Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 31

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 25 ← Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 → Archive 35

Bubble/Ponzi/Illegal

(non-admin closure) Consensus to include criminal use and no consensus to include the "bubbly" nature. (And yes, all comments in both the survey and the comments sections have been evaluated.)- MrX 🖋 02:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article scarcely mentions allegations concerning Bitcoin's bubbly nature. Bubbles may of course be identified conclusively only in hindsight, but there have been serious voices raised that it is a bubble comparable to the South Sea Company or the Tulip mania. Removal of mention of this (3 December) to a separate article (Economics of bitcoin) is misleading. The watering-down of the Ponzi Scheme subsection (also 3 December) is likewise misleading. Propose re-instating both. Cpaaoi (talk) 09:58, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

  • Disagree The size of the article is already too big. That is why there was a consensus to move parts of it (such as the Economics of bitcoin section) to subarticles. The "Speculative bubble dispute" section is a subsection of the Economics of bitcoin and the place where the speculative bubble discussion clearly belongs. Having a specialized section, the discussion is obviously off topic to the "As an investment" section. In contrast to the above, I propose to move the whole "As an investment" section to Economics of bitcoin, since the article is too large as mentioned. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
In that case, I propose deleting the second paragraph of Bitcoin#Price and volatility to counterbalance the re-inclusion of bubble warnings from folks at ECB, DCB etc. There may have been consensus in the past, but the last few weeks have seen the warnings get louder, with the price now rising vertically. A new consensus is now required. Far from hiding these bubble warnings in separate and diffuse sections, this issue ought in fact to be represented in the lead section of this page. I had wondered why my edits were summarily removed without a given reason; based on the arguments above, I now understand why no reason was given. Cpaaoi (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Also propose re-including in the lead section the association with criminality which you removed on the 26 of November on the questionable grounds of insignificance. Cpaaoi (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Furthermore - wow! I note that despite your noble quest to prevent the growth in size of this article, you leave untouched (for example) the 100% drivel-based subsections on music and transaction delays, etc, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam; yet are keen to instantly expunge reference to criminal activity and speculation mania. I am now looking at starting an RfC about this page and your edits. Cpaaoi (talk) 13:51, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
And you have no problem with "Plans were announced to include a bitcoin futures option on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange in 2017", despite the edit history showing that you have cited WP:CRYSTAL to remove material in the past? Cpaaoi (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Propose remove sub-sub-section 'Other' in Bitcoin#In academia on grounds of size and WP:NOTABLE. Cpaaoi (talk) 14:03, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Propose removal of confusing unhelpful, context-free reference to coinbase/Chancellor in History section. Cpaaoi (talk) 14:06, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Propose including in the lead section remarks by Warren Buffett that Bitcoin is a 'mirage' and a financial joke.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/03/26/warren-buffett-says-bitcoin-is-a-mirage-why-marc-andreessen-thinks-hes-wrong/#278710097f3c
- Cpaaoi (talk) 14:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Starting to go through the article now - almost every single given source I look at here (when not a promotional website) contains reference to catastrophic financial losses, money laundering and organized crime. This should all be represented in the lead section with perfect clarity, not dispersed through several articles and buried in various sub-sections toward the bottom of this page. Cpaaoi (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Well I've done some work on cleaning up this horrendous cheating mess of an article. I'll be back later to carry on and to see if you have any valid arguments to prevent the lead section from describing the opinion of experts on its character as a speculative bubble. All the best. Cpaaoi (talk) 15:24, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Cpaaoi, I fail to see how your edits are constructive or consenus based. WP:SOAPBOX I think might be applicable here Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
The edits are representative of the source material. There have been and remain egregious misrepresentations of the source material and overwhelming omissions and confusions. WP:SOAPBOX applies to material written from a non-neutral point of view for the sake of promotion. It is quite clear that in fact this article has been soapboxed very nicely for some time, and I fail to see what your point is. My edits thus far are based on the source material. The presentation of negative information is not evidence of POV; the omission of it is, when almost every single source cited on this page links bitcoin to criminality and speculative bubbles (and yet one would scarcely have recognized this). I shall be making more efforts to make this article more representative of the source material. If you have any specific complaints to make, then please do be specific rather than making unwarranted generalized appeals to inapplicable guidelines. More than happy to RfC. Thanks. Cpaaoi (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
I see you've been back to the page now, Ladislav Mecir, and have chosen not to continue the discussion here, so I will assume that you will not press any further attempt to sanitize this page. The tulip mania reference has been reintroduced, this time as a section in its own right, and also in a comment in the lead section, where it rightly belongs. This is not soapboxing, Jtbobwaysf, it is a representation of what has been reported almost universally in reliable sources. The sources which I have seen which paint bitcoin as a genuine investment appear to me to have conflicts of interest, and I am confident that reference to the tulip mania, whether it is correct or not (irrelevant in any case), *is* warranted under the guidelines at WP:DUE. If you must have another go at removing this material, Ladislav Mecir, I would appreciate this time an actual explanation in the edit summary, per guidelines, so that I can come straight back here to open an RfC without having to clarify first why it has been removed a second time. If you are still concerned about the length of the article (which is not actually that long anyway), there is plenty of bloviation about month-to-month price movements, along with badly explained technical points that may be reduced or eliminated first. Many thanks again. Cpaaoi (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
If you have universal reporting then add sufficient sources that state that and then why would anyone dispute the content? However, standing on your soapbox and talking about your WP:OR has little relevence here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Disagree. A long diatribe on how a few people assert bitcoin in a ponzi, or a bubble, or about the latest opinion on the scaling debate needs to be merged to the relevent section(s). As Ladislav pointed out there are sub-articles on many different subjects and there is every week a new editor on his WP:SOAPBOX stating that new topic needs to be on the main page. Cpaaoi I sugggest your tulip mania content be merged with the existing ponzi scheme content (a little of it) and the rest of it moved off to the sub-article so it can be covered there in greater detail. I have deleted the content added in the lede, every section on this page doesn't get to add a summary to the lede. I have also moved the long diatribe on how bitcoin is illegal to the section on legality. Maybe there is a more suitable place for it somewhere else in the article? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Should the lead section mention concerns about criminality and speculative mania? Cpaaoi (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

In other words, reinstate edits removed at 07:16, 4 December 2017 and 07:32, 4 December 2017. Cpaaoi (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Note My understanding is that the edits Cpaaoi wants to reinstate are the ones removed by edit [1] and edit [2]. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Note Much of the discussion below seems to be digressing into whether or not bitcoin is a bubble. This question is irrelevant here. The question is whether this article should reflect what the majority of reliable sources are saying. Cpaaoi (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Note @Cpaaoi: - "The question is whether this article should reflect what the majority of reliable sources are saying." - You limited the question to "reinstate edits removed at 07:16, 4 December 2017 and 07:32, 4 December 2017", which is distinct from that. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

There is a repeated passing mention of bitcoin being a bubble, almost every article has it. 'Bitcoin did xyz today, and by the way some economists say it might be a bubble.' Second, there is already a section on the page about bubble/ponzi/criminal. What is really being advocated here is a change to WP:WEIGHT to suggest that bitcoin is a ponzi/crime/tulip scheme. First this is not supported by the majority of the RS, and this would not follow the treatment of any other open source software articles that I looked at for some sort of wikipedia norm, such as linux, mysql, bittorrent etc. Bittorrent does have a full sub-page on criminality, but the main page is dedicated to the technology, not what some of the technology's users are doing with it.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Would it not be easier to simply write this feeble stuff once, you two (perhaps you could put out a joint statement together?), and simply add a note advising the reader as to how many times they should read it? As opposed to repeating it across the whole page over and over? Cpaaoi (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
WP:NOTSOAPBOX comes to mind when thinking of joint statements. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Just back from the Temple of Apollo? Cpaaoi (talk) 22:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Survey: (Yes - Include) (No - Exclude)

  • Yes The connection between bitcoin and criminality is made by countless reliable sources. The same is true of mania. Cpaaoi (talk) 11:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
  • No - very little of this article or of outside web is about crime, so it does not suit WP:LEAD or WP:WEIGHT to put such unstated content in the lead. (Note the time/date given is not about criminality.) By raw Google, Bitcoin had 234M hits, criminal use only 6M -- the mentions of bubble at 13M would be much more common. I believe there are numerous articles about criminals using Bitcoin but these are a tiny fraction and not "countless". Deserves some expansion in the section perhaps, but not in the lead. Markbassett (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Actually, almost every single RS concerning bitcoin mentions crime. "Raw Google" is highly misleading, given the huge number of promotional sites (a little bit like this Wikipedia page, in fact). Cpaaoi (talk) 18:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • No bubble Yes criminal - The bubble stuff would have to be much better sourced, and I don't think you'll find better sources that don't give anything beyond an opinion. The criminal bit is better-sourced, widely reported and not speculating about the future. The bubble thing is, after all, a prediction about future prices. It would help if you'd link the 2 edits above. SPECIFICO talk 01:42, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose to reinstate edit removed by [3] and edit removed by [4]. Reasons:
    • The "speculative bubble" claims are disputed in WP:IRS as described in Economics of bitcoin#Speculative bubble dispute. As such they do not belong to the lead section in Wikipedia voice.
    • The "speculative bubble" claims actually are predictions of the future, and in this sense unreliable. Several such predictions already turned out to be wrong as can be seen in Economics of bitcoin#Value forecasts or in Economics of bitcoin#Obituaries.
    • The claims that "The use of bitcoin is recognized to be widespread in criminal activity including terrorism, public corruption, illegal drug and weapons trading, money laundering, and tax evasion." are opposed by The Wall Street Journal and other WP:IRS. Being disputed, they do not belong to the lead section, especially not in Wikipedia voice (per WP:NPOV). Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
The sentence you quote is too specific and therefore hard to justify, but there are plenty of good sources pointing out that a large part (e.g. 20%-50% according to [5]) of the bitcoin economy is illegal in nature, a fraction far larger than with probably any other currency, which makes it noteworthy and important. Ditto with speculation. Smite-Meister (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
"The sentence you quote is too specific" - it is exactly as specific as Cpaaoi made it. This request for comment wants us to give him our agreement. That is what I cannot do as I explained above. Can you? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Okay, then; let's dance...
Actually the Wall Street Journal has long reported on allegations of criminality:
Bitcoin, PayPal Used to Finance Terrorism, Indonesian Agency Says - 10 Jan 2017 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/bitcoin-paypal-used-to-finance-terrorism-indonesian-agency-says-1483964198)
U.S. Targets Bitcoin Exchange, Alleging It Facilitated Crime - 27 July 2017 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-targets-bitcoin-exchange-alleging-it-facilitated-crime-1501194444)
Web Money Gets Laundering Rule - 21 March 2013 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324373204578374611351125202)
Bitcoin and the Digital-Currency Revolution - 23 January 2015 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-revolutionary-power-of-digital-currency-1422035061)
And while we are here, let us not forget that the Wall Street Journal has also published many pieces on bitcoin's bubbly speculation:
Bitcoin’s Wild Ride Shows The Truth: It Is Probably Worth Zero - 18 Sept 2017 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/bitcoins-wild-ride-shows-the-truth-it-is-probably-worth-zero-1505760623)
Why Bitcoin’s Bubble Matters - 8 Oct 2017 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-bitcoins-bubble-matters-1507515361)
Bitcoin: The World’s Most Dramatic Bubble Ever? - 10 Nov 2017 (https://www.wsj.com/articles/bitcoin-the-worlds-most-dramatic-bubble-ever-1510303095)
Soaring Bitcoin: If It's a Bubble, When Will it Burst? - 10 Nov 2017 (http://www.wsj.com/video/soaring-bitcoin-if-it-a-bubble-when-will-it-burst/518F37A8-B7B4-43AC-869E-6F0B3568EAB6.html)
To repeat, the question here is not to determine whether or not bitcoin is a bubble, nor whether or not bitcoin is linked to criminality. Rather, basis of the question is why is the rampant discussion/reporting of both issues being suppressed in this Wikipedia article by deletion, diffusion and the verifiable misrepresentation of source material? NPOV? Oh dear, oh dear. - And I notice you've slipped in another canard, Ladislav Mecir; declaring that disputed matters cannot be included in a lede. What guideline are you basing that on? I can, if you like, point you to any number of highly-rated articles on Wikipedia which explicitly describe controversy in their respective lede sections. What makes this article unique that it must follow your rule? Cpaaoi (talk) 00:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
"And I notice you've slipped in another canard, Ladislav Mecir; declaring that disputed matters cannot be included in a lede." - That is exactly what you claim and what I did not do at all. I claim that I cannot agree to reinstate you edits in the lead section because they are violating WP:NPOV in that they are supporting only one side of the dispute in Wikipedia's voice, instead of admitting that the dispute has more than one side and hiding that there are sources opposing the claims. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
The first link you give claims that PayPal is used to fund terrorism. Why aren't you over at the PayPal article demanding that its use by criminals be included in the lead? Laurencedeclan (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
I would fully support such a discussion there, but please don't change the subject here. We are talking about bitcoin. WP:OSE. Cpaaoi (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • No. This article is about a technology, that allows global transactions in a decentralised and trustless manner. The opinions of news sites which regularly make incorrect claims about the underlying technology have no place in a prominent position in this article, nor does the opinions of some random billionaire, who can hardly be claimed as an authority on the subject. The current price has little to do with the technology and changes substantially every day. The bitcoin network would remain the same if the price dropped to zero tomorrow. Also, the Ponzi scheme conspiracy deserves no place in this article, as a Ponzi scheme implies a single person willingly committing fraud. Laurencedeclan (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
    • Also, “bubbly nature”? Is this an investment site? I don’t see any sections in articles about corporations that talk about whether the current stock price is overvalued and whether Joe Bloggs said it’s worth a lot less. If bitcoin’s price in US dollars went to ten cents tomorrow it would have zero effect on the technology. Laurencedeclan (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
These are not "claims about the underlying technology" - These are statements about the transactions in which Bitcoins are exchanged. SPECIFICO talk 12:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I am not so much interested in whether the allegations are true (and note I have specified the matter of *allegations* of a bubble); only that the allegations are being widely made and concerns being widely voiced. And this article falsely obscures this fact. Cpaaoi (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
“secured by cryptography” is misleading. While cryptography might be involved in Bitcoin protocol, there is no serious proof that such a thing is done in a way to secure it. That just a question of opinion: you do believe it is secure, another one would believe it is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.96.207 (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Are you implying that you have cracked ECDSA? Laurencedeclan (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • No Handgun is able to make it all the way through the lede without discussions of gangs, drugs, murders, etc. As is pointed out above, bitcoin is a technology and the way it is used is pretty much up to the user (eg. handgun). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
That is not a credible comparison. Guns have been infinitely more prevalent in military, farming and sporting use, and I have no doubt that is reflected in the world's source material on guns. In any case, please see WP:OSE. The question *here* is whether the link between bitcoin and criminality made by most RS should be properly represented in this article.Cpaaoi (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I used a gun as an example as it is also a type of technology that the user can decide what he/she wants to do with it (I suspect as is the case with most/all technology), as you yourself also just pointed out. Moving on from guns back to the topic, is your position now that the majority use of bitcoin is criminality? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
My position is of no worth at all. Cpaaoi (talk) 19:20, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes. The lede could easily have a third paragraph without being overtly long. Currently it also includes some fairly unimportant technical trivia about the network structure which does not need to be there. What definitely should be there, however, is an accurate big picture of bitcoin's current real-world uses which, as far as I'm aware, include strong illegal and speculative elements. Finding plenty of reliable sources for these claims is not hard. Not sure if the specific term "bubble" should be in the lede, but it certainly seems to be a trending topic. Smite-Meister (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
    • So a description of what bitcoin is and how it works is “trivia”, whereas what some random person on CNBC (who doesn’t even understand how bitcoin works) says should be in the lead? Laurencedeclan (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Straw man: "includes fairly unimportant technical trivia" is not the same as calling "a description of bitcoin" trivia. And the identification of bitcoin with criminality extends far beyond claims of any "random person on CNBC". Cpaaoi (talk) 23:50, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
I was referring to the ""speculative bubble"" narrative, which is in fact largely perpetuated by the media, not associations with criminality. And he was very clearly referring to a description of the bitcoin network as "trivia", so my argument was not a strawman. Laurencedeclan (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
So you admit that claims of a bubble are being perpetuated in the media. This is notable and worthy of mention, even if the claims are false. And, no - he said that there is included "some fairly unimportant technical trivia", not that the bitcoin network is trivia in itself, so it is quite perfectly the strawiest of strawmen. Cpaaoi (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes criminal - Indifferent to bubble. Criminal should be included. It's an important part of mainstream coverage and analysis of bitcoin and leaving it out does a disservice to the reader. Dbrote (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Recognize that there are two completely different aspects under "criminal" One is legality in various countries, the other is use by criminals. Both should be dispassionately covered, the latter limited to areas where the differences with bitcoin matter. "Bubble" is mostly statements by others and so one degree removed in degree of relevance. . A sentence or two by highly respected experts would be about right. All should be dissspationate enclyclopedic coverage, not a way to try to characterize or brand bitcoin as negative . North8000 (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes (include) - Regarding the criminality. It should be reworded saying: Bitcoin facilities trustless transactions without any central authority. However, this can make it easier to launder money. Regarding the bubble it is worth noting, maybe including the recent rise in value. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:42, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
I'm not seeing how this is unique to bitcoin; cash is used to launder money far more than bitcoin is. And money laundering cannot be claimed to be bitcoin's most prominent use. Laurencedeclan (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Most cash is used for legal purposes. Reliable sources suggest that cash is not comparable to bitcoin in this respect. And it doesn't have to be unique to bitcoin; it only has to be cited in reliable sources. And you may be right about money laundering not being the most prominent use: there is also terrorism, drug-dealing, prostitution, extortion and public corruption mentioned in numerous reliable sources. Cpaaoi (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
"Most cash is used for legal purposes." – as is most bitcoin. As for "it only has to be cited in reliable sources", are you implying that no reliable sources draw a connection between physical cash and crime? As for "terrorism, drug-dealing, etc.", I’m sure cash is used for that also. Again, criminal use is not an inherent property of bitcoin nor is it exclusive to bitcoin in any way. Laurencedeclan (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
The sources are not on your side. As a proportion of cash transactions, criminal use is comparatively minimal. You heavily underestimate the amount of cash which changes hands legally every minute. Whereas all the reliable sources link bitcoin squarely to crime. And it is noted that you are now reduced merely to repeating your personal opinion. WP:NOTGETTINGIT WP:IDONTLIKEIT Cpaaoi (talk) 03:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
How about – https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/29/dark-web-finds-bitcoin-increasingly-more-of-a-problem-than-a-help-tries-other-digital-currencies.html – "Bitcoin usage by criminals has fallen significantly below 20%". Hmm, not a majority then? Instead of replying to my point about criminal usage not being an inherant property of bitcoin I see you have resorted to personal attacks. Perhaps you "don't like it"? Laurencedeclan (talk) 07:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh dear, you just keep proving the point! Thanks for yet another reliable source linking bitcoin to crime. Who said the majority use of bitcoin is criminal? This is your straw man. The point is that the majority of reliable sources (including your source) make the link to crime. Actually, I'll put that in boldface: The point is that the majority of reliable sources make the link to crime. And in what universe is 20% not 'inherent'? If 20% (or even a figure far below that) of the transactions on the London Stock Exchange were criminal, the Exchange would cease to operate. The source says that the criminal usage has fallen below 20%, but we don't know how far below, and it suggests that some of the proportional reduction may have resulted from increased usage elsewhere (see also Bubble). Your source expounds explicitly on the criminal use of bitcoin and a range of other cryptocurrencies. So I really do not see your point. WP:NOTGETTINGIT Cpaaoi (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
According to this source – https://www.aier.org/sound-money-project/how-much-cash-used-criminals-and-tax-cheats – written by a PhD in Economics, "more than a third [33%] of all US currency in circulation is used by criminals and tax cheats." So apparently cash has a higher proportion of criminal transactions than bitcoin. In this case bitcoin does not have a notable link to criminal use. Laurencedeclan (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh no! Calamity again! A classic confusion of the quantity of cash in circulation and the quantity of cash transactions! You give yourself away once again! And stop changing the subject! This is a page about bitcoin! Cash could be 100% illegal, and still bitcoin's criminal use would be eligible for mention in the lede here! Calamity! Oh no! Anyway, I'm not seeing any new or compelling arguments coming forward here, and where you are not repeating yourself or accidentally bolstering the case against your own preference for this page, I feel I am now having to school you in the dark arts of basic finance. Since I'm not being paid to do so, I'll step back from the discussions for now! Ciao! Cpaaoi (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Please refrain from excessive use of hyperbole and exclamation marks. It is a self-evident fact that all payment systems can be used by criminals. This does not require mentioning in the lead, and as such no currency article (e.g. US Dollar) or payment system article (e.g. PayPal) does so. The only scenario where explicitly mentioning criminal usage in the lead is balanced and not undue would be in the case that a significant proportion of transactions in a currency/payment system are criminal in nature. I have demonstrated above that this is not the case. If the proportion of criminal bitcoin transactions is similar to the amount of criminal transactions using cash then it is not a notable property of bitcoin and should not be in the lead. Laurencedeclan (talk) 03:26, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
WP:BLUDGEON Cpaaoi (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes - summoned by bot. Almost all you hear in the media about Bitcoin is that its price is going through the roof, and that more and more legitimate merchants are agreeing to take the currency as payment. The reason the latter is news is because beforehand it was used for black market transactions. Every article lede should have info about what a product or service is used for, especially when it is uniquely suited for such use. The SD-WAN article I started includes in the second paragraph a clear statement of use. Likewise, the very first sentence of Digital subscriber line describes what it is used for, and leaves the technological underpinnings for later. This is not WP:OSE but simply best practices. How about something like this:
Because of the unregulated nature of Bitcoin, and the anonymity it grants its users, it has been used for both legal and illegal transactions.  As it gains mainstream acceptance, as of late 2017, more and more traditional merchants are starting to accept the currency as payment. As acceptance grows, the exchange rate fluctuation between Bitcoin and the US dollar have led to some concerns of speculation and a related pricing bubble.
TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 18:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Cpaaoi (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
"more and more legitimate merchants are agreeing to take the currency as payment." – [citation needed]. I haven't seen any such news of mainstream acceptance by major retailers. "Every article lede should have info about what a product or service is used for". The article has a description of what bitcoin is used for. The first sentence states "Bitcoin is a ... worldwide payment system". I am still unconvinced that illegal use is something that is inherent to bitcoin or especially notable. You can imagine that cash is used far more in money laundering and crime, yet the US dollar article doesn't seem to make any mention of it in the lead. In fact, it doesn't even mention it in the entire article. Laurencedeclan (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
I could imagine it - but that does not make it true! Please do demonstrate that the majority of reliable sources on the US dollar describe it as being centrally defined by crime. I'll even give you a helpful head-start: as an example, the United Nations estimates that the total amount of money laundered globally comes to somewhere between $800bn and $2tn each year. An equivalent quantity of money passes through the New York Stock Exchange alone about once every five to ten working days. (In other words, an eye-watering majority of dollars are used for legal payments as opposed to money laundering.) - However, let's not change the subject (again). We are here to talk about bitcoin, and the majority of reliable sources characterize bitcoin as being centrally defined heretofore by criminality. Which has transparently been whitewashed from this page. Cpaaoi (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
Some of the numerous articles about changing mainstream acceptance of Bitcoin [[6]][[7]][[8]] and pending acceptance [[9]] Here's an article that actually says that criminals may be thinking about moving away from Bitcoin [[10]] so it's not WP:OR or WP:SNYTH to state that it has been and still is being used for criminal purposes. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 07:12, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
This article, about the 'bubble', claims Bitcoin is getting mainstream acceptance because it is now trading on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Chicago Board Options Exchange and offshore, commodity futures exchanges. Also, it says While CEOs of big traditional commercial banks, like JPM Chase’s Jamie Dimon, have called Bitcoin “a fraud”, they simultaneously have declared plans to facilitate trading in the Bitcoin-Crypto market. [ article link]. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes - (invited by a bot) Bitcoin's use in laundering money and conducting illegal transactions is so well documented in reliable sources that not including that in the intro violates WP:NPOV. Jojalozzo (talk) 18:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes (the FRS/Legobot sent me) there are ample reliable sources (e.g. [11]) documenting that Bitcoin is illegal in several jurisdictions, has very often been used for large-scale money laundering in jurisdictions where it is nominally legal and where it is illegal, is not designed on sound technical principles and is prone to local and systemic failure, is very often associated with fraud, was designed to have characteristics of Ponzi and similar schemes, and is very nearly the epitome of a financial bubble. These facts need to be included in this primary article in WP:SUMMARY style, linking to the more detailed article on economic subtopics. EllenCT (talk) 13:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
@EllenCT: "Bitcoin is illegal in several jurisdictions" - bitcoin is legal in many more jurisdictions (see Legality of bitcoin by country or territory); "has very often been used for large-scale money laundering" - WP:IRS needed; "is not designed on sound technical principles" - this contradicts all known WP:IRS (e.g. The Economist or Narayanan, Arvind; Bonneau, Joseph; Felten, Edward; Miller, Andrew; Goldfeder, Steven (2016). Bitcoin and cryptocurrency technologies: a comprehensive introduction. Princeton: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-17169-2.); "was designed to have characteristics of Ponzi and similar schemes" - this contradicts WP:IRS such as The Washington Post; "and is very nearly the epitome of a financial bubble" - this also contradicts WP:IRS such as The Washington Post Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:38, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
But whatabout? Where is proof? WP:NOTGETTINGIT Cpaaoi (talk) 22:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Are you implying that claims do not need to be backed up by a WP:RS? Laurencedeclan (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Given the reaching and hyperbolic nature of those claims, the source you cited does not appear to be reliable. The author has no credentials that entitle them to speak authoritatively on the subject. Bear in mind anyone can publish a book on Amazon. Laurencedeclan (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes (notified by bot). If reliably-sourced information about these aspects is included in the main text, then of course it can (and should) be summarized in the lede. NewYorkActuary (talk) 05:18, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  • No. The sources that we usually consider reliable publish facts and opinions. In the latter case what we really have is reliable sources regarding facts that somebody holds a particular view. The "bubble" thing is purely opinion. Criminal use is mostly opinion too, however some research exists, and, as I understand, shows very small percentage of transactions associated with criminal activity. We should be very careful not to overstate opinions. In my view, even a large collection of opinions is not a proper encyclopedic content. At least it should not be given too much weight. Retimuko (talk) 06:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
The estimates of the historical and current volume of Bitcoin transactions that are criminal in nature (20%-50% of total volume [12]) aren't small by any reasonable standard, and this is why this should be mentioned in the lede. I would suggest including something like
Due to the unregulated nature of Bitcoin and the perception of anonymity it grants its users, a substantial part of the Bitcoin economy has been illegal in nature (e.g. darknet drug markets, ransomware and money laundering).
Smite-Meister (talk) 16:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. Cpaaoi (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
This is highly controversial. I would doubt very much this 20-50% estimate from Blockchain Intelligence Group (who are they anyway?). For instance, UK government report says "The evidence available indicates that digital currencies have been used by illicit actors, but the information does not suggest that digital currencies have, at present, been widely adopted as a payment vehicle in the wider criminal community". Retimuko (talk) 22:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
They're saying that cryptocurrency transactions probably do not make up a large part of all illicit payments. Note that this is quite separate from the claim "illicit payments make up a large part of all cryptocurrency transactions". Both can be true simultaneously. Also, it's not our job here to second-guess the quality of CNBC sources. CNBC is in general a reliable news service, we're just reporting what they're saying. Smite-Meister (talk) 02:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Not really It is difficult to get out of 'opinion territory' when discussing Bitcoin. There have been multiple 'important people' being mentioned in reliable sources about how bitcoin is a bubble, however this is something that should not go in the lead because it's not a broadly agreed idea and therefore is not due to have this in something that is meant to summarise the subject in question. About the criminal thing, most uses of Bitcoin are legitimate however even if it is liable to hacking, stealing and being used to buy drugs -- again it's not always the case and therefore it's not due. The only way I would support something like this is to have a primer basically saying although most uses of Bitcoin are legitimate and then discuss criminal uses. !dave 09:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes – Speculation is the main use of Bitcoin today. That pays even more than crime… — JFG talk 14:34, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Comments

Comments:

  • Do not believe that this material should be diffused across numerous articles, nor buried at the bottom of the article in bits. This is not WP:SOAPBOX. The *removal* of such is in fact soapboxing, presenting a sunny and happy image which is not reflected across the source material. It is disgusting from an intellectual point of view that we learn more on this page about electricity consumption (why has this not been moved to a sub-section on a sub-page in a reduced state with accusations of OR and SOAPBOX, I wonder?) than we do about bans and restrictions in Asia, South America, Africa, the European Union, as well as links to terrorism, money laundering and weapons trading. Referencing extensive commentary across RS is not OR. And no-one has suggested including material from every section in the opening paragraphs, Jtbobwaysf. Also disagree that Ponzi and tulips be merged; the tulip mania was not a Ponzi scheme. Cpaaoi (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
This Bitcoin article is the subject of significant coverage. Wikipedia has policies that allow for and maybe even suggest having sub-articles. Everything can't fit on this page, and what does stay is often a summary. I agree, there should be something on electrial usage on the main page, didn't know it had been moved. As for the lede, I think we can discuss putting a sentence in the lede, but not whole paragrapshs as you suggested that give undue WP:WEIGHT to the de-bunkers. Last, in this edit [13] you deleted some cited contnet. Were you moving to a sub-page and didn't note that in your edits? I have re-added it, feel free to explain why you deleted the content here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Straw men: no-one is suggesting putting everything on this page; nor placing whole "paragrapshs" in the lede. The suggestion is to clarify in the lede that most reliable sources link bc to criminality and speculative bubbles. I would readily agree to a note there that there exist dissenters (about bubbles, not criminality). Thanks for re-adding that content; that was a simple copy-and-paste mistake by myself while restoring sourced content that had been misleadingly messed about. Cpaaoi (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I support adding content to this article that talks about bitcoin being called a ponzi, a scam, and used by criminals. I myself have added such content to this page recently and I reverted your edits which deleted Jamie Dimon's comments on bitcoin (notable person who is repeated cited in his negative remarks). I think this content is interesting content to the reader and there clearly are RS to support it. Thus, please add that content in a neutral voice, in the appropriate section, and be breif in how you say it (since the article is long). Maybe even consider creating a whole sub-page about criticisms of bitcoin and then you can add essentially unlimited content to it, as WP:WEIGHT would not be an issue. I may also support you linking to those sub-articles as well. Make sense? There is no reason that all discussions of ponzi, criminals, fraud, ransom, etc be scrubbed from the main page, but there is a reason for it to be limited to a sentence or two if it is cleary linked to the sub-page Jtbobwaysf (talk) 06:25, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment - (invited by a bot). The survey section of an RFC is reserved for input and arguing against that input there is unnecessary and inappropriate. Whoever closes this RFC will ignore those arguments and I hope everyone else does also. Please use this comment section to make points you don't feel belong in your own survey entry. Jojalozzo (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Comment - I don't understand the issue, the article currently notes remarks in regards to ponzi/legal/bubble. The article on money is probably a good prototype for how to add such sections (see money laundering). The new article on Cryptocurrency bubble is basically the same information already part of the article here. Because there are examples of people who said something in the past about ponzi/fraud/scheme, but since have changed their minds, or adjusted their arguments, the sections could probably be combined under something like Public opinions on cryptocurrencies. Due to WP:UNDUE, we also should add opinions with different viewpoints on these subjects. prokaryotes (talk) 15:24, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose that another article be created that is focused on addressing the criticism of bitcoin. I believe this has precedent, essentially in allowing two different ideologies or opinions to develop their own respective articles (with of course some wiki-linking). This is also a service to the reader, as we do a better job at allowing a broader set of views to come into discussion, hence an overall improvement of WP:NPOV.

Various editors above have been tendentiously editing the article attempting to add a large range of content by notable and non-notable people that state that bitcoin is bad for various reasons, generally that it is a ponzi scheme, a criminal payment platform, or that it is a bubble. I can say that these statements do in many cases come with sufficient WP:RS to be cited. There is also an opposite camp of editors that are repeatedly deleting this content. For this reason I propose that the content be allowed to exist on a separate article(s) with this article carrying a summary of what the other article states. I got this idea when reading editor North8000 (talk · contribs) comments, which seemed balanced. This approach works for well for BitTorrent which has Legal issues with BitTorrent to go along with it, similarly we have Water fluoridation which has Water fluoridation controversy, and I am sure we could find additional examples.

To accomplish this purpose, I propose to create a criticism of bitcoin article. North8000 above asserted that legality of bitcoin is different from criminal use of bitcoin, and legality already has its own article Legality of bitcoin by country or territory. I suppose this content could also be put on Bitcoin_network#Criminal_activity, and I don’t at all understand why there is a separate article for Bitcoin network.

To summarize, maybe a few of us should work on a re-org of this content in general, so that it is all based off the primary bitcoin tree with relevant sub-articles under it, making sure that critics, Ponzi schemes, criminal use, etc all get their own areas to be fully covered. Just thinking out loud, happy editing. Maybe if we want to be really bold we strip the Bitcoin network article of all non-technical (non-network) content and use that content to create sub-articles that have sufficient content to be good stand alone articles. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Heavily Disagree What is this page's regular inhabitants' fascination with sub-articles? Every important issue may be adequately summarized on a single page. Also disagree on cutting non-technical material (except in cases of obvious triviality, like The Big Bang Theory sub-section). Propose instead stripping/condensing most of the technical details. This is an encyclopedia page, not a documentation page. Cpaaoi (talk) 04:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Structure
Hello all,
It is quite clear for me that the current introductory summary with its technical details about the anonymous author or the mining details is quite misleading. It is possible that in the past it was fine, as long as this was a topic and a game for geeks and startups companies. But now that Bitcoin is a global public affairs object affecting many nations, the aim of the article should not be so limited. If everybody is agreeing that this is a Bubble/Ponzi/Illegal system, it should appear in the introductory summary. But if opinions are mixed then the introductory summary should only say that on this theme Bitcoin faces controversy giving the reader a clue of where in the Wikipedia article this controversy is detailed.
The question is not to know if the Bitcoin is a Bubble/Ponzi/Illegal system, because the answer is quite obvious. The question is to know which are the verifiable sources which help to understand the various facets of this question. There are enough public knowledge with mixed views provided by relevant and verifiable source to give details on each thematic: Bubble/Ponzi/Illegal system. Then the reading of the introductory summary should help to understand the structure and so the content of the article.
Additionally, if the Bitcoin is — in all or in part — fraudulent, only a little girl would be naïve enough to imagine that hiding such information in a separate place could not be considered as a complicity such as “fraudulent business” (entreprise frauduleuse), or “organized fraud” (fraude organisée), when (or if) the fraudulent character of such a fraud appears.
The logic which should prevail is to keep the important part in the main article, and if the article is too long, the technical details in dedicated parts.
For a virtual money, which might sometimes be confused with a real money, the main article should answer the main topics, including the question of to be or not to be fraudulent. Two wrongs do not make one right, but look at the euro article; it deals with economics, no technical details. Anyway, some technical details are addressed in Euro_coins & Euro banknotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.185.253.42 (talk) 18:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Am in 100% agreement. Cpaaoi (talk) 18:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Bitcoin Ponzi scheme and pyramid scheme concerns section and sub-article

I have created a sub-article using the section name Bitcoin Ponzi scheme and pyramid scheme concerns so that broader coverage can take place there. For now I have just copied the content, I suppose at a later date we can discuss what is moved where. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I added a link to the article from the Economics of bitcoin subarticle. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Wondering out loud if I should have named this new article "Cryptocurrency ponzi scheme and pyramid concerns." Might be more useful for this article to have a broader scope, as it can catch similar content from other articles such as ICOs and Ethereum. Feel free to change if you support the idea, I am good with either. Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
This article is nominated for AFD. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bitcoin_Ponzi_scheme_and_pyramid_scheme_concerns in case you want to participate. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Please see these additional sources, in addition to User:David Gerard's book, Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain which I linked in the RFC above:

EllenCT (talk) 14:48, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Bubble

I have created a sub-article Cryptocurrency bubble to cover the bubble content, and I made sections for Bitcoin, Ethereum, and ICOs. I named this a broader name, as it seems the bubble is larger than others. Here is an interesting source [14] for those who wish to read (anyhow there is plenty on this subject). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Self-published sources in the article

This edit was justified as "this material was cited with a reliable source, per WP:SELFSOURCE". Note, however, that the claim purportedly confirmed by the source is not a claim referring to the source—it is a claim referring to the decentralization of bitcoin. A claim referring to the source could have been, e.g. a claim that "Bitcoin.org says that it is an independent open source project with contributors from around the world." The independency claim is exceptional, though, since project contributors are, by the same source, claimed to be bitcoin supporters, and, in this sense, not independent. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Decentralization

The section on decentralization has been cut down[15] to a point where it's meaningless and resembles a (failed) sponsored ICO advertisement with textbook WP:WEASEL statements like "researchers have pointed out some centralized weak points". Specifically:

  • information on double-spending is part of official Bitcoin protocol documentation and has been sourced to it[16]; this protocol-specific information has been replaced by the vague weasel talk about "some weak points"
  • Ghash.io reaching over 51% hash power was an actual event that caused widespread controversy in the Bitcoin community and was a practical example of decentralization failure; this has been also deleted
  • specific statistical data about country-wide hash power distribution has been also replaced

Copying @Laurencedeclan: @Ladislav Mecir: to provide justification why this rather important facts should be replaced by the "some weak points" WP:WEASEL. Cloud200 (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I reverted just now as most of it is not WP:RS, such as medium, bitcoin.org, etc. Only decent source in the mix was the techcrunch source, but if i left only that content it would not be encyclopedic see WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. I am not sure if this apparently IEEE source is a peer reviewed article, or if it is some opinion piece. I think we would need to look at the original. Its an interesting subject in general, but needs to be explored with proper sourcing. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's go specific. Medium.com article is written by a respected security researcher Egor Homakov. Buy Bitcoin Worldwide article is well-researched and sourced on itself. bitcoin.org is referenced in this article 6 times, including the original BTC paper being primary reference for this article (mentioned 7 times!!!). Cloud200 (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Bitcoin.org and medium are both WP:PRIMARY. I have no idea who Egor is. You are making a new claim on the page, substantiated by WP:OR and WP:PRIMARY. You previously added the same content here[17] and it disappeared but I don't see the edit that deleted it, a second time here [18] and I reverted it here [19], and you again added it here [20], and I have reverted it a second time here[21]. This appears WP:TENDENTIOUS to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:45, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
As mentioned above, Bitcoin.org is already used six times (thirteen if you count ref reuse) on Bitcoin article page because concepts referenced are so basic that it just makes sense to reference the protocol specification itself even if it's WP:PRIMARY. 90% of Wikipedia articles on network protocols (starting with HTTP) reference Request for Comments and other Internet standards because, well, this is why they are for. Cloud200 (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Bitcoin.org is not even a WP:PRIMARY source. You can read at the site, that currently, it is written by various bitcoin enthusiasts, and therefore, provably not independent. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Egor Homakov - 1.2k followers on GitHub, 4.3k followers on Medium, corporate website, personal blog (discontinued) etc. Everyone in infosec industry knows who Homakov is and he's definitely WP:RS. Cloud200 (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
In summary, you have been presented a whole corpus of arguments proving relevance and reliable sourcing of the new paragraph and still chosen to simply revert the whole section and accuse me of being WP:TENDENTIOUS, rather than make slightest effort to improve any alleged deficiencies so I'd suggest it's now time to go and read WP:GF and WP:DGF. Cloud200 (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Like I said above, I think it is an interesting subject worth looking at more. What is needed is WP:RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Sure. This is why I asked for a second opinion here Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Bitcoin#Decentralization. Cloud200 (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

As the DRN has asked for more discussion, I would like to bring specific statements to the table and request that @Jtbobwaysf: be more specific about what are his issues about each if them:

  • However, researchers have pointed out a number of issues with the decentralization of the Bitcoin ecosystem. — versus current WP:WEASEL: However, researchers have pointed out some centralized weak points in the Bitcoin ecosystem, such as mining pools and web wallets.
What was the change to the text here, just adding wallets and mining? Seems ok if so Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: The change here was to delete everything about the decentralization issues and just leave the "some centralized weak" WP:WEASEL. Cloud200 (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Because the transactions on the networks are controlled by miners, the network to be decentralized requires that no single miner or mining pool obtains 51% of the hashing power, which would allow them to fully control the blockchain including double-spending of coins, preventing chosen transactions from being verified and preventing other miners from earning income. — this is the Bitcoin protocol definition of 51% attack
  • In 2014 mining pool GHash.io obtained 51% hashing power which raised significant controversies about the safety of the network. The pool has voluntarily capped their hashing power at 39.99% and called other pool to act responsibly for the benefit of the whole network. — this is the practical occurrence of the 51% attack that proves it's not just theoretical and risks associated with it may materialize in the current Bitcoin protocol and infrastructure
This one above is about a 51% attack. Does the article today not even address a 51% attack? I just looked and didn't notice it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
No, it does not. And since the 51% attack is defined as "The ability of someone controlling a majority of network hash rate to revise transaction history and prevent new transactions from confirming" its logical place is the Decentralization section. Cloud200 (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Security researcher Egor Homakov pointed out that while the Bitcoin network was designed as decentralized, it gradually tends towards centralization as result of miners maximizing their gain and as of 2017 majority of the nodes are located in one country — China. — another materialization of the risk to Bitcoin's alleged decentralization
I dont think medium is an WP:RS. Also this is a WP:POV, not really sure it is suitable. It's like a critique, 'Bob from Motortrend said the Ferrari isnt very nice to drive'... Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
You mistake point of view in article (unacceptable) with point of view in sources (acceptable): "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Biased or opinionated sources. Also you have not provided any arguments why Homakov's analysis is not reliable. Cloud200 (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that medium isn't WP:IRS Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: In general it falls under self-published material but this specific Homakov's article fits the defined exceptions from the general rule: Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Exceptions Cloud200 (talk) 11:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
Also, as mentioned above, the same article is published on L Technology Group corporate website, which even further satisifies the verifiability requirements of Wikipedia. Cloud200 (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
@Cloud200: Realting to this 'expert' we will need to apply the WP:GNP against this. As far as my opinion is concerned if he doesnt have a wikipedia page, it probably isn't notable enough for this this. We currently use this same rule to apply what Dapps get listed on the Ethereum and Blockchain articles (meaning we delete those that lack a wikipedia entry). It is a clean, easy, and seemingly fair way to apply the test. Thus make a wikipedia page for this Egor person, if the article survives, then come over here on this page an try to add the content. But advocating a medium page is acceptable for an RS because the guy has github stars is unlikely to pass. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
@Jtbobwaysf: Forget Medium. Focus on this reference [L Technology Group. Cloud200 (talk) 14:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
@Cloud200: This is also not an WP:IRS, this is a company blog. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • As of March 2017 four of the five biggest mining pools (AntPool, F2Pool, BTCC, BW) were based in China. Allegedly, a number of other pools (ViaBTC, BTC.com, GBMiners, CANOE) are also run by AntPool to disguise its true hash rate. In total, Chinese pools account for 72% of global hashing power.
China miners is a fact, I guess we could put that somewhere in the article. But we cannot add our WP:OR to say that means it is decentralized, even if it looks that way. Certainly buybitcoinworldwide.com is not an RS. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:28, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
No problem, I can add it anywhere else except for the Decentralization section Cloud200 (talk) 17:47, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cloud200: I don’t believe I have "cut down" on anything. FWIW I do not believe that material should have been removed. It is obviously factual. Laurencedeclan (talk) 08:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: Can you please explain why you have deleted this part: "As of 2013 just six mining pools controlled 75% of overall Bitcoin hashing power" with explanation "Claims not confirmed by provably independent reliable sources"?[23] Cloud200 (talk) 09:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

That is because the claims were citing sources that provably aren't independent. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ladislav Mecir: Please discuss here prior to deleting, because for each of these sources a consensus has been reached here through discussion. Cloud200 (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
I see no consensus here, as far as the use of unreliable sources is concerned. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2018

203.100.69.154 (talk) 05:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 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. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 05:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Technical language

I’m trying to flag this article as being too technical, but I keep being reverted. In my opinion the article is not only too technical for an average educated reader to comprehend, but is actually ‘’tautological’’ in places, basically defining bitcoin in terms of bitcoin. This problem arises from the fact that the article is written by technical people who are so immersed in what they are trying to describe that they can’t get outside of it and describe it to the non-initiate, except in terms that are already constructed out of the jargon they use.

Here is a New York Times piece that explains Bitcoin in a more understandable way:

NATHANIEL POPPER, “There Is Nothing Virtual About Bitcoin’s Energy Appetite”, ‘’The New York Times’’, 21 January 2018.

- I’m not suggesting the article should operate at that level of simplicity, but maybe a notch or two more detailed would do, with references to more technical treatments. 

  -Wwallacee (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Wwallacee (talk) 11:53, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Disagree
    • "I’m trying to flag this article as being too technical, but I keep being reverted." - That is not true, Wwallacee. The fact is that Jtbobwaysf reverted your edit just once, the reason being that you failed to start any discussion related to your concern, which is what you should have done first.
    • "In my opinion the article is actually...‘’tautological’’ in places, basically defining bitcoin in terms of bitcoin" - You failed to mention where did you observe this, it should not be a problem to correct such formulations.
    • "Here is a New York Times piece that explains Bitcoin in a more understandable way..." - the piece you mention does not explain what bitcoin is at all. It already assumes that the reader knows what bitcoin is and tries to quantify its consumption using a terminology that is unsuitable for encyclopedic purposes, such as "...the computer power needed to create each digital token consumes at least as much electricity as the average American household burns through in two years..." Per reliable sources, the standard unit of electricity consumption can be kWh/year, MWh/year, GWh/year, W, kW, MW, GW, etc. The "average American household burns" unit is both nonstandard and nonneutral, assuming that the reader knows what the expression means. That is not true, though, since the world is not just America, America is not just the U.S., and not every household in U.S. is an average household.
    • "that explains Bitcoin" - Note, please, that there has been a wide consensus (the discussion archive is available for you to read) to use lowercase bitcoin as explained in the Bitcoin#Etymology section.
In my opinion, you failed to present any relevant information that could support your concern. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Disagree that the article is too technical. I am not technical at all and couldn't get my way out from a pile of code that fell off the shelf on to my head if my life depended on it. But I am familiar with some of the industry terminology, so that might color my view a bit. Let's also be aware that this is an article about software, not a political movement, or some comparison of what is the most efficient means of operating a money type in terms of electricity consumption. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

History section needed

The article needs a history section that would summarize in a concise overview the various phases in the development and use of bitcoin, including the current crash in value. -Wwallacee (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Wwallacee (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The Bitcoin#History section already exists and contains a short summary and a link to the History of bitcoin subarticle containing the informations you mention. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Ladislav... and, there is another article dedicated to the price bubble subject, titled Cryptocurrency bubble. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but the History section in ‘’this’’ article is very weak and doesn’t cover the necessary ground. The linked article is good, but a summary of it needs to be put into this more general article, which is the first 0,ace people will go to learn about Bitcoin.-Wwallacee (talk) 11:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Wwallacee. As to the moving of the "History" related information to a subarticle: consult WP:SUBARTICLE, please, since you seem to not know the policy. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I support Ladislav's position to move content off to the history sub article. There is no reason why we should try to prioritize what history is important and what is not, it is all part of bitcoin's history and thus is all important. Since it all cant fit on the main page, then let's continue to move content to the sub-article. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree with expanding the history section. Such things as Mt. Gox, Silk Road, and various technical changes (addition of P2SH for example) were defining points in bitcoin's existence. Laurencedeclan (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Scalability intrepretation

@Ladislav Mecir: it seems that we have two issues in the scalability section.

  • First we have to figure out how to treat this coefficient of 4. This sentence gives me a headache when i read it: "Per computer scientist Jochen Hoenicke, since the coefficient for non-SegWit data is 4 while the coefficient for SegWit data is 1, the actual block capacity depends on the ratio of SegWit transactions in the block, on the ratio of signature data and on the space efficiency of SegWit transactions."
  • Second we have the issue of the intrepretation: Currently states: "Based on his estimate, if the ratio of SegWit transactions will be 50%, the block capacity may be 1.25 megabytes." However, the source states: "But, how exactly does SegWit increase capacity? Sometimes it is said, SegWit is a “2MB soft fork,” sometimes even a “4MB soft fork”, but at the same time it is said that SegWit only gives 1.5 or 1.8MB capacity....After all, we can assume, that SegWit adoption half a year after activation will be, at best, 85 percent, and, at worst, lower than 50 percent. The capacity of a block will be 1.25MB with 50 percent and 1.45MB with 85 percent. This size will further increase after six months. If the native SegWit addresses are used, and the adoption reaches 90 to 95 percent, a block size of up to 1.8MB is possible." Thus I think we should probably put in a range of potential blocksizes of 1.25 to 1.8MB until we there is some consenus on what it actually is. The current treatment a the low end of the spectrum maybe is not accurate (unless we clarify we have picked the low end number). I think we have even seen some very large 4MB blocks already in the blockexplorers. Another issue is that [24] is a 2.1MB transaction according to the blockexplorer.

Thoughts? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

"Per computer scientist Jochen Hoenicke, since the coefficient for non-SegWit data is 4 while the coefficient for SegWit data is 1, the actual block capacity depends on the ratio of SegWit transactions in the block, on the ratio of signature data and on the space efficiency of SegWit transactions." - you are right, instead of coefficient I should have said "weight" to reflect the cited source.
'However, the source states: "But, how exactly does SegWit increase capacity? Sometimes it is said, SegWit is a “2MB soft fork,” sometimes even a “4MB soft fork”,' - you do not understand what the source says. The source mentions that "sometimes it is said...". You misrepresented this formulation stating that it was the source who made that estimate, which is clearly false. What the source did, instead, was that they asked a computer scientist Jochen Hoenicke for an expert opinion, and they obtained several possible estimates. The estimates were based on an assumption that after half a year from activation, SegWit would have 50% ratio of transactions. The situation is different, though, since the actual ratio is significantly lower than that, making even the lowest estimate too big. That is why it does not make sense to use any higher estimate. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I added the high bound estimate of 1.8MB, as I think we should include the full range with the bounds. Feel free to tweak of course. Seems the soruce is giving a bounded range of 1.25MB to 1.8MB, assuming full adoption. I think the reader can make their own determination if full adoption is realistic or not.Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, the adoption is noticeably smaller than 50% at present so even the smallest figure by the expert is overestimating the actual state (which is what he attempted to predict). I am at odds why do you feel the need to overestimate even further... Ladislav Mecir (talk) 15:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
It's not the position of us editors to use our WP:OR guess what the segwit adoption will be (if it will be 10%, 50%, or 100% for example), nor per WP:CRYSTALBALL could we even cover sources postulating on what it might be in the future. It is fine to use the range that is listed in the source, as the reader can make their own decision. Here [25] is a nice source I saw today that talks about exchanges supporting it, but it doesn't give a current adoption number. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
"It's not the position of us editors to use our WP:OR guess what the segwit adoption will be" - sure, but in this case it is the expert who guessed the adoption half a year from adoption, i.e. now. And we do not need to guess what the adoption is now, we can easily find out using the available sources. If you claim that we should not use the future estimate, then, of course, that is correct, but then we should not use expert's estimates, since he actually estimated half a year into the future. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:18, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
After adding the source date, I see that the expert estimated the value even more to the future than 6 months, since the source date is 26 June 2017, i.e. the expert prediction was 8 months to the future. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The higher prediction adds another six months which makes it a prediction 14 months to the future. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I suppose my suggestion would be to just leave the dates out entirely, and say something like "if 50% of people use segwit, then the size is estimated to be 1.25MB and if everyone uses segwit and the new wallet format, it the expert estimates it could go as high as 1.8MB." Or something like that. Does that work for you? My logic is to get rid of the dates to comply with crystallball, as I think the estimtes are workable without the dates. I am ok with the formulation in the article at its present time, if you are as well, we dont need to change it at least in my opinion. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 04:25, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Potentially serious problem

This might be a serious problem that someone in authority should evaluate. The District of Columbia Business Center Quick Search Results show that the "Entity Status" of The Bitcoin Foundation, Inc. is "REVOKED". This might mean that the corporation's powers are completely suspended or that the corporation may lawfully only take those actions that are necessary to dissolve the corporation or to bring the corporation back into good standing. Operating the corporation while its powers are revoked might subject the officers and directors to legal liabilities. Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

This is completely irrelevant. The Bitcoin Foundation isn't Bitcoin. It might be relevant on that page. Also, this is an encyclopedia, not a place to try to communicate with the Bitcoin Foundation organization. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I thought that it is relevant to the Bitcoin article because The Bitcoin Foundation redirects to Bitcoin. I wonder if it would be appropriate to delete that redirect or to amend the redirect so that it links to The Bitcoin Foundation. Scott Gregory Beach (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Aha. I've fixed that redirect, thanks. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Favourable perspective, weight or bias

This article seems to me to be unduly favourable to bitcoin. Many questions about it are either unanswered, or the answers are controversial. The article doesn't reflect this adequately IMO.

See for example https://www.the-parallax.com/2016/05/06/why-satoshi-nakamoto-matters-bitcoin/ for a more cautious perspective. Andrewa (talk) 05:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Since the article you cite discusses the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto, I assume that you are missing the information that the identity of Satoshi Nakamoto is unknown. For this information, see the lead section, where this is clearly stated. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompy reply. No, I saw that. The identity and current holdings of Nakmoto are not the only questions! Andrewa (talk) 10:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

You can't consume power

"At the end of 2017, the global bitcoin mining activity was estimated to consume between 1 and 4 gigawatts of electricity (between 9 and 35 TWh a year), with 1.2 GW as the theoretical lower bound assuming that everyone is using the most energy-efficient mining hardware available."

The watt is a unit of power. Power is a rate. You cannot consume a rate. It would be like saying the distance between city A and city B is 70/mph, or the event will occur 10 light years from now. A light year is a unit of distance, not time.

The sentence needs to be rewritten.

For example: ". . . to consume electricity at a rate estimated to be between 1 and 4 gigawatts." Betaneptune (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Your "would be like" examples are unrelated to consumption. In [26], l/100 km is claimed to be the unit of fuel consumption. In [27], kWh/year is used as a unit of electricity consumption. Note that 1 kWh/year = 0.114 W. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:46, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
The pdf file gets it wrong. That's inverse mileage, not consumption. Regardless, the article says consumes, not consumption. You can't consume a rate. Consume != consumption. My "would be like" examples are right. The article confuses a rate with an amount, and my examples illustrate the error by contrasting a rate with an amount. In the article one could instead say "consumes electricity at a rate of 1 to 4 GW" or perhaps "uses 1 to 4 GW of power". You yourself say that kilowatt/year is a unit of consumption. That's correct. But a kilowatt or a gigawatt isn't, which is what the article says is "consumed". Betaneptune (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
"You yourself say that kilowatt/year is a unit of consumption." - I see that you have a reading problem. That is not what I say, and it would be wrong, of course. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
kWh looked funny to me, so I thought the "h" was a typo. OK, it's kilowatt-hour. Sorry about that! (By the way, you have a grammar and punctuation problem.) You could say, "I consume three cookies a day". You could say, "I traveled 200 miles a day". But you wouldn't say, "I traveled 30 mph". You could say you traveled at 30 mph. You can travel 200 miles every day, but you can't travel 30 mph. I would think the same goes for gigawatts. Look at http://sentence.yourdictionary.com/consume. It gives several dozen sentence examples. In none of them is a rate consumed. I also cannot find "consuming a rate" in the dictionary sites. It's always an amount. Betaneptune (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
"OK, it's kilowatt-hour." - you are really having a reading problem. You also did not look at the cited source in my opinion. Maybe you can try once again? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Of course you can consume power! A 1kW electric radiator consumes 1 kW of power. You can also consume energy; Every hour, that 1kW radiator consumes 1 kWh of energy. That's what the units mean! Andrewa (talk) 01:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Image

Article currently includes File:Cryptocurrency Mining Farm.jpg (at right).

It's a great image, but according to the image description at Wikimedia Commons it's of scrypt miners. As scrypt is a different blockchain to that used by bitcoin, these can't be used for mining bitcoin. Shouldn't the article at least say this? Andrewa (talk) 14:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

If it does not describe bitcoin, the image should not be in the article. Deleting. Thank you. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:54, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Does it really matter whether the picture is of SHA256 ASICs or Scrypt ASICs? It illustrates the same thing – technical-looking boxes. I would rather have the image back. It illustrates what a cryptocurrency "mine" looks like. Laurencedeclan (talk) 10:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bitcoin/Archive_31&oldid=1136566709"