Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:12, 8 May 2013

Template:Maintained

Article milestones Date Process Result July 14, 2010 Articles for deletion Deleted August 11, 2010 Deletion review Endorsed October 3, 2010 Deletion review Endorsed December 14, 2010 Deletion review Overturned

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Crime and Criminal Biography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cryptography: Computer science High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Economics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Finance & Investment Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Software: Computing High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Internet High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Internet culture Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Numismatics Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Numismatics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of numismatics and currencies on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NumismaticsWikipedia:WikiProject NumismaticsTemplate:WikiProject Numismaticsnumismatic Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merged articles

Namecoin was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 December 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Bitcoin. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. Bitcoinj was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 13 December 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Bitcoin. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. Bitcoin Foundation was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 11 December 2012 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Bitcoin. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

To-do: E · H · W · RUpdated 2023-11-24 There are no active tasks for this page

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Article Cleanup

This article is in really bad shape. Why? Because it always has been. The edit wars in the earlier pages really didn't help but the article started as a very technical diatribe which never set a path for a good user-friendly wikipedia article. It would be best if somebody just went through it all and rewrote it but I did my best to make it sensible for now through resectioning. --Neoconfederate (talk) 23:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello Neo. I see that you've added a section which presents primary documentation from bitcoin. To someone reading about bitcoin for the first time, it may seem long, technical, and difficult to follow. As an alternative, do you know of any second-party summary which could be used as a source for this article? In particular I think most readers will fell that the functionality and operation of bitcoin is more significant than the technical approach to implementation. For WP purposes, that would be much preferred. I realize such a reference may be hard to find. I've added "primary sources" to the tag at the top of the article page. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I didn't catch this before. This will be a continual work in progress. Bitcoin is indeed hard to explain and all I have for now is the whitepaper. Keep in mind the technical approach is indeed how the system operates. Again, I will keep looking around. --Neoconfederate (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I get that this is a work in progress. I certainly don't really understand it. For example, the article says "there is no centralised issuing authority" but doesn't say who the issuing authority is other than vague talk about "the network". There must be an issuing authority since we know how many bitcoins are to be issued. I can't help but get the feeling that Bitcoin must be some kind of computer programme. 149.241.91.244 (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

"I can't help but get the feeling that Bitcoin must be some kind of computer programme." That's the feeling or information the article should invoke. I will actually incorporate those exact words. --☥NEO (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to use those exact words but I incorporated "Instead, bitcoin relies solely on its software and the peer-to-peer network it builds." To understand how the limits function without a central authority, click the peer-to-peer link. Thanks for your feedback. --☥NEO (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

You guys, this article is about as clear as mud. I came here to find out what it is, but still have no idea after reading what is there. There needs to be at least a "plain english" explanation, that gives the complete concept, there is no explanation, economically or conceptually, that gives people some feel for what this is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.72.186 (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

The first, I think, of the thousands of Misplaced Pages articles that I've read from beginning to end that I've learned next to nothing from. Holy crap, somebody who understands needs to rewrite encyclopedically. I think 3 undergraduate degrees may help understanding this article - I'm not so sure, though - in computer science, cryptography, and monetary economics.

154.20.65.60 (talk) 16:08, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Could you give an example as to what you don't understand? That would help me improve this article a lot. --☥NEO (talk) 17:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Main problem with this article is that it is a 80-90% copy&paste from Satoshi Nakamoto's original paper, Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Is this kind of massive copy&paste from one source consider OK by "Misplaced Pages quality rules"? If I want to read Bitcoin White paper I will do it; I do not need Misplaced Pages to hold 100 copy&pasted quotes from it! --Calimero (talk) 11:15, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Another user who came to this article to find out what bitcoins really are. I am pretty technical capable and well versed in computer techniques. I have seen various explanations of bitcoin in the technical press in recent months, none of them really explained it properly. Sadly this article is in the same camp, technical jumbo mumbo leaving me even more confused. Seeing as the financial media is now picking it up there really does need to be a concise explanation of it for the man in the street instead of things understood just by the bitcoin clique. THEN add the details for those who can understand them. Dsergeant (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

When does the article begin to leave you confused? What part is hard to understand? I am not offended nor do I doubt you because this is a consistent issue that I intend to resolve in any way I can. We all know it's a digital currency that is based on a peer-to-peer network. What do you not get? --☥NEO (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Last night I re-read Steve Gibson's episode on Bit Coin (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-287.pdf) which did at least explain things fairly clearly. It has still left me confused as it seems pretty hard to buy bitcoins unless you have the processing power to generate them yourself or you get folks to 'donate' them to you. Presumably it also relies totally on the bitcoin network, if that goes down for whatever reason, gets seriously hacked, or the software gets virus attacked, you are kaput. I still can't get round the fact that in reality this is just computer nerds playing games with their machines and bitcoins are totally fictitious. You may be so involved with it yourself that you are overlooking the questions of the wider world that is left totally perplexed. This article delves far too quickly into deep technical discussion before the casual reader has got a grasp of what it is all about. Dsergeant (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I would like to give you a hint why this article is bad. I believe that an average reader is totally not interested in how transactions are carried out in this currency. I might even say that it is somewhat irrelevant. What an average person is interested in are two things: (1) How can she get 1 bitcoin initially and (2) What gives its value. What the article says is just that bitcoins are continuously put into the system, but it is not clear to me (not even sure if it is written at all) who actually gets them, and what determines how much they get. I looked and it seems to me that there are websites that give you bitcoins in exchange for something for them. If that is so, it is clear how the user gets the money: she works for it. Now how do these sites get the money? And how much do they get? How do they decide how much is the job that the user does worth for them? Plus, an economically trained (and interested) reader asks the question: where is the real value behind all these. Based on what do people value it in terms of US dollars?

Once these things are clear, the reader can leave the article with the feeling that she understood what this currency is about, knowing that the rest of the article is about the details of how clever CS people figured out a way to do transactions safely with this currency. Instead, as of now, the first section is titled "Transactions".

Hope, this helps. Neruo (talk) 11:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Neruo, where and how to use the Bitcoin to obtain a pizza or a T-shirt? Lynxx2 (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2013 (UTC)lynxx2

To answer the questions - where does bitcoin get its value and 'bitcoins are totally fictitious'. First you have to consider what is money. No currency is 'real' rather it is a concept. It value comes from scarcity, utility, and trust. It used to be based on the trust that you could exchange a piece of paper for a certain amount of gold. Gold's value comes from its scarcity and it is hard to counterfeit. Now we place our trust in the central banks to honor a debt based system. The convenience comes from the fact we can use money in exchange for goods and as a store of value. Most currencies are virtual with less than 10% existing as notes and coins. I propose inserting the following into the intro (italics = current intro):

Bitcoin (BTC) is an online commodity that is based on an open-source, peer-to-peer encryption protocol first described in 2009 by a pseudonymous developer (or developers) Satoshi Nakamoto. ...

Before someone can obtain Bitcoin that person must set up a Bitcoin wallet. It is a piece of software that transacts with the Bitcoin network. Once this is done then Bitcoin can be purchased at an exchange, or paid directly from another person's or company's wallet. Bitcoins can be exchanged for a growing number of goods and services. An additional way to gain Bitcoin is to 'mine' them. This involves providing computing power that is required by the network to process transactions. Miners are rewarded with newly 'minted' Bitcoins. The value of Bitcoin comes from its scarcity, trust in the software and utility. Its scarcity comes from the way the protocol will only allow for 21 million BTC. Trust in the software comes from the encrypted transfer system - this ensures only one instance of a Bitcoin exists. Its utility comes from the ability for transferring money without the need of a third party (bank or Government) globally.

http://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet

http://bitcoinmagazine.com/where-to-spend-your-bitcoins/

https://en.bitcoin.it/Mining

https://en.bitcoin.it/FAQ#Where_does_the_value_of_Bitcoin_stem_from.3F_What_backs_up_Bitcoin.3F

...Bitcoin creation and transfer is accomplished on an Internet-based network and is not managed by...

Jonpatterns (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I know what money in general is, or what it is not. The addition of your proposed paragraph would certainly help. This tells me that: (1) I set up a wallet; (2) to obtain my first bitcoin('s worth of something else) I, in principle, use someone else's bitcoin (because I pay directly from her wallet). Is that right? My question is, who got the very first bitcoin and in exchange of what? (So there is basically a sequence of wallets from which I ultimately get my first bitcoin, there must be a root.) Computer capacity? But why is computer capacity needed for transactions if there is none in time 0? How did this system reach the critical mass to operate it? And questions like that.Neruo (talk) 12:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Just because the timeline section is very sketchy, perhaps a detailed exposition would answer these questions... But still, I think the first section should not be how transactions are carried out technically.Neruo (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

(because I pay directly from her wallet). Is that right? That is correct.

My question is, who got the very first bitcoin and in exchange of what? This I tried to answer with 'An additional way to gain Bitcoin is to 'mine' them.' That is people who lend computing power to the Bitcoin network are rewarded with NEW Bitcoins and transaction fees. The First Bitcoin transaction, was from Satoshi to Hal Finney .

But why is computer capacity needed for transactions if there is none in time 0? Transactions are verified in a way that deliberately takes computing. All the good nodes verify transaction to stop malicious verification (it would need more computing power than the entire 'good' network), see hashcash

https://en.bitcoin.it/Mining#Difficulty

https://en.bitcoin.it/History

http://en.wikipedia.org/Hashcash

Jonpatterns (talk) 17:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=13406.0

I think a short introductory summary separate from the more detailed passages would be helpful. I'll cook something up later. --C S (talk) 21:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Our counterpart

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1816176/Bitcoin

If anyone needs an example of how this article should read... --KyleLandas (talk) 03:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Not really - we do provide a lot more detail, especially on how BTC has...unfolded, so to speak. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 06:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Halved Every Four Years

Does this assume that computers remain at today's speeds or does it take into account speeding up doubling every couple of years?QuentinUK (talk) 19:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the speed of computers. You'll have to check bitcoin.org for a reliable description, but as I understand it, the speed of bitcoin creation is adjusted dynamically every 10 minutes, based on how much hashing was done in the previous 10 minutes. This speed changes not only with the speed of computers, but with the number of people who are mining at any given moment. Basically if 0.03% more hashes are computed in the current 10 minutes than in the previous 10 minutes, then the difficulty of mining is increased to be 0.03% harder for the next 10 minutes, and so on, so the total expected number of coins produced per hour (collectively by all the miners) stays the same over a 4-year interval. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 22:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I made a mistake in the above. Further reading indicates that the rate is adjusted not after every block, but rather after every 2160 blocks (= 21600 minutes or 15 days). That would seem to say anyone who was mining on any scale last week probably made a fortune. Wow. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, every 2016 blocks: https://en.bitcoin.it/Difficulty 67.84.18.190 (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, yeah, I transposed digits. 2016 blocks = 14 days = 2 weeks, makes sense. Thanks. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

There are some limits on how fast the difficulty can change, so dramatic (and I mean really dramatic) changes in the network hashing rate could violate these assumptions, but practically speaking, the inflation rate is predictable. Shadowjams (talk) 18:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

What the hell is a bitcoin?

Folks, get somebody to explain what a bitcoin is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.33.129.54 (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

It would help if you phrased your question more narrowly. A bitcoin is (according to its fans) a unit of currency like a dollar or a Euro. Is that what you wanted to know? Did you want a more technical description of how it works? Maybe the article isn't clear enough about that. You might look at the FAQ at www.bitcoin.it. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 08:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Here's an explanation attempt. It's not usable in the article as-is because of possible errors and sourcing issues, but maybe it can be worked up into something:

A bitcoin (BTC) is an ownership share of the economic value associated with a data record called a block, which is in turn part of a large, publicly broadcast database called the block chain. The block chain is itself published by peer-to-peer internet transmission, and is authenticated by linked timestamping starting from a seed value (the genesis block) built into Bitcoin software. Blocks themselves are created by a computationally expensive process called mining, analogously with gold mining. A block consists of a proof of work which is a solution to a cryptographic codebreaking problem of carefully calibrated difficulty, plus a transaction log that subdivides the block's value into potentially billions of pieces, and associates each piece with an owner. Since owners are identified only by ECDSA public cryptographic keys and since any owner can control unlimited numbers of keys, bitcoin ownership is relatively anonymous and bitcoin flow between owners is difficult to trace. However, cryptographers Green et al. have identified methods to correlate data in the block chain with individual participants in the Bitcoin network. They have proposed Zerocoin (based on zero-knowledge proofs) as a method to increase Bitcoin's privacy and anonymity.

Mining involves computerized searches for numbers whose SHA256 hashes have special properties, and therefore successful mining involves computing the SHA256 function at very high speed. At present (April 2013), mining is done (in increasing order of efficiency) using personal computers equipped with graphics accelerators, with programmable parallel hardware called FPGA's, or most recently with application-specific integrated circuits (ASIC's) made specifically for mining. According to Bloomberg News (April 13, 2013), miners spend about US$147,000 per day on electric power. Since the rate of block production is dynamically adjusted (by changing the difficulty of the codebreaking problems) to create an average of 1 block every 10 minutes across the entire network, and since blocks currently are divided into 25 BTC, Bloomberg's data indicates that producing a single bitcoin consumes on average US$ 24.50 worth of electricity. Bloomberg calls the mining process a "real-world environmental disaster".

(Go on from here about wallets, transaction, etc).

Let me know if that helps or sounds promising. I don't use Bitcoin myself and the above is what I've figured out from reading various articles and some stuff from the bitcoin.org website, so it may have bad errors. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 06:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if the person was looking for a plain English explanation of what Bitcoin is. I believe the key to this is starting with electronic wallets and transactions and everyday uses, then explaining the underlining technology rather than the other way round. There is some discussion about this in the http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Bitcoin#Article_Cleanup section too. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I left that person a note inviting them to look back here. I looked at the section you linked and see that many of the questions were about where bitcoins actually originate, so some explanation of mining probably helps with that. I don't think the problems are insurmountable. I may make another try later based on the questions in that section. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

The following is also unsuitable as-is (due to unverifiability and format), but I'd like to know whether it addresses the unclarity that people complained about. Any parts found to be helpful can then be developed further.

• Bitcoin is like the accounting system of a giant Swiss bank with anonymous, numbered bank accounts. Anyone can create unlimited numbers of accounts with no fees and no identification.
• Account balances are denominated in Bitcoins (BTC). Bitcoins (or fractions of them) can be transferred from one account to another by a process similar to writing checks. The smallest possible transfer is one satoshi (named after Bitcoin inventor Satoshi Nakamoto), which is 10 BTC or about 1/10000th of a US cent at April 2013 exchange rates.
• New bitcoins enter the system through a process called mining (analogous to gold mining), a proof of work scheme where coin creation involves substantial expenditures for computer resources and energy. The rate of mining is limited by the Bitcoin system to (as of 2013) 3600 coins per day across the whole network, so miners engage in a technological "arms race", with the highest income going to those who can mine the fastest. Bloomberg Financial published figures indicating that as of April 2013, producing a bitcoin by mining consumes an average of US$40 worth of electricity calculated at $0.15 per kwh. Bloomberg calls bitcoin mining a "real-world environmental disaster".
• As of April 2013, there are approximately 11 million bitcoins in circulation. This number will grow at a gradually decreasing rate until the year 2040 when it will stop altogether, putting a final cap of 21 million coins as the total number that will ever be created. At current exchange rates this puts the combined value of all existing bitcoins at about US$ 1 billion. The finite supply of coins means that the currency is inherently deflationary.
• Unlike with traditional systems, Bitcoin payments don't have to be cleared by a central authority. Bitcoin's main technical innovation is in the development of cryptographic protocols to prevent payment forgery while preserving Bitcoin's anonymous, decentralized nature.
• Also unlike traditional banks, the Bitcoin system's accounting data (all the account balances and payment histories) are completely public. The anonymity results from the absence of information in the system about who owns which accounts. The security rests on the mathematical strength of the cryptographic primitives used in the Bitcoin protocols, rather on than the physical strength of traditional bank vaults. Because the account balances are public, someone receiving a payment can quickly tell whether the originating account had sufficient funds to make the payment. Quickly repeated payments (double spending) can be detected after a short delay, as updates to the public database arrive.
• Accounts are created and managed using software called a "bitcoin wallet". An account has a private component (an ECDSA digital signing key that the owner must keep secure like a computer password), and a public component (the verification key corresponding to the private component) which is used as the "account number" or bitcoin address. Once you have made an account, another person can transfer BTC to it from one of their accounts. You now have a nonzero balance, from which you can make transfers using your private signing key. You can choose to subdivide your balance into as many separate accounts as you wish, with the wallet software keeping track of them for you.
• Because nobody knows which accounts are yours, observers cannot easily tell whether payments you make are going to your own other accounts, or to the accounts of other people. Because of this, it is difficult for observers such as tax authorities to trace the flow of BTC between owners. The frequent association of bitcoins with underground or illicit transactions comes from this characteristic.
• It is believed to be practically impossible to transfer funds out of an account without possession of the signing key, due to the cryptographic protocols. That makes bitcoin payments similar to cash payments in that they are irreversible without the cooperation of the recipient. Disclosure of a signing key also makes the account contents vulnerable to unrecoverable theft. While the underlying cryptographic protocols have so far resisted all known attacks, there have been numerous incidents of security failures of wallet software resulting in bitcoin thefts.
• Bitcoin balances can be exchanged for traditional currency on a person-to-person basis, or at online brokerages called exchanges, most notably the Mt.Gox exchange in Japan. Bitcoin exchanges publish a fluctuating exchange rate similar to other currency exchanges. The Mt.Gox bitcoin exchange rate is tracked by the CNBC financial ticker. In March 2013, the US Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued guidelines requiring Bitcoin exchanges and miners to register as financial service businesses (FSB)'s. A Forbes Magazine report described this as a positive sign for Bitcoin's legitimacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.0.136.106 (talk) 20:05, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I think your descriptions are good as they describe how the lay person would use Bitcoin with resulting to technical jargon. Jonpatterns (talk) 22:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I tweaked a couple of things but I'm sure the description has errors or misuse of terminology. I'm still trying to piece the info together myself. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 25 April 2013

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Bitcoin. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

The third paragraph of the article should be changed as it is deliberately misleading. It states that "a large share" of Bitcoin's commercial use is for "illicit drug and gambling transactions." This statement is completely vacuous for two reasons;

1) The term "large share" is a subjective quantity and provides no real information to the reader, it is merely rhetoric.

2) A "large share" of any currency is spent on illicit drugs and gambling transactions anyway. The statement unfairly insinuates that Bitcoin has stronger links to illegal activity than other currencies do.

Also, very importantly, the reference article for the citation number , has nothing to do with illicit drugs or gambling transactions. The citation is in the wrong place as it is in fact in reference to the previous sentence - "Bitcoin is accepted in trade by various merchants and individuals in many parts of the world". As such, the citation number should appear directly after that previous sentence, not a sentence later.

The misplaced citation number is dangerously misleading. For the casual reader who would not check the references, it would appear that bitcoin's 'strong' links to "illicit drugs and gambling" are verifiable fact, when actually it is cleverly miscited rhetoric.

89.124.44.33 (talk) 10:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Difficult. It's not sourced yet, but it's obviously true that a larger proportion of bitcoins than government currency are used for illicit transactions. If not, the drug dealers need to join the 21st century. I don't see a specific request, here, so I'm not sure what should be done. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 11:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Three additional in-line citations were removed recently without explanation. I have restored them. There is additional text in the article, with additional citations, to support the lede sentence. SPECIFICO talk 13:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I took a quick glance at those restored citations and while they may be relevant to the article as a whole, they didn't support the claim being made. So I think they should be removed again, perhaps moving them here to the talk page so they can be re-used elsewhere in the article. I'd move the claim itself out of the lede since it doesn't seem that well supported.

Separately, Arthur Rubin's statement "a larger proportion of bitcoins than government currency are used for illicit transactions" sounds plausible, but I wouldn't go as far as to say it's "obviously true" (there are a few numbers mentioned in the links and I may examine them when I get some time). So I wouldn't base a content decision off of such a theory. Bitcoin also just doesn't sound that attractive for drug deals, since those deals necessarily involve transferring physical merchandise, where a cash handover can also happen. (Yes there appear to be a few dealers/users crazy enough to transact through the internet and the mail, but that sounds exceptional). Gambling is a different matter (it can be done completely online) and Bitcoin may work better for that. (Edited). 50.0.136.106 (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't have to buy contraband with bitcoin if it doesn't meet your standard, but the folks at Silk Road seem to have a loyal clientele. Hence the law enforcement response. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the language fiddling with "proportion", that part does seem unnecessarily biased (and apparently not well supported). I'd imagine wording it as "proportionally most illicit transactions involve government currency" would be frowned upon for the same reason. People seem to forget that cash is anonymous and doesn't have a convenient cryptographically verified widely distributed transaction history. Shadowjams (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

I mentioned this further down as well - if you go buy the number of businesses that accept Bitcoin on https://en.bitcoin.it/Trade vs. the number of illicit sites on the Hidden Wiki, I think it's fair to say that a proportionally massive number of legitimate enterprises accept Bitcoin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.236.58.105 (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 April 2013

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Bitcoins ARE fiat currency. They are not a "type", they are NOT backed by a commodity like gold or silver. US Dollars are fiat currency the moment FDR took the US Dollar off of the gold standard. This line, "As such, bitcoins have been compared to a type of fiat currency that is not issued by a central government." is not clear. Bitcoins are worth whatever they are being traded for, their value is set by the number of bitcoins present. US Dollars fluctuate on how every many dollars the Federal Reserve prints and keeps in circulation. 108.209.220.224 (talk) 03:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The sources in the sentence you reference did not support the sentence, so I removed it. If you have any other sources I can look at, please give them. Please read WP:OR, what you've written here will not suffice.

Paul Krugman, "... bitcoins are in a sense the ultimate fiat currency, with a value conjured out of thin air." 50.0.136.106 (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

3000 more like 35000

It says the machines are up to $3000 but the new ones trade on ebay for $35000 for a Avalon ASIC. QuentinUK (talk) 13:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I changed that claim of 3000 to 2499 to match the businessinsider source. Misplaced Pages cannot (should not) use ebay auctions as a reliable source, unless reliable third party sources discuss them, in my opinion. For one, it is easy to construct fake or speculative auctions for almost anything for any starting price, and also easy to arrange a false completed win. I will look for more mainstream media sources on prices, because while I do see that cited supplier is advertising ASIC rigs from 274 up to 2499, I am reluctant to cite them directly. -84user (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

A few Google News searches for strings "ASIC mining prices" and "ASIC mining bitcoin prices" found, in addition to the businessinsider source, this agizmodo page about Avalon ASICs priced at $6,800, and this Daily Mail article that referred to the gizmodo price claim. They appear reliable enough to use in the article. -84user (talk) 19:49, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

A quick Google News search for "ebay Avalon ASIC" yields: and . I leave it up to other editors whether and how to add these to the article. --84user (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

References

1. http://www.ebay.com/itm/Batch-2-Avalon-ASIC-Pre-Order-Bitcoin-Mining-Rig-BUY-IT-NOW-/121102014420?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item1c323e17d4

archive frequency

I'd like to request resetting the archive bot frequency back to 30 days, or better yet, turning off auto-archiving altogether and manually archiving stuff not needing further attention. The talkpage had previously said the bot was archiving after 30 days, when it was actually running at 15 days. I reset it to 30 days as "advertised", but User:TippyGoomba reverted back to 15, so I'm bringing it here for discussion.

I think the fast archiving is actually disruptive to development of the article. As someone trying to actually respond to content requests (TippyGoomba has not contributed or suggested any content for the article as far as I can tell), I'd prefer to have more of the outstanding issues visible on the page so they can get attention as needed and as people's time is available. This isn't a noticeboard, it's a workspace for development of the article, and it's quite normal for issues in this setting to stay open for long periods. Instead, they get whisked away and nothing happens with them (example: the Zerocoin item from a couple weeks ago). The talkpage traffic isn't so high that we need such fast archiving. So IMHO the bot should be slowed down or shut off. 50.0.136.106 (talk) 07:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Certainly don't shut it off; manual archiving invites all sorts of problems. I'm not sure I've ever seen a discussion about archive time on a specific page... and I've been setting up auto archive on pages for a long time (not this one though). This is such a non-issue... but the talk page volume is high enough that neither's unreasonable. I'd be tempted to up it to 30 just to side with caution, but this isn't worth the discussion. Shadowjams (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Businesses that use Bitcoins list.

I've seen many, many websites as well as the bitcoin.it wiki that have listings of businesses that use Bitcoins. However I'm still wondering why there isn't one on wikipedia? Are we not allowed to post such a list, or has nobody bothered starting one yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexvasile (talk • contribs) 09:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It looks like such a list was deleted on grounds of it breaking policy and being spammy. --KyleLandas (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The article should note the number or type of businesses and any other such information, but should not cite or list any but the most notable, because that will invite others to use WP as a directory or link to their businesses. SPECIFICO talk 22:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree with User:SPECIFICO. Also, this would require secondary sources, which we strongly prefer to citing a bunch of websites directly. If anyone comes across a list from a reputable secondary source, please let us know. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:09, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Right here: https://en.bitcoin.it/Trade - that is the definitive, up-to-date list. I think given that the list is several thousand deep, and none of the cited articles (10, 11, 12 and 13) mention that the "majority" of Bitcoin trade use is illegal, that sentence needs to be HEAVILY rephrased. Cash can be used to buy drugs and gamble (undoubtedly in ratios that Bitcoin will eventually reflect), but that is not mentioned on every article on a particular currency. There is no backing for that comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.236.58.105 (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

{od} Please review WP:RS to see what kinds of sources may be relied on for the content of a WP article. SPECIFICO talk 17:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Removing incorrect conclusion from citation

I made an edit which was reverted, but I believe the reversion was in error. This is the edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bitcoin&oldid=553564504&diff=prev

The removed text was "Some claimed the crash was due to a lower cost in producing bitcoins through cheaper computing power." The article contradicts itself on this point: (quotes from http://archive.is/hBfhT)

A. " drops from $33 high in August to below $2 as cost of 'mining' coins falls below real-world exchange rate" B. "The value of Bitcoins, the "cryptocurrency" that some had thought would take over from more traditional currencies, has plummeted across exchanges – to a level where it costs more to "mine" them than they are worth." C. "The problem with the Bitcoins' value falling below the cost of "mining" – actually the computer time that has to be devoted to them – arises because as each "coin" (or computer hash) is generated, the peer-to-peer network used by computers that accept and generate them makes it harder to generate the next." D. "With the value of Bitcoins dropping so low, and the computing power required to produce them growing steadily, it is becoming uneconomic to generate more except through the use of hacked computers in "botnets"

A gets it wrong, saying that the cost of mining fell below the exchange rate. B and C get it right, saying that the exchange rate fell below the cost of mining.

I'm going to redo the edit. The article is confused on this subject.

Rodarmor (talk) 10:45, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

If you look, you'll see that I reverted my reversion of your edit. I saw the mistake I made. -KyleLandas (talk) 13:50, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request 2013-05-07 - Addition to section 3.1.2 Derivatives

It is requested that an edit be made to the extended-confirmed-protected article at Bitcoin. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any extended confirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{EEp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

RE: Addition to section 3.1.2 Derivatives:

As of April 2013 - CFDs for Bitcoin with 4:1 leverage are available from plus500.com

Fail

Bitcoin is some massive fail

1. http://www.plus500.com/Instruments/BTCUSD

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Crime-related articles
• Low-importance Crime-related articles
• WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
• C-Class Cryptography articles
• High-importance Cryptography articles
• C-Class Computer science articles
• High-importance Computer science articles
• WikiProject Computer science articles
• WikiProject Cryptography articles
• C-Class Economics articles
• Low-importance Economics articles
• WikiProject Economics articles
• C-Class Finance & Investment articles
• Low-importance Finance & Investment articles
• WikiProject Finance & Investment articles
• C-Class software articles
• High-importance software articles
• C-Class software articles of High-importance
• C-Class Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles
• C-Class Internet articles
• High-importance Internet articles
• WikiProject Internet articles
• C-Class Internet culture articles
• Low-importance Internet culture articles
• WikiProject Internet culture articles
• C-Class law articles
• Low-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• C-Class numismatic articles
• Low-importance numismatic articles
• WikiProject Numismatics articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages extended-confirmed-protected edit requests