRA is not bitcoin), so I do not think the warning belongs to the article. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Gosh, more unsourced 'warning' content. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I would disagree that a virtual currency IRA is not bitcoin while also disagreeing that there need to be any warnings. The goald of any virtual currency IRA is to give the investor exposure to the underlying asset.  Thus, such an IRA is subject to the same economic risks and rewards as purchasing the cryptocurrency directly with the benefit of being protected from the technological risks.  E.g. the investor cannot lose his investment due to a failure to properly protect his private keys or seed.  Huckfinne (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * "Thus, such an IRA is subject to the same economic risks and rewards as purchasing the cryptocurrency directly with the benefit of being protected from the technological risks." - that is not true, in fact. The risks are not the same - for example, the financial institution may fail to protect bitcoins. There is a history of financial institutions losing bitcoins they were supposed to protect. Other risks are present as well. For example, not all financial institutions deserve the same trust. The benefits may not be the same as the benefits of holding bitcoin, either. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:11, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree, that text should be removed. Non-encyclopedic anyhow. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 January 2019
101.128.75.191 (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 11:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

woulld bd Luqman william (talk) 20:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 April 2019
Please change Bitcoin is vulnerable to theft through phishing, scamming, and hacking. As of December 2017, around 980,000 bitcoins have been stolen from cryptocurrency exchanges. to Bitcoin is vulnerable to theft through phishing, scamming, and hacking. As of December 2017, around 980,000 bitcoins have been stolen from cryptocurrency exchanges. On the national level, Bitcoin has been criticized for competing with national fiat currencies. Transfers of Bitcoin are outside legal jurisdiction which allows for unlawful acts. The European Union issued a response to Bitcoin, warning against its risks and lack of regulation which can threaten national security.

Please change The 2014 documentary The Rise and Rise of Bitcoin portrays the diversity of motives behind the use of bitcoin by interviewing people who use it. These include a computer programmer and a drug dealer. The 2016 documentary Banking on Bitcoin is an introduction to the beginnings of bitcoin and the ideas behind cryptocurrency today. to The 2014 documentary The Rise and Rise of Bitcoin portrays the diversity of motives behind the use of bitcoin by interviewing people who use it. These include a computer programmer and a drug dealer. In the 2015 film Dope, three teenagers utilize Bitcoin technology in order to sell drugs without having the transactions traced back to them. When the movie hit the box office, the film became the first to allow fans to purchase movie tickets using Bitcoin. .

Please change In popular culture section to add a Fine Art subsection. Under this new section add, "In 2015, Harm van den Dorpel’s Event Listeners was purchased by the Museum of Applied Arts/Contemporary Art (MAK) by use of Bitcoin."

Please change In popular culture section to add a Music subsection. Under this new section add, "Many artists have made songs regarding the use of Bitcoin such as Lil Windex’s “Bitcoin Ca$h” and Souljia Boy’s “Bitcoin"."

Please change In popular culture section to add a Television subsection. Under this new section add, "In July 2014, Documentarist Morgan Spurlock in the CNN series Inside Man lived off Bitcoins for a week in order to see what a world revolving around cryptocurrencies would look like." Also under this new section add, "In Season three episode 13 of the Television drama The Good Wife titled Bitcoin for Dummies, an attorney defends a man who created a new cryptocurrency." . Sfinley223 (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

}} Sfinley223 (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. A lot of this constitutes major changes which would require consensus, furthermore phrases like "hit the box office" and "many artists" may be peacock phrases and weasel words, please review the neutral point of view policy.   SITH   (talk)   13:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2019
In the Bitcoin#Mining sSection the caption of the center image is

"Amateur bitcoin mining with specialized ASIC chips. This was when mining difficulty was much lower, and this is no longer feasible."

For more encyclopedic style I propose to change this to

"Later amateurs mined bitcoins with specialized ASIC chips, which, however, also became infeasible due to increased difficulty." Snipergang (talk) 08:03, 11 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Thank you. This wording really looks better. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:27, 11 May 2019 (UTC)