Talk:Bitcoin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleBitcoin was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 14, 2010Articles for deletionDeleted
August 11, 2010Deletion reviewEndorsed
October 3, 2010Deletion reviewEndorsed
December 14, 2010Deletion reviewOverturned
January 26, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
April 4, 2015Good article nomineeListed
July 26, 2015Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on January 3, 2019, and January 3, 2024.
Current status: Delisted good article


RfC on changing article variant to Oxford spelling to align with whitepaper[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
(non-admin closure) There was a relatively low turnout to this RfC. However, the numerical majority (4:1) is clearly in favor of retaining the current engvar. Those voting yes did not explicitly cite a policy but their arguments echo MOS:TIES whereas those voting no primarily cited MOS:RETAIN. I find that there is consensus to maintain the current engvar (American English). If you have any questions or concerns, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:18, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should this article's ENGVAR be changed to Oxford spelling? Getsnoopy (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Context[edit]

It seems like the article variant was arbitrarily set as American English in this edit, which could've been confused been confused with Oxford spelling because of its widespread use of the -ize suffix at the time. Moreover, given that Satoshi used Oxford spelling in the original Bitcoin whitepaper, it would be a good homage to have this article match that to symbolize Bitcoin's international nature (akin to Oxford spelling's international nature, as it is used by the UN & ISO, for example).

Polling (English variety)[edit]

That edit from back in 2017 didn't appear to have been arbitrary at all. Such templates are commonly added to document existing consensus, per MOS:RETAIN.
Further, this is not formatted as a proper WP:RfC.
Lastly, Wikipedia articles should absolutely not be an "homage", and non-neutral proposals like this are not appropriate, per WP:RFCNEUTRAL
Grayfell (talk) 04:03, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that it could've easily been argued that the consensus was Oxford spelling at the time. Getsnoopy (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the formatting. Getsnoopy (talk) 08:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do not insert your comments into the middle of someone else's, as your edits removed the signature and made it impossible for other editors to know who said what without going into the page history. Talk pages are intended to be a record of the conversation. If strictly necessary, you can use quotes to respond to specific points. See WP:INTERPOLATE. Grayfell (talk) 00:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC does probably also fail rfcbrief as well. However, I do support the change. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:32, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the formatting, so it's OK now. Getsnoopy (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No - (Summoned by bot) Simply haven't seen any real argument why it should change. Not enough of a connection between this subject and a particular location to override what's been in place for at least 7 years. To be clear, if it were a different template and someone proposed adding the American English template, I'd also oppose. Fighting over WP:ENGVARs is not a good use of time IMO, except when there's an obvious connection. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 11:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No - (Summoned by bot) there are no strong ties between Bitcoin and any national variety of English so there is no reason to change a stable article - and this would apply regardless of what variety was stable. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No - (Summoned by bot) I don't think there are sufficient MOS:TIES to British English to override MOS:RETAIN. TheSavageNorwegian 17:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No — Per previous comments, MOS:RETAIN applies. Grayfell (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 April 2024[edit]

Please remove this sentence: 

In September 2021, the Bitcoin Law made bitcoin legal tender in El Salvador, alongside the US dollar.[4]

and replace it with this one: 

In September 2021, the Bitcoin Law made bitcoin legal tender in El Salvador, alongside the US dollar,[4] and required businesses to accept it.[113]

Legal tender is anything that must be accepted when there's a debt, but as that article says, In some jurisdictions legal tender can be refused as payment if no debt exists prior to the time of payment (where the obligation to pay may arise at the same time as the offer of payment). For example, vending machines and transport staff do not have to accept the largest denomination of banknote. However, source 113 says that this isn't the case in El Salvador: According to this law, not only bitcoin must be accepted as a means of payment for taxes and outstanding debts, but also all businesses are required to accept bitcoin as a medium of exchange for all transactions. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 05:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is really needed because the third sentence after that one in the same paragraph states: "businesses refused to accept it despite being legally required to." I don't think it makes sense to repeat this twice inside the same paragraph. Vgbyp (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. PianoDan (talk) 18:13, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"...requires increasing quantities of electricity"[edit]

This passage is misleading: "Consensus between nodes is achieved using [...] mining, that requires increasing quantities of electricity". Its reads like the increasing electricity consumption is a requirement of the protocol, which is false. It requires electricity, the demand of which is increasing due to factors outside the protocol. I don't know how to reword it. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

checkY This was addressed. Thank you! TarkusABtalk/contrib 06:13, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarkusAB: I think that we should probably do it without piped in text in the lead, given that it seems the statement still is there about the increasing quantities of electricity. Maybe there is a way to re-word the sentence and just link without the piped in text? I did this diff to eliminate the piped in text. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@A455bcd9: you reverted the edit with your editor summary stating "The topic is important and should be linked in the lede. It could be linked in a different way though." Please note that I didnt remove the link, I just removed the piped in text. Please offer something else. You have two editors here that are/were concerned about the piped in text claim. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't the current version solve the problem? (if there was any) a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does, thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

community tab on right side under bitcoin[edit]

There should be a community tab somewhere. Should link to bitcointalk.org, reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/ and any other big communities. Bc1q03jr3zcvjerg72xl36ddyreerm2dzwev4p964u (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:LINKSTOAVOID. WE don't link to social media, discussion forums etc. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should have treasuries tab somewhere[edit]

Should include Bitcoin Treasuries tab by listing them all Bc1q03jr3zcvjerg72xl36ddyreerm2dzwev4p964u (talk) 16:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. See WP:LINKSTOAVOID. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the link, maybe an SEO link. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The Bitcoin blockchain from space. No internet required." - Bitcoin not only available trough the internet[edit]

Should include somewhere "The Blockstream Satellite network broadcasts the Bitcoin blockchain around the world 24/7 for free, protecting against network interruptions and providing areas without reliable internet connections with the opportunity to use Bitcoin." as of unknown. This is the very best possible feature of bitcoin today. It was very difficult for me to find it. This is a very important feature of blockchain and cryptocurrency. No other forex can do that, unless you are an oil sheik or even then. https://blockstream.com/satellite/ THANKS Lasermoons (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have mistaken Wikipedia for a provider of free advertising space. It isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so let's just include "and satellite" somewhere with an.. with a reference that fits. Whatever, otherwise the link is not correct? I can still modify it. It wouldn't be bad if she/he who get access got into it somehow. It's just a satellite cryptocurrency after all. Not just, it's. Lasermoons (talk) 22:05, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need WP:RS to include things at wikipedia, and on cryptocurrency articles we are only using high quality sources such as wsj, nyt, fortune.com, etc. We are not using a blockstream blog post or marketing info. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, lasermoons acknowledges that satellite service is initially attributed to one person. Do you see Adam Back as a garage band or a local company? I think it isn't an advertise in this way. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockstream Lasermoons (talk) 22:17, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. This isn't a reliable source, and these claims are extraordinary and promotional. Stop trying to add spam to Wikipedia. Grayfell (talk) 22:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about this source? https://interactive.satellitetoday.com/blockchain-the-next-big-disruptor-in-space/
I agree that the rest is trash. Not worth mentioning? Last message, I don't spam anymore. Lasermoons (talk) 22:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
satellitetoday.com is owned by a marketing company. [1] The article is marketing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:46, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lasermoons:, sometimes you need to filter out the bad sources and you can still find a good source or two. This here can show you how to do the search, you note I manually remove the crypto sources so that there are less to read through. Remaining we have forbes, futurism (I am not sure if this is an RS, but maybe), vice, decrypt (not sure about decrypt, looks like a crypto source), IBT, forbes. I think you should be able to find content in these articles to say something, not sure if it will be WP:DUE on this bitcoin article (a whole different discussion), but I suspect you easily could add it to the Blockstream article. Last, I am not sure the nuance here, as if it is internet from space or internet (eg starlink), from a landline (eg fiber), from mobile (eg 5G), then what is the difference? Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bitcoin&oldid=1223523567"