Talk:Bitcoin/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Archive 30

Fungibility section

@Wuerzele: You recently reverted an edit stating that "the word harm is not neutral- copy edit is not WP:NPOV." However, my edit actually removed that word. Did you make a mistake here? I think edit is wholly innocuous, but perhaps you have a different opinion? Fleetham (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Fleetham I stand corrected: you did indeed remove the terms harming fungibility, so my edit summary was erroneous. I should have written "no improvement". The reason why your edit is non-neutral is that it removed essential qualifiers, words that explained why fungibility may be threatened. You removed "technically", "some" (users) and you changed semantics by letting the sentence end at "users may refuse to accept bitcoins coming from controversial transactions" by deleting "which would harm bitcoin's fungibility"- The latter is crucial to explain is exactly the point how fungibility is threatened- the title of the subsection. Your synthesis "the transparency of bitcoin transactions could make bitcoins less fungible than they appear" is not incorrect but not as well explained as the prior version. --Wuerzele (talk) 04:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

96.38.120.194 added in this [1] edit another zerocoin ref - we already have one in the prior sentence ref 65 , and a Wired.com ref. The word fungibility isnt mentioned in either, so I do not think the addition is necessary and should be removed. Opinions?

That said, ref 65 mentions fungibility only in the intro referring to another paper, so it is also not the appropriate ref for the issue in this section. I will tag that one with better source.--Wuerzele (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the lack of the term "fungibility" itself is a reason to change any sources if what they're talking about are transfer privacy issues, when the lack of privacy causing problems is what we're talking about. Fungibility is rather obscure jargon. For example a section titled "Homo Sapiens" would probably be fine with sources in it talking about humans. It could potentially be moved to the privacy section above it though. Although the entire fungibility section would probably fit neatly there as well. 96.38.120.194 (talk) 05:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

96.38.120.194 you didnt respond to "we already have ref 65".--Wuerzele (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, those are actually 2 different souces. One is a paper on zerocoin, and the other is a paper on zerocash. They're very similar but different. 96.38.120.194 (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

G7 statement on Internet payment services

The following section is entirely based off of one report called GUIDANCE FOR A RISK-BASED APPROACH PREPAID CARDS, MOBILE PAYMENTS AND INTERNET-BASED PAYMENT SERVICES and based on a search of the document could find no use of the terms "bitcoin" or "cryto" anywhere in the document, which is 47 pages long. Its unclear to me if the guidance would apply to bitcoin itself, or merely financial services companies that might interact with bitcoin. And if its the latter, its confusing in the way its presented at the least, and potentially not worth having a section devoted to it.

G7

The 2013 the G7's Financial Action Task Force warned, "Internet-based payment services that allow third party funding from anonymous sources may face an increased risk of [money laundering/terrorist financing]" concluding that this may "pose challenges to countries in [anti-money laundering/counter terrorist financing] regulation and supervision".[243] 96.38.120.194 (talk) 05:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

96.38.120.194 the G7 op on Internet-based payment services was added to exhaust the number and esp types of opinions regarding regulation at the time. I agree that it shouldnt be its own section. My suggestion: Rename EU as international and put G7 underneath. Your suggestion?--Wuerzele (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd say just delete it. There's really nothing to tie it to bitcoin, and the EU and G7 are wholly different animals. Fleetham (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

INcorrect: Internet based payment service ties it to bitcoin. Nobody says that EU and G7 are the same animals, but what they have in common to avoid separate sections.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

A section called "international organizations" might clean it up. But regardless, if we're going to keep it I think we need to point out somehow that this is regarding financial institutions that interact with bitcoin and not the bitcoin network itself. After reading through it, it seems to be talking about third party companies like Coinbase. Just throwing the quote in there without any context is confusing. 96.38.120.194 (talk) 06:53, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe something like "In 2013 the G7's Financial Action Task Force issued the following guidance, which may be applicable to companies involved in transmitting bitcoin and other currencies,"..." 96.38.120.194 (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Failed Verification

In this edit diff claims were added that do not appear in the source. I have added a tag to the claims and will wait to see if 96.38.120.194 can produce the lines in source the claims come from or can source them before removing the edit. AlbinoFerret 23:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

One source is to a university, and passes verification, but bitcoinmagazine.com does not have an editorial statement that I can find and on the terms of use it says

"You acknowledge that such information and materials may contain inaccuracies or errors"

so it is likely an unreliable source. AlbinoFerret 04:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

In that case you should probably remove the other source from bitcoin magazine that are already in the article here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin#cite_ref-bug_events_81-0 and here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin#cite_ref-bug_events_81-1 96.38.120.194 (talk) 04:28, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing them out, I have removed the sources. AlbinoFerret 17:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Revert of quotation

@Ladislav Mecir: You recently removed a quotation from an academic source stating, "citation obviously distorted." Care to explain? Do you mean the source itself is "distorted?" Fleetham (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

'Do you mean the source itself is "distorted?"' - that is not what I meant. I meant that the citation was distorted, exactly as formulated. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:00, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Islamic State is a terrorist organization designated as such by the US Department of State and other reliable sources.

http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm

"Foreign Terrorist Organizations (FTOs) are foreign organizations that are designated by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), as amended. FTO designations play a critical role in our fight against terrorism and are an effective means of curtailing support for terrorist activities and pressuring groups to get out of the terrorism business."

Look down the list and you will find:

"Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (formerly al-Qa'ida in Iraq)"

I will indicate this in the article.

Kraainem (talk) 15:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks like its already there, but that section currently has only one sentence. It needs to have more than one sentence and whatever is added has to relate to bitcoin. and not the organization. Not the job of the division the of the person who said something. If it doesnt it should be moved to a section with other information. AlbinoFerret 16:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The source cited doesn't actually state than ISIL is using bitcoin for financing. It says that a US Treasury Department head is worried about it, and that it was discussed on an ISIL blog. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

"The source cited doesn't actually state than ISIL is using bitcoin for financing." Neither is WP. Kraainem (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Then it is speculation WP:CBALL and probably should not be in the article. AlbinoFerret 17:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:CBALL "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." Kraainem (talk) 17:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It has no WP:WEIGHT, it is a WP:NPOV problem by placing it in a position of prominence in its own section, and this isnt just speculation but the worst kind of speculation, whithout any facts to back it up. What you quote is about proposals, that have some basis of fact. Like a business venture with backers and a location, but no history. This has none. AlbinoFerret 17:51, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I have removed this section until you can gain consensus for its inclusion. Per WP:ONUS reliability does not guarantee inclusion.AlbinoFerret 17:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you: it certainly is speculation - as you confirmed TWICE above - and, as referenced by you, WP:CBALL states: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about ... whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." It is properly referenced - I am sure you will agree. This is a development that may occur or is already occurring or has already occurred - speculation. WP policies do cover this in WP:CBALL as you mentioned. I agree with you that it is speculation. It is appropriately reflected in the article using the verb "may" correctly indicating that it is speculation. I do not disagree with you that it is speculation and besides that, it is properly referenced. Kraainem (talk) 18:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:ONUS and WP:WEIGHT this should not be in the article. AlbinoFerret 18:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with AlbinoFerret, and support the removal based on Wikipedia policies. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I am seeking support for the inclusion of "Islamic State financing" as a subsection as properly referenced.

I am seeking support for the inclusion of "Islamic State financing" as properly referenced.

The following was removed from the article:

"===Islamic State financing==="

"Organizations such as Islamic State may use bitcoins to move money according to Jennifer Shasky Calvery. She is the head of the US Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network which is charged with fighting money laundering and terrorist finance."

See the argument in favor of the removal as well as the arguments in favor of it remaining in the article above in Talk Page.

It is clear that it deals with speculation. It is also clear that it has been correctly treated and referenced as speculation in terms of WP:CBALL. The WP:CBAll objection was raised by AlbinoFerret. He was the editor who brought up the WP:CBALL objection and he is the editor who refuses to accept the rebuttal of his WP:CBALL argument.

Please show your support for the subsection remaining in the article by stating so in this section. Thank you.

Kraainem (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Disagree, itd be redundant to the Money Landering section. 96.38.120.194 (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose This is a single source that is just speculation without any facts at all that it "might" be happening. Per WP:WEIGHT it has no place in the article. Let alone a position of prominence like its own section. AlbinoFerret 18:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose insertion of speculation, giving it its own section. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Self-contradicting sentence in Black markets

The sentence: "Non-drug transactions were thought to be far less than the number involved in the purchase of drugs,[268] and roughly one half of all transactions made using bitcoin c. 2013 were bets placed at a single online gambling website, Satoshi Dice.[269]" looks self-contradicting. If the second part is true, then the betting transactions were not far less than the drug transactions, am I missing something? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 11:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the sentence uses two different sources to come to conclusions. They are both good sources, but perhaps looked at different data because of the different dates of publication. -One is looking at the perception or what was thought. The other looks at it from what happened according to the data they had. It is also a run on sentence, perhaps its best if it were split. AlbinoFerret 22:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

A related question: are gambling sites considered "black markets"? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I would say no. Gambling isnt really selling you anything. They can be out on the regular web, but they can be dark sites if on a hidden service like tor. That could be the reason for the difference. AlbinoFerret 22:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ladislav Mecir: removed the text+citations in question, but it doesn't look like any decision has been made here on the talk page. I went ahead and followed AF's suggestion to split the sentence and make clear any date difference. I'm replacing the content until a consensus can be reached. Fleetham (talk) 19:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

"I think the problem is that the sentence uses two different sources to come to conclusions." - which is a very definition of synthesis of different sources. Other problems are that the Silk Road share of the trade is a repetition of a previous claim and the Satoshi Dice - related claim is unrelated to the section topic. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Ponzi scheme dispute

This section seems to need some work. Firstly, there is a quote contained within the section detailing a random law professor's opinion that despite not being a ponzi, bitcoin is a collective delusion. His opinion on this topic is not relevant to an encyclopedia and the "collective delusion" statement is irrelevant and creates unnecessary NPOV issues.

I removed the quote earlier but someone replaced it since it "was well sourced". The fact that this person has an opinion piece published by slate does not make his opinions on bitcoin relevant, let alone appropriate for an encycopedia.98.65.203.162 (talk) 16:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The source is good, Eric Posner is a regular contributor to Slate link. This isnt a letter to the editor, it was attributed to him. I have replaced it. AlbinoFerret 21:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

In compromise, I removed the irrelevant portion of the quote about bitcoin being a "collective delusion", leaving the portion refering to ponzi schemes. 98.65.203.162 (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with the policy regarding biased sources, as your objection based on bias isn't based in wikipedia policy. Considering this is a section on a dispute, opinionated sources are certainly allowed so long as both POV are present (which they are) and the opinion is relevant (which it certainly is). Also, the fact that he was 'published in slate' is not the credentials listed, it was that Eric Posner is a Law Professor at the University of Chicago, who happens to have many scholarly publications.2605:A000:160A:C016:B4CA:F72B:8AEC:2B85 (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

My objection was based on the fact that this law professors opinion is irrelevant to the article, and the second half of the quote in particular was not relevant. How many scholarly publications has he published supporting his opinion that Bitcoin is a collective delusion and what basis does he have for such claims? I have left the portion of the quote referring specifically to Ponzi schemes as that could potentially be a matter in which his opinion has some substance. 98.65.203.162 (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The 'compromise' is to familiarize yourself with the policies of wikipedia. By removing the context of the opinion to make it sound as if he's defending bitcoin as a whole, when he clearly is not, has the effect of introducing a POV. Again, I remind you this is a dispute section, opinions are certainly allowed so long as both sides are accurately depicted.2605:A000:160A:C016:19E5:B85E:ABAC:7DF7 (talk) 14:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you could explain how I am unfamiliar with wikipedia's policies since you have made that allegation? I have already stated that the primary issue I have with the quote is its irrelevence. The section is about whether or not bitcoin is a ponzi scheme. His other views on bitcoin are simply irrelevant. There is no need for further "context" in this situation, regardless of its POV. His view is that bitcoin is not a ponzi scheme because a ponzi requires fraud. Perhaps you would like to make a section on the bitcoin page discussing "collective delusion dispute" where it would be more relevant. His "views on bitcoin as a whole" are simply irrelevant to a section of the article discussing whether or not bitcoin is a ponzi. 98.65.203.162 (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with the IPv6 contributor when he says, "removing the context of the opinion to make it sound as if he's defending bitcoin as a whole when he clearly is not [is POV editing]" Fleetham (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is not making any claims about anyone view on "bitcoin as a whole" unless explitly stated. The section is about whether or not bitcoin is a ponzi, and omitting a person's negative opinion on bitcoin as a whole does not create a claim that they have a positive view on bitcoin as a whole. Edits are allowed to affect POV. Otherwise one could never remove irrelevent material if it had a strong POV. The question to ask is, does removing the collective delusion quote make the article as a whole NPOV? As perWikipedia:POV_and_OR_from_editors,_sources,_and_fields "This is different from editors, sources, and fields, yet not entirely different, because edits can cause a point of view as long as the article it's in afterwards has no point of view as a result; but, on the other hand, an edit cannot create original research." If the removal of the collective delusion comment causes the whole article to violate NPOV then it has more serious problems.98.65.203.162 (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

You do not have consensus for the removal. AlbinoFerret 03:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

98.65.203.162 Just follow the cite - Both ways seem improper cite work to me. It is not right to edit the quote to just the first part of the line as the intent of the writer is to say 'collective delusion'. It also is not right to cite him as professor or legal expert since this is not him acting in those jobs or speaking in a legal sense or scholarly journal, the cite is to present a media article from Slate that speaks in a joking fashion, so it would be more appropriate to focus on the Slate name and simply list him in the cite or to name him in the article without the extraneous jobs he's held. This line matters as it is an article from Slate. Markbassett (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal of self published source

I have reverted the edits of 96.38.120.194 because the source was a self published source and not reliable per WP:SELFPUBLISH. http://moneyandstate.com is a blog, per the front page "This blog is about the human struggle for the separation of money and state, and about Bitcoin as the instrument by which it will happen." . AlbinoFerret 14:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The source is published by the author of the quote and therefore meets guidelines of WP:ABOUTSELF 96.38.120.194 (talk) 15:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect, the only way you could use WP:ABOUTSELF is if the article was about the author of the blog. It isnt. AlbinoFerret 15:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thats simply not true. ABOUTSELF states "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:" It says USUALLY in articles about themselves or their activities. And this is not even a requirement because he is an expert in the field. 96.38.120.194 (talk) 15:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Their activities is not that they are investing in something, but articles about something they have done. Like an inventor as a source on their invention. Feel free to start an RFC on the topic, we will find out in a month or so if you are right. As for an expert, please provide the reliable sources that call him a bitcoin expert, then we will see if there is consensus to add this. AlbinoFerret 16:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

He's not just an investor in bitcoin, he has founded and worked in seveal companies in various parts of the bitcoin ecosystem and is a frequently a featured speaker at various industry conferences. His wiki page states "On March 8, 2013, he was interviewed on noted financial commentator Peter Schiff's podcast by Tom Woods about Bitcoin as an alternative currency." "Tom Woods Interviews a Bitcoin Expert". His views are a great representation of the ponzi scheme counterargument among those that work in the field. The quote in question is even republished here (http://www.cryptosnews.com/?p=1196) and you can change the source to that if you think its better than from the author himself. 98.65.203.162 (talk) 18:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Seeking Alpha isnt a reliable source in the articles section and may not be in its news area either. Your link is to an an opinion piece in a site that has no editorial oversight statement of the opinion. WP:QUESTIONABLE and does not call Erik Voorhees an expert. In fact it doesnt mention him at all. As for Cryptocoinnews, it isnt reliable either. AlbinoFerret 19:09, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is a link to the Editorial Policy for the site...http://seekingalpha.com/page/editorial_principles 98.65.203.162 (talk) 19:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed this point. "does not call Erik Voorhees an expert.. AlbinoFerret 19:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you missed this part of the article? "For those of our readers who want to learn more, below is a very interesting interview with Bitcoin expert Erik Voorhees, conducted by Thomas Woods." 98.65.203.162 (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

In any event I dont think he is reliable, and a blog is not a source for the article. Per WP:SELFPUBLISH "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable" they may and they may not. AlbinoFerret 20:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

You're really grasping at straws here. You're original reasoning as been refuted as nonsense, so now you try to claim that this source is so unreliable that it is an exception to the general policy that self published experts are considered reliable sources in their field. The self published source is being used as a source on a QUOTE by the very same source. You think that Erik Voorhees might be misquoting himself? Thats an interesting notion. 98.65.203.162 (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreeing with AlbinoFerret. Yoshi24517^Chat _Online 20:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

How is an expert's own blog not a reliable source of what an expert says in that blog? 96.38.120.194 (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

This 'expert' has a clear conflict of interest, which makes anything he says on the subject questionable in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thats an entirely different issue, but regardless WP:RS says "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." 96.38.120.194 (talk) 21:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

For reliable source, of which Blogs are not. IMHO blogs should be used only in rare circumstances where the person is beyond doubt an expert in his field, without COI. A link to an opinion piece just doesnt fill that. AlbinoFerret 23:08, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Lets break this down again. Luckily we don't have to rely on your IMHO, beacuase we have wikipedia guidelines that tell us when its appropriate. You say that blogs aren't a reliable source. In this case your opinion is in contrast with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field." The situation we're discussing goes well above and beyond the necessary requirements to be considered reliable. Even if the source wasn't ABOUTSELF, the information would be acceptable as long as the source was an expert. Here we have a case where the source is an expert AND the source is merely showing that he said something relevant to the article. Its clearly reliable in this situation. The fact that its about himself means he wouldn't even necessarily have to be an expert, which he almost certainly is anyways. Your willingness to deny that hes a respected expert in the bitcoin field despite overwhelming evidence isn't even a disqualification because the source is ABOUTSELF. Heres a recap anyways: hes a founding member of the bitcoin foundation, founded serveral of the first companies in the bitcoin ecosystem, featured speaker at bitcoin conferences, interviewed by many mainstream media sources about bitcoin, has a wikipedia article about himself because of his involvement with bitcoin, has been described specifically as a "bitcoin expert". What else are you looking for exactly? That he invented it or something? He very well might have, we don't even know who invented it, (jk) :). 96.38.120.194 (talk) 00:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Someone with a direct financial interest in bitcoin is in no position to speak as an 'expert' on whether it is a Ponzi scheme or not. The appropriate expertise would be in economics, sociology, anthropology, or psychology. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

And central bankers and people that work for the treasury department don't have a conflict of interest in calling it a ponzi scheme? Give me a break. Looks like this is heading towards a NPOV dispute. 96.38.120.194 (talk) 03:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Context matters folks... Erik Voorhees does not have to be an expert in this context. If we were quoting him in the Ponzi scheme article, I would agree that mentioning what he says would be inappropriate. However, this article isn't about ponzi schemes... it's about Bitcoin... and as someone directly involved in Bitcoin, Voorhees's opinion is relevant - precisely because he is directly involved. It's like quoting Bill Gates in an article about Microsoft. Voorhees is a founder of Bitcoin, reacting to comments about Bitcoin. His reaction to the accusations is directly relevant to the article. It does not matter whether his response is factually accurate or not... because in this context, we are not presenting his response as fact. Blueboar (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The point is though that his words are from his blog - and we don't cite blogs unless the author is an expert on the topic he is being cited for. Which is supposedly whether bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme. Without expertise in Ponzi schemes, his self-published opinion doesn't belong in the article - we need secondary sources which directly state that his opinion on bitcoin/Ponzi relationship is relevant. Otherwise, it is just self-serving commentary from someone with a direct financial interest in promoting bitcoin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

"we need secondary sources which directly state that his opinion on bitcoin/Ponzi relationship is relevant." A bitcoin news site wrote an article entirely about the article Voorhees wrote, they just didnt quote the part that is most relevant to our topic. https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/erik-voorhees-bitcoin-ultimately-battle-ideas/ 96.38.120.194 (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I would have thought it self-evident that by 'secondary sources' I didn't mean websites themselves involved in the promotion of bitcoin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think its relevant whether a source is or is not biased toward one side or another in a section that discusses the views of each side. Both sides are biased.96.38.120.194 (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Andy and additionally Voorhees isn't a "founder of Bitcoin." He's a bitcoin entrepreneur. Fleetham (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

He's founded some of the first companies in the ecosystem. Bitcoin is all about building ontop of the protcol. He's as a much a founder as anyone else besides for some anonymous fellow called Satoshi. 96.38.120.194 (talk) 03:18, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

His exact position in the development of bitcoin is irrelevant - the point is that he has a financial stake in promoting it, and has no expertise in the subject of Ponzi schemes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Central Banks have a financial stake in discrediting bitcoin. Are they're opinions also irrelevant? Both sides are biased and thats why we present both sides to balance eachother. The article is about Bitcoin, of which he is an expert in the field. If you find someone who is an expert on BOTH ponzi schemes AND bitcoin let me know. 96.38.120.194 (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Getting off topic here - it was deleted over Self-Publish and ABOUTSELF. If we're agreed that is incorrect, then it goes back and - we should be done with this thread. No need to go trying to find a way to make the oops right in some other way, and those are different threads anyway. (Though as an aside, I'll suggest that NPOV wants to hear the various sides, and his being Category:People_associated_with_Bitcoin qualifies him as a significant enough voice to include properly cited among others. NPOV is for us, not them. Markbassett (talk) 04:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Child Pornography and Terrorist financing sections added

Fleetham has added new sections for Child Pornography (which could be contained in Black Markets) and Terrorist Financing (which could be contained in Money Laundering). This only seems to especially highlight the most negative aspects of Black Markets and Money laundering. 96.38.120.194 (talk) 00:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, the recent title edits by Kraainem are particularly pointless and violating MOS:ALLCAPS. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

96.38.120.194, yes highlighting one aspect over another violates WP:NPOV, which has plagued this page for most of last year, except for January 10- February 10, 2015 when Fleetham was blocked, and the resulting instability is the major reason why it didnt pass WP:good article review.--Wuerzele (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Fleetham is right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kraainem (talk • contribs) 12:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Kraainem please file your edits using ":" so people can see whom you are responding to, and sign. see WP:Netiquette, thanks. --Wuerzele (talk) 15:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

It would be appreciated if you can substantiate your answer. Consensus is not a vote. I don't think the prominence of dedicated sections for child pornography and terrorist financing is justified. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Criminal activity Edit 647443401= 9 changes at once

This sweeping edit ‎on the embattled section 'Criminal activity' ("adds CN and BS tags, copy edit, removes excess info on guns sold on black markets") made 9 changes. In his previous edit Fleetham reverted an editor with the words "discuss on talk page first" , but doesnt model that behavior. I am reverting this edit, since there are just too many controversial changes - formatting is worse, turing active to passive voice is undesirable per WP:MOS, sloppy editing introducing mistakes is undesirable("tens of thousands of can produce results" -?-) and unexplained removal of sourced information x 2 is not ok.--Wuerzele (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

There are some issues with that edit. For example, "Furthermore, c. 2013, roughly one half of all transactions made using bitcoin were bets placed at a single online gambling website, Satoshi Dice." is listed under 'Criminal activity'.

• The article does not imply SatoshiDICE is operating an illegal gambling service, it is merely stating that operating an illegal gambling service in the US is illegal. If SatoshiDICE is operated outside of the US, then they are not violating any US laws, as they block US IP addresses (this is backed by the article).
• "transactions from SatoshiDice accounted for somewhere between 25 percent and over 50 percent of all Bitcoin transactions in the month of June 2013." Serious NPOV issue, 'between 25 percent and over 50 percent' is not 'roughly one half'. Secondly 'in the month of June 2013' is not '2013'.

That's just one of the changes. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

you should probably go ahead and make the necessary changes. Fleetham (talk) 04:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Fleetham's recent edit, [2] introduces inconsensual changes again. This is an edit war, where Fleetham already reverted at least two editors stating that his changes to the Bitcoin#Malware section are not consensual. No editor here agrees that the introductions of grammatical errors and inconsensual formatting are "copy edits". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

deep web crowdfunding website established to "make commercial grade child porn".[291]

Does this reference contribute much of anything to the article? It seems more relevant to crowfunding as a whole than to bitcoin, since they could have used a number of pseudo-anonymous payment methods. Its not unique because of bitcoin, its unique because its crowdfunded. 96.38.120.194 (talk) 19:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Something does not have to be exclusive or unique to bitcoin for it to be included in this article. There's definitely enough mention of bitcoin being used for CP to warrant mentioning it in the article, but I'm not sure if the recently introduced prominence is warranted. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 13:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

edit conflict: if consensus emerges to re-add the content, use the original source instead of business insider and paraphrase instead of the POV tone. I was about to edit it to "The latter included a deep web crowdfunding website for child porn.[3]", and "Transactions in the blockchain may include arbitrary data, and URLs of child porn sites have been embedded in the blockchain". ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 13:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Bitcoin use in Child Pornography justifies a subsection

Bitcoin use in Child Pornography justifies a subsection as follows:

"According to the Internet Watch Foundation, a U.K. based charity, bitcoin can be used to purchase child porn at almost 200 websites, some of which accept bitcoins exclusively. The latter include a deep web crowdfunding website established to "make commercial grade child porn". Bitcoin's ties to child porn extend to the block chain itself, which contains hyperlinks to child porn websites. Bitcoin isn't the sole way to purchase child pornography online, as Troels Oertling, head of the cybercrime unit at Europol, states, "bitcoin isn’t the only digital currency used in the child porn business... Ukash and Paysafecard... have been used to pay for such material.""

Kraainem (talk) 20:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: This is a bizarre synthesis of information about bitcoin, child porn, and ISIS, and certainly isn't a reason to have a special section for child porn. The wikipedia article about the internet itself doesn't even have a section on child porn, and the internet is much more unique in its function to porn distribution than bitcoin is to paying for it. 96.38.120.194 (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: I see a synthesis of unconstructive personal attacks, child porn and ISIS. This is not compatible with Wikipedia policies. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

please revert your accusations against me WP:PA 96.38.120.194 (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kraainem: Please stop making personal attacks, and come up with constructive contributions. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Oppose: I am undecided on if something of this length is over-prominent, but this text is heavily imbalanced and like what Ladislav said, not compatible with Wikipedia policies. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 13:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Block chain spam section added.

The following content is now redundant due to its inclustion in the Block chain spam section: "Bitcoin's ties to child porn extend to the block chain itself, which contains hyperlinks to child porn websites.[295]" 96.38.120.194 (talk) 21:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I removed it. This had no relevance to the security of bitcoin, and fits better in Bitcoin_network. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Investment section headed by quote, "One way to invest in bitcoins is to buy and hold them as a long-term investment."

Unsure if the best way to start the "Bitcoins as an investment" section is with the quote, "One way to invest in bitcoins is to buy and hold them as a long-term investment." Various bodies have warned against individuals investing in bitcoin, and Bloomberg named it to a list of worst investments in 2014. I'm not suggesting that the well-sourced quote be removed, but I am curious as to how prominent other editors feel it should be. Fleetham (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think wikipedia's purpose is to evaluate the merits of different ways of investing, and hence ordering content based on the merit. As you said, the statement is well sourced and I think it is a good intro to paragraph. I think it's fine. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why warnings made by reputable self regulatory agencies don't seem like a better fit especially considering the current context... If you had bought a bitcoin a year ago it would have approx. 75% less value today. The fact that wikipedia shouldn't make normative judgements on investments seems like a poor reason to place what, in hindsight, turned out to be poor advice out front. What do you feel constitutes a good reason to place one piece of content over another? Are there actual wikipedia rules on this? Fleetham (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• To start saying how bad an investment bitcoin was in 2014 is putting the carriage before the horse. The correct order is to mention that it can be treated as an investment, and mention the way how.
• Re "turned out to be poor advice out front" - Wikipedia is not meant to give any investment advices, i.e., neither discourage nor encourage investments. The known fact that bitcoin is treated as an investment is not an investment advice. Similarly, the fact that some agencies discourage the investments is not an investment advice from Wikipedia.
• Fleetham made his edit after finding out he did not have the consensus to do so. As explained, the order makes no sense for the reader. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• In his edit [4] Kraainem deleted the information that bitcoin is treated as investment. Note that the information is characterized by all editors discussing here as "well sourced". Therefore, the edit is not neutral.

Per WP:ONUS reliability does not guarantee inclusion.Kraainem (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It certainly does not, but in this case it is you who is missing consensus. The information you try to delete is present in the section for a long time and it explains that the use as an investment really exists. Moreover, you base the deletion solely on your own speculation. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 21:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Kraainem (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

And you are edit-warring.Kraainem (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:STATUSQUO is what is relevant here. The disputed content was already on the page before. The inclusion is not being disputed, the removal is being disputed. Hence, the status quo (inclusion) prevails. Please also do not accuse others of edit warring, because following WP policies appropriately is not edit warring. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Kraainem: The content has achieved consensus long time ago. It is you who did not achieve consensus to delete it. It is you who is edit-warring when trying to repeatedly delete the content. (BTW, I did not even revert your edit yet.) Moreover, using the performance in 2014 to document that bitcoin is not a long term investment, you are demonstrating that you don't even know that the horizon of long-term investment must be longer than one year for it to be called a "long term investment". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"Moreover, using the performance in 2014 to document that bitcoin is not a long term investment, you are demonstrating that you don't even know that the horizon of long-term investment must be longer than one year for it to be called a "long term investment"." You cannot be more wrong. Kraainem (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The fact is that many people use bitcoin as a long term investment, and whether you think thats a good idea or not is irrelevant. 96.38.120.194 (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Generally everyone´s opinion is relevant here on Wikipedia. That is what Wikipedia is about. Obviously, consensus is required for items to be included in the articles. Normally we do not tell other editors their ideas are "irrelevant". Here on the Talk Page all ideas are welcome. Kraainem (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. The 'status quo' wording is not encouraging investment in bitcoin, it is not advising people to invest, it is stating that people invest in bitcoin. What is the issue? ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I tend to disagree on a logical basis: the term "long term" - in principle - encourages investment in that you need to be invested, generally, at least for more than a year. If you were not to encourage people to invest long term, you normally would say: ok, trade in and out on the short term, so you are not actually "invested" long term. The term "long term" definitely encourages people to invest in bitcoin. "To buy and hold them as a long term investment" certainly encourages people to invest in bitcoin. "To trade in them on a short term basis" would be seen as encouraging people not to invest but to speculate. I think that is the general view about the meaning of these terms. Kraainem (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not just "stating that people invest in bitcoin" as you claim. It says: "One way to invest in bitcoin" is to ..... and when the term "long term" is used, then it is clearly encouraging investment. Kraainem (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The language used in the first sentence of this section has no place whatsoever in a responsible encyclopaedia. It is not our job under any circumstances to inform readers how to invest. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Exactly! Kraainem (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Both Unicodesnowman and Ladislav Mecir agree that wikipedia shouldn't be providing investment advice, and while the section doesn't explicitly say, "invest in some bitcoins!" I think most rationale people would agree that start a section on a risky investment with a specific investment strategy isn't conducive to balance and NPOV. How about a compromise wording like, "Some people buy bitcoin as a speculative investment despite warning from such and such organizations."? Or perhaps an RfC is a better route here? Again, I think the average person would agree that starting the section by naming a specific investment strategy is amiss when investing 'at all in bitcoins is specially warned against by multiple bodies as well as it being named "worst currency investment in 2014" by a reputable media outlet. Fleetham (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand your perspective more. I think the 'some people buy .. despite warnings' is weasel wording however. We should summarise comments on investing in bitcoin, such as the comments JP Morgan's head of forex made, [5]. Bloomberg being named the worst currency investment of 2014 should be mentioned, but so should it also being named the best currency investment of 2013 [6]. That will highlight the volatility and risks. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Fleetham: 'How about a compromise wording like, "Some people buy bitcoin as a speculative investment despite warning from such and such organizations."?' - that formulation is not a compromise, it is self-contradictory:

• Speculation and investment are fundamentally different in that speculation is a short-term trade with the goal to profit from fluctuations in the market value of some asset, while investment must have a long-term goal. As its name suggests, the "As investment" section is not related to short-term trades, speculations are discussed elsewhere. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:14, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Unicodesnowman: I think a compromise would be best, but Forbes didn't name bitcoin "the best currency investment of 2013" unless you made a mistake and linked to the wrong article. Fleetham (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

@Fleetham: Not 'best currency investment', but 'best investment': "Bitcoin was far and away the best investment to make this year". Is there a reason why you added the failed verification tag? ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, okay I didn't see that, but the "best investments of 2013" list put out by bloomberg doesn't mention bitcoin... Fleetham (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Expanding a section that has its own page

Why is the Legal status and regulation section being expanded, when it has its own article? AlbinoFerret 05:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I think a good amount of content should actually be moved to the main article. Fleetham (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I expanded it to balance it against cherry picking. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 12:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The page is almost at 60kb of readable prose, its at split size. How about we merge it all back and use the lede of that page for the summery and kill two birds with one stone? AlbinoFerret

Well, I went ahead and incorporated all the material currently on the main bitcoin page. Fleetham (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure , you did, before there was any consensus, as before, like you did, was it 4 months ago? Ladislav Mecir remembers.

AlbinoFerret and Unicodesnowman regulation is NOT and has never been properly been discussed, nor followed on the Legality of Bitcoin by country page; See the flag on it since more than one year. I am against splitting regulation completely off. we had a compromise on the talk page last year, of only mentioning U.S. and China, but not be bogged down into every single country (as is now happening). I could suggest at the same time: Why not splitting off criminal activity? there was more weight in that, before more countries were added. --Wuerzele (talk) 08:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Wuerzele Its hard for me to understand why/how legality and regulation are split. To me thats two sides of the same coin(no pun intended) and why I suggested moving the information to that page. I'm also not sure moving the criminal activity to its own page is a good idea considering the POV edits that seem to be attracted to that area. Splitting will leave fewer eyes on it. AlbinoFerret 16:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret, regulation has been an integral part of the bitcoin article. it should not be deleted out of teh article, for the same reason that criminal activity shouldnt be cut out, incl. "fewer eyes on it". It should not present all details, which teh reg page can. FYI: The regulation section predates the regulation page, and despite the split, the page has always been unreliable and poorly maintained.--Wuerzele (talk) 18:47, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the easiest thing to do is simply change the name of the article from "legality of Bitcoin by country" to "legality and regulation of Bitcoin by country". The idea that the article shouldn't be split because fewer people will read it seem silly; those who want to read about will do so. Why is the aim to expose the info to the largest possible audience especially when most will not likely want to read it anyway? Fleetham (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesnt really need to be renamed, regulation is a product of a legal process. But I think we need more input from other editors on what should be done. AlbinoFerret 23:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

How does WP decide on the badness of a source? Re: Russians own bitcoin in Russia.

How does WP decide on the badness of a source? Re: Russians own bitcoin in Russia.

Business Wire sounds quite unbiased to me. It aims to be a "wire service" regarding business in general. The same is apparently true ģwith the consultant mentioned.

What does WP policy state about when a source is unreliable?

What I am getting at is that it is not true to create the impression in the article that bitcoins are formally and legally banned in Russia and that not one single bitcoin sits on a computer hard drive somewhere in Russia. Kraainem (talk) 10:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It is almost common sense that bitcoin would not be missing in a big economy like Russia, especially taking various other generally accepted aspects of the Russian way of doing things - including business - into account. Kraainem (talk) 10:05, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict): WP:RS is a must read if you want to add material,Kraainem.

The owners Business Wire, a commercial news provider, and Market Platform Dynamics, a financial client advisor, are unreliable sources due to a direct conflict of interest, which causes a bias.

Reverting a revert before a discussion/without discussing is edit warring. It's good that you wrote here, but that wasnt a discussion yet, obviously. Please read WP: BRD, the onus was on you to discuss.

BTW all these little links are in the welcome message I wrote on your talk page or can be found searching WP. Please ping me if you write to me on a talkpage. thanks--Wuerzele (talk) 10:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

1) Please explain what specifically is Business Wire and MPD´s direct conflict of interest.

2) Please explain what specifically makes BW an unreliable source. What is BW´s direct conflict of interest? They are simply a business wire/ business news source just like many other ones. Please be specific. Simply telling me to read WP policies is not specific: be specific please.Kraainem (talk) 10:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC) Bloomberg is also a provider of business news and it is also a commercial business. So, Bloomberg is an unreliable source? Kraainem (talk) 10:51, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Wuerzele: for me, "Business Wire, a commercial news provider, and Market Platform Dynamics, a financial client advisor, are unreliable sources due to a direct conflict of interest, which causes a bias" is an unfounded statement. If you do not care to bring any evidence, then why such strong statements as "direct conflict of interest"? Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Without regard to the appropriateness of the source, the amount of text being copied into the article seems wholly inappropriate as an unnecessary overuse of copyrighted text per WP:COPYQUOTE and WP:NFCCP #3. There's nothing in that block of text that cannot be used in Wikipedia's own voice, so the quote (especially as large as it is) is unnecessary, I think. I'm not saying the subject of the text does or does not belong or that the source is or is not appropriate because I haven't looked into that fully, but if it does belong, it needs to be in Wikipedia's own voice and not copy-pasted from a copyrighted work. It may help to ask for an outside opinion over at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, as the editors that watch that page are usually pretty well experienced on the reliability of sources. - Aoidh (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you about the inappropriateness of the size of the block quote. I was waiting for the other editors to fix it. I do believe that what is being stated in the quote improves the article, namely that although bitcoin is not legally banned in terms of Russian law, it is in fact banned by the authorities on a de facto basis. On the other hand it is also true - as implied in the quote - that there may be many millions of USD (it is a big economy) worth of bitcoins present today in Russia on computers owned by Russians since they bought them from and paid for them in Russian Roubles on exchanges accessible to them outside Russia - and that this practice most probably would continue with an equivalent increase in the number and value of bitcoins inside Russia. If the article would have continued to state in two sourced instances only that bitcoin is illegal in Russia, it would have projected the wrong impression that there are no bitcoins in Russia and that bitcoin plays absolutely no role in the Russian economy. I do agree that the section in question deals with the legal status of bitcoin in a country. Embellishing the section with reality improves the article.Kraainem (talk) 15:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I suggest it is best to ignore the reference mentioned in this instance. The article states twice that bitcoin is illegal in Russia. It must be true. There are two very reliable sources stating that. It must be true. I accept the consensus that bitcoin is illegal in Russia. Kraainem (talk) 17:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I cosign @Kraainem:'s sarcasm here. I find it puzzling that the section about Russia is simply "As of 2014, bitcoin is illegal in this country" with a link to a PDF presentation that mentions Russia exactly once and says: "Bitcoins cannot be used by citizens and legal entities." This is extremely weak. What is preventing Russians from using bitcoin? By what law of the Russian Federation is bitcoin banned and when was the date of this legislation passed? Or does the source mean by "Bitcoins cannot be used" that while it is not illegal, there is an overall Internet blackout preventing access to bitcoin-related software, activities, websites, etc that prevents them from easily doing so? Vietnam has the same reference word for word, again with no further explanation. Apparently something was deleted that tried to give a more accurate or detailed picture? Wikimandia (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I looked at a previous edit. Kraainem's contribution should not have been reverted. As I suspected Bitcoin is NOT illegal in Russia, contrary to what the article says (and not at all what the original source said!). It should have been presented more straightforward and less looking like OR but at least Kraainem was trying to make the article correct, AND he sourced it. And now he's been banned? For what? I'm going to rewrite the Russian section because this is seriously shameful. Wikimandia (talk) 20:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Users do not get blocked for content disputes; Kraainem was blocked for 24 hrs for personal attacks. Discussion about that isn't really appropriate on this talk page. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) You stated: "Users do not get blocked for content disputes;" FYI: They do: WP:3RR You stated on the Bitcoin Talk Page: "Users do not get blocked for content disputes;" FYI:They do: WP:3RRThe three-revert rule[edit]Shortcut:WP:3RREditors who engage in edit warring are liable to be BLOCKED from editing to prevent further disruption. While any edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which often leads to a BLOCK.The three-revert rule states:An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule normally attract BLOCKS of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation. See below for exemptions.A "page" means any page on Wikipedia, including talk and project space. A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material. A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.The three-revert rule applies per person, not per account; reverts made by multiple accounts operated by one editor count together. Editors violating 3RR will usually be BLOCKED for 24 hours for a first incident. Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.

If an editor violates 3RR by mistake, they should reverse their own most recent reversion. Administrators may take this into account and decide not to BLOCK in such cases—for example if the user is not a habitual edit warrior and is genuinely trying to rectify their own mistake."Kraainem (talk) 16:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Article from IEEE symposium marked as "unreliable source"

An article in the "Fungibility" section was marked as "unreliable source" by an editor. I disagree with such a classification, actually, I am sure that the publication is reliable, and the insertion of the template was an error. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Introduction date?

I'm building this section off of a previous topic here, because it's a bit different and moar general. The lede of this article says "Bitcoin is an online payment system invented by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008 and introduced as open-source software in 2009."

Especially seeing as it's the lede of an extremely popular article about a subject that can be very confusing, we want it to be as accurate as possible. I bring up two points:

• Do we know that it was invented in 2008? It could have been invented before 2008, but Satoshi chose to introduce it (see my next point) in 2008. Has Satoshi mentioned anywhere when he started working on it?
• One of the parameters in the infobox is date of introduction, which is stated as January 3rd, 2009, the date the Genesis block was mined. However, Satoshi didn't announce the release until January 8th, 2009. This brings up the question of whether the date of introduction is the date Satoshi originally announced the project, the date he mined the Genesis block, or the day he announced its release.

I propose:

• rewording the lede to, "Bitcoin is an online payment system introduced by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008 and released as open-source software in 2009."
• changing the infobox date of introduction to either October 31st, 2008 (the date Satoshi announces what Bitcoin is), or January 8th, 2009 (the date he released the first version of Bitcoin).

Thoughts? This is a pretty significant change, being the lede and infobox, so we should discuss this before making any changes. Thanks, -Newyorkadam (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

Newyorkadam no biggie: I inserted "published" next to 2008 to avoid misunderstanding.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Ladislav reverted my one word edit, even though I mentioned my intention above, aiming to increase precision in the way you suggested, finding it stylistically incorrect. He didnt discuss it here. Since there s no stylistic incorrectness, I did alas, sigh revert the reversal, I do not like an edit war, especially not for one word ( first it was the word 'online', now the word 'published'- I mean, is this the beginning of a pattern?) but support was not forthcoming. AlbinoFerret, Unicodesnowman, any opinion?Newyorkadam, maybe you are unable to check your watchlist, but if you want change, you ought to participate. Your proposed wording of "introduce" was too ambiguous: 'introducing' is more of a business/societal term, it could be used for either event (2008 or 2009), whereas publishing is the exact/ precise term of what happened in 2008.--Wuerzele (talk) 17:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Published is more accurate, as it was a whitepaper. AlbinoFerret 22:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I like 'Bitcoin is an online payment system published [...]'. I'm concerned about the readability of the lead (do we really need those two notes in the first sentence?) Regarding the infobox date: The 2008 date is the announcement date, announce isn't the same as introduce. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

@Unicodesnowman:, @AlbinoFerret: I disagree about published. The article is not about Bitcoin, the whitepaper, it's about Bitcoin, the protocol and currency. The code may be published (e.g. made open source), but I don't think it would be proper to call a protocol/currency "published". Regarding the infobox date– Either way, I don't think January 3rd, 2009 is the correct introduction date, that's the date of the Genesis block. I think if October 31st, 2008 isn't what we're going to put there, it should at least be January 8th, 2009. -Newyorkadam (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

@Newyorkadam:, @Wuerzele:, @Unicodesnowman:, @AlbinoFerret: I support the Newyorkadam's opinion. The formulation: "Bitcoin is... payment system...published..." does not look natural. Since when are payment systems "published"? For the record, I do not have any problem with formulations like: "is a paper published...", "is an invention published...". I am having issue with "is a payment system published". Ladislav Mecir (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Posting here so it doesn't get archived and so we can continue this discussion. -Newyorkadam (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Newyorkadam

RfC : Is my presentation of the quoted source more relevant to the Ponzi scheme dispute section?

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.

---

The Ponzi scheme dispute section currently contains this:

(Oppose) "In the opinion of Eric Posner, a law professor at the University of Chicago "A real Ponzi scheme takes fraud; bitcoin, by contrast, seems more like a collective delusion."

I would like to change it to this:

(Support) "Eric Posner, a law professor at the University of Chicago, differentiated bitcoin from a ponzi scheme by stating that, "A real Ponzi scheme takes fraud"."

Rationale for change: This law professor's opinion that bitcoin as a whole is a "collective delusion" is irrelevant and extremely distracting to the section topic which is listing views on whether bitcoin is or is not a ponzi scheme. 96.38.120.194 (talk) 05:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support for the reasons stated in rationale for change. The original presentation of the source is two statements joined by a semicolon, and the ommission of the later statement, being irrelevant to the topic, would not change the author's stance on whether bitcoin is or is not a ponzi scheme, and as such is not a violation of wikipedia policy. His other irrelevant opinions, like many opinions, are simply not included, and therefore cannot be misrepresented.96.38.120.194 (talk) 05:10, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment. Given that Posner's entire point about bitcoin is that it is 'a collective delusion', it would be intentionally misleading to omit half of the sentence being quoted, and accordingly a violation of Wikipedia policy. And since an RfC cannot overrule policy, there is nothing to debate here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The proposed edit would create a NPOV problem by eliminating half of the cited statement. It is in opposition to wikipedia policy and therefore should not, and can not happen. AlbinoFerret 05:30, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose The proposed edit would change semantics IMO. The statements separated by semicolon need to stay together.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Why do the statements separated by a colon need to stay together? In combination its merely a non-sequitur. 96.38.120.194 (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Question: - I'm not seeing a rationale given for the change. You asked if it's better, but I have to ask, why do you think the change is an improvement? I'm not really seeing a reason to support the change, but then again I don't see the reasoning behind the RfC; maybe including a rationale stating why you think it should be changed would make it more clear. - Aoidh (talk) 06:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I put my reasons in the first "Support" post to try to not detract from the question itself. Perhaps I should change that though. 96.38.120.194 (talk) 06:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I mean you haven't explained how it's irrelevant to the topic. The quote is saying "it's not A because it's B", changing it to "it's not A" and leaving out the conclusion seems like cherry-picking with no benefit in doing so. - Aoidh (talk) 08:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The quote is more like, in a discussion on whether or not something is A "It's not A because Z, but it's still B" when the author presents no reason to believe that if it were infact B, that would have any affect at all on whether it is A. B isn't presented as a reason that it's not A, it's just presented as a random off topic insult of the subject matter. Its a classic non-sequitur. 96.38.120.194 (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The proposed edit does not accurately depict the opinion of the source and therefore introduces a NPOV problem. 2605:A000:160A:C016:BCD8:B279:FAA8:A49C (talk) 06:50, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Question: How does removing opinions that do not relate to the topic innacurrately depict them? The point of the edit is to remove the opinions and not depict them at all because they're irrelevant. 96.38.120.194 (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it wouldn't be relevant if he said his later opinion somewhere else, but selectively quoting (even if only the relevant parts, like in this case, although I'd say the latter part is somewhat relevant) is taking it out of context and inappropriate. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 12:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC, then I will not be able

Every quote is selective and lacks full context unless you quote the full source. If the regular editors here think the authors POV about bitcoin as a whole is beneficial to the Ponzi scheme dispute section, I will not be able to convince them otherwise.96.38.120.194 (talk) 12:47, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Posner's opinion in the 'Ponzi scheme dispute' is that bitcoin resembles a Ponzi scheme, but isn't one because everyone is deluding themselves. That is his opinion on the subject, and accordingly that is what we must say. Claiming that he simply asserts that it isn't a Ponzi scheme is outright dishonest, end of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - The conclusion of a quoted passage is anything but irrelevant, as it explains the author's reasoning behind why it isn't a ponzi scheme. Is it because of this that cherry picking the quote to remove the conclusion simply because the conclusion isn't the most favorable conclusion would be a violation of WP:NPOV and would hurt the context of the sentence. I'm not sure how the IP editor came to the conclusion that the text is "non-sequitur", but the IP editor seems to be alone in that opinion, and when reading the source itself, I cannot disagree more with the IP editor's conclusion. - Aoidh (talk) 02:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - it would disort the intent of the line to cut it, though it's a Slate opinion piece so you could delete the 'law professor' part as confusing to that. The whole line puts light on 'Ponzi' being jokingly or informally used negative rather than a literal and legal charge. Markbassett (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose I entirely understand and semi agree with what the original poster has said. However the way they rephrase the quote makes it seem like cherry picking and slightly biased. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Chopping that statement up and reproducing only the first half seems to me a clear case of selective quoting verging on quote mining. Because it reads like an endorsement, it is a misrepresentation of Posner's actual position. If the full statement is regarded as unsuitable for citing in this argument, it shouldn't be used at all rather than whittled into a shape that fits with a specific side of the issue. Elmidae (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose It's not for Wikipedia or it's editors to decide if part of a selected quote is irrelevant or not, it's for the reader to decide, who must be given all the information to do so. Wikipedia must remain neutral at its core but cannot do so if it partially censors a quote to change the context because it's relevance is in dispute. I see no irrelevance in any part of the quote, - Posner is saying what he thinks it is not (a Ponzi scheme), then saying what he thinks it is ( collective delusion). It's not a random opinion thrown in out of nowhere, it is relevant. Leonardo da Vinci^Talk 01:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Curiously, almost every opinion above reads the quote as: It's not A because B., while it actually is: It's not A because R, it seems more like B. I think that the author is striving for accuracy: he is sure It's not A because R, that is also directly related to his qualification. In the it seems more like B part he expresses uncertainty and does not give any reason why; it is also unrelated to his qualification. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 09:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It shows that the ambiguity of the quote is an issue, making a partial extract of it even more problematical, particularly since the title of the source says "Bitcoin is a Ponzi scheme". It would make the author contradict himself with the proposed extracted quote. The value of the quote is in demonstrating in the section how problematical it is to establish whether or not it is a Ponzi scheme, therefore it is "disputed", as per section title. Leonardo da Vinci^Talk 11:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think that the title of the article contradicts the finding by professor Pozner, which leads me to a conclusion that it was not professor Pozner who wrote the title of his article. As for "demonstrating how problematical it is to establish whether or not it is a Ponzi scheme", that is also rather incompatible with what professor Pozner wrote. He made it clear that he was sure about that part of his conclusion. But, nevermind, I think that the reader has got enough informations to make sense of the claims, although I, personally, am not interested in what seems to professor Pozner outside of his knowledge and qualification. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per the Oppose !votes above. Excluding half of the sentence changes its meaning and is not NPOV. The person being quoted is defining what a bitcoin is (a "collective delusion") in that second half of a sentence, which is different than just defining what a bitcoin is not (a "ponzi scheme"). If were to say, "Botany is not the study of elephants: it is the study of plants," and only the first part of that sentence were quoted, the meaning is different than if the whole sentence was quoted. It is true that botanists do not study elephants, but that is not the entire truth, and it does not accurately describe my statement. Ca2james (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment Calling this an NPOV issue is an overreach. NPOV means the article as a whole needs to neutrally covers all of the significant views. That said, cutting his comment in half significantly distorts his intended meaning and we we should set a high standard for ourselves to avoid that. Perhaps we can scrap that source entirely and find someone else making the point? Alsee (talk) 06:50, 6 March 2015 (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.

untitled

This is a bizarre synthesis of information about bitcoin, child porn, and ISIS, and certainly isn't a reason to have a special section for child porn. The wikipedia article about the internet itself doesn't even have a section on child porn. 96.38.120.194 (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

This article does not reflect the ongoing evolution of Bitcoin and bitcoin.

Items that are not covered in this article:

1. The decrease in the total market value of bitcoin as a result of the persistent bear market in the bitcoin price since Dec 2013. A semi-log graph would be the best solution.

2. The major development of the block chain being the star of Bitcoin´s innovation. There are many major developments in this regard that are currently not reflected in the article.

3. The many other free peer-to-peer payment platforms eroding the relevance of bitcoin but not of Bitcoin (the block chain or public ledger). Examples that I am not really familiar with: Apple Pay, peer-to-peer payments in Facebook, etc. Kraainem (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

"Various items have been embedded exclusively in the Bitcoin block chain"

To avoid an edit war, can someone please explain what 'exclusively' is supposed to mean here? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Weegeerunner (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

In this instance it means that "no other known block chain in the world has links to child pornography: only the Bitcoin block chain has links to child pornography." Kraainem (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

And why is that relevant? Weegeerunner (talk) 22:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

No personal attacks. Ivanvector (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It is relevant because generally the abuse of innocent children to satisfy the carnal pleasures of perverted and mentally diseased human beings is not regarded as good for society. [serious personal attack removed Ivanvector (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)] Kraainem (talk) That does not make it relevant, We cannot just ignore WP:NPOV. Weegeerunner (talk) 22:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC) Kraainem, I asked for an explanation of why the word 'exclusively' was used in the way it was. I didn't ask for a lecture on the evils of child pornography. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC) This article is about Bitcoin. It's not about other block chain systems. So, Kraaniem, I don't see what your concern is. The text wasn't saying anything about other block chains. Moreover, we don't have any reliable source citations to make claims about other block chains, as to whether they do or do not contain anything, so we shouldn't be trying to comment on them. This article is about Bitcoin and let's stick to that topic. Bondegezou (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC) [serious personal attack removed Ivanvector (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)] Kraainem (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC) You are 100% against pointing out to readers of WP that the Bitcoin block chain is the only block chain that promotes child pornography directly with links: that is disgusting! What is wrong with highlighting that the Bitcoin block chain appears to be the only block chain directly promoting child pornography from its origins? What is so wrong with that? [serious personal attack removed Ivanvector (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)] Kraainem (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC) It is completely unacceptable to make such comments about other editors, Kraainem. I have reported the matter at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Kraainem_and_Bitcoin. Bondegezou (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC) [The user apologized here, but I have removed it because it reveals the nature of the comments I have removed above. Ivanvector (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)] Kraainem (talk)

Kraainem, could you please link to specific transactions that contain these links so that I can invalidate your claim by duplicating them in other blockchains to resolve this dispute once and for all? Mrcatzilla (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Last sentence in lede

"Officials in countries such as the United States also recognized that bitcoin can provide legitimate financial services to customers." What does that even mean? Bitcoin does not have customers. Bitcoin cannot provide "financial services". A transaction ledger does not "provide" anything, it merely exists. Can we rephrase this somehow? Mrcatzilla (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I rephrased the sentence to honour your reservation and reflect the source more closely. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

As for your "cannot provide 'financial services'" - I respect that as your opinion, however, the source is reliable and mentions "legitimate financial services" explicitly, and it would not be reasonable to remove the information just because your opinion is different. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

(please note that this is not about your opinion, but about presenting the opinion of officials to the Wikipedia readers) Ladislav Mecir (talk) 12:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe it is a fact that Bitcoin itself does not have agency, which I believe is necessary to be able to "provide" anything. That's all. Am I mistaken? Mrcatzilla (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The information is reliable, and it says what the officials believe (The Wall Street Journal is not the only source for this, in case you do not know already). If the information was stating what you believe, then you would be right. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

If you are interested in the truth, there is an unanimous agreement between sources that bitcoin is a payment system. You may not be aware what a payment system is: it is a service providing the functionality for monetary exchange. The users pay for the service with transaction fees and miner rewards. Your "does not have agency" note shows you are doing your original research, but that is not the source Wikipedia is meant to present to the reader. Ladislav Mecir (talk) 01:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

In general, is Wikipedia supposed to reflect the truth as close as possible, or just the opinion of mainstream media regardless of how factually correct that opinion is? In this case, I have encountered people calling Bitcoin the first Decentralized Autonomous Corporation, so my claim that it does not have agency is somewhat questionable. Mrcatzilla (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hyperlinks in the ledger

This has been touched on before in the above discussion, but there is nothing in the article text. We have RS coverage that there are hyperlinks to porn and to child porn in the ledger: e.g. http://money.cnn.com/2013/05/02/technology/security/bitcoin-porn/ (best article for content with clear explanation) , http://www.dailydot.com/business/bitcoin-child-porn-transaction-code/ , https://medium.com/message/when-anyone-can-end-up-being-a-child-pornographer-38438a95f2a0 , "The Digital Currency Challenge: Shaping Online Payment Systems Through U.S. Financial Regulations" by Philip Mullan (Palgrave Macmillan, 31 Jan 2014). This is a topic which has attracted considerable debate and a fair share of sensationalism and misunderstanding, so it would be useful to have some Wikipedia coverage of it. Bondegezou (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that it is reasonably well sourced, and has weight for at least a sentence or two. Perhaps it should have been moved instead of removed as the section above suggests a better place for it. AlbinoFerret 13:21, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. (And I'm not just saying that as we're both cute furry animals: bondegezou, ferret.) Bondegezou (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Would someone like to add some text? I can, but I suspect others here are better informed! Bondegezou (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it not possible to remove the child porn links from the Bitcoin block chain - what a disgrace for Bitcoin? Crime I can understand, but child pornography is impossible to accept as normal for Bitcoin. Kraainem (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

It is not possible to remove *anything at all* from the block chain, ever. Understanding this is fundamental to understanding Bitcoin. Mrcatzilla (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2015 (UTC)